Active Users:1186 Time:01/08/2026 09:37:56 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the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn".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 1830 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1212 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1215 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1263 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1157 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1281 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 703 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1471 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1320 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1239 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1143 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1305 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 587 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1236 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1238 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1147 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 591 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1112 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 616 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1225 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1165 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1106 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 548 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1168 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1112 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1374 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 1322 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1503 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1102 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1162 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 602 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1247 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1193 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1118 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1106 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1219 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1071 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1197 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 1067 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1254 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1266 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1144 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1260 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 1066 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1186 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 1095 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 962 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1227 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1136 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1224 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 991 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1282 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1090 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1247 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1432 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 1102 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1101 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1136 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1116 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1091 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1487 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 1053 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 569 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 581 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1283 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1212 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1271 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 970 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1421 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 979 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1225 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1090 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1193 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1105 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1239 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1211 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1152 Views

Reply to Message