Active Users:625 Time:31/10/2026 09:08:12 AM
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the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn".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 1890 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1254 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1256 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1313 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1199 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1326 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 734 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1516 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1410 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1291 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1190 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1343 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 611 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1281 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1286 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1190 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 617 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1162 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 634 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1282 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1207 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1156 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 566 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1212 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1164 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1431 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 1365 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1548 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1144 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1216 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 628 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1291 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1232 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1178 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1152 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1260 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1121 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1236 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 1116 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1298 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1317 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1187 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1310 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 1108 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1231 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 1165 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 1011 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1272 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1188 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1273 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 1039 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1334 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1132 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1291 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1473 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 1153 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1150 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1178 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1172 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1150 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1536 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 1103 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 590 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 602 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1324 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1255 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1314 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 1014 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1464 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1029 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1277 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1146 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1233 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1151 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1285 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1254 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1203 Views

Reply to Message