Active Users:190 Time:18/05/2024 10:32:04 PM
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them... Legolas Send a noteboard - 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
Exactly. Given all the financial and legal benefits to such arrangements, it opens the door for massive amounts of fraud to cost people and the public. At least with such marriages for different sexes, there is a long-standing tradition backing up marriage that would curtail the freedom of such persons to participate in a normal relationship. With same-sex marriage, a piece of paper that creates a legal fiction of a partnership between two such people, there is no traditional or cultural impediment to each of them carrying on with the partner of his or her choice, and meanwhile transferring funds to avoid taxes, protecting coversations and transactions from testimony, gaining otherwise unauthorized residential or employment benefits and so on.


Considering that such an abuse of marriage is not a serious problem now (except perhaps in matters of immigration), it's rather unclear why it would become a problem in the future. After all, as you pointed out, everyone's allowed to get married as it is, including gay people, as long as it's to the opposite sex. So anyone who wants to get married for fraudulous purposes while carrying on with the partner of his or her choice, can do so as it is. And considering the relative rarity of homosexuality, and the amount of people who still have a problem with homosexuality, a fraudulous same-sex marriage would have the distinct disadvantage, compared to a fraudulous heterosexual marriage, of drawing attention. I'll give you points for originality, though, as I don't believe anyone's ever used the "but a mobster boss could marry his right-hand man so he can avoid having him witness against him!" argument to oppose same-sex marriage before...

And then there's the part where you mentioned "couples that will be deprived of the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn". You do realize what kind of numbers we are talking about, yes? Gay people make up 5 to 10% of the population, and so far in the places where it's legal, gay couples are not getting married at a higher rate than straight couples or anything like that. As such, the increase in marriages and in people who are married and claim marriage benefits will be quite modest, certainly not of a kind to cause financial difficulties to those providing benefits to married couples.
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1491 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 919 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 935 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 967 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 814 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 971 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 562 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1135 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 952 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 894 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 867 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1012 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 449 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 946 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 938 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 849 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 451 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 819 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 480 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 911 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 874 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 825 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 412 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 865 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 807 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1093 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them... - 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM 976 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1184 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 810 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 836 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 448 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 956 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 880 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 828 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 807 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 927 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 784 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 908 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 793 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 942 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 956 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 836 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 963 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 784 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 893 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 781 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 644 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 935 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 812 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 937 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 712 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 988 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 809 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 923 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1096 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 804 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 811 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 789 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 822 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 735 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1172 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 746 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 433 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 438 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 985 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 883 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 959 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 692 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1027 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 678 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 925 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 803 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 908 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 789 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 910 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 888 Views

Reply to Message