Minneapolis - The New Gay! (attorney, live, best)

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Stealing- Impacts others for obvious reasons.
Insider Trading- Creation of wealth at the expense of other people through illegal means, thereby harming others.
Not mowing lawn- depreciates neighboring property values and can pose a health hazard by harboring rodents and other pest (impacting and harming others).

Gay marriage- ? (Fill in the blank)

Insider trading is not as clear as you think. There is always a willing seller. Arguably insider trading would simply make markets more efficient.

Lots of things can depreciate the value of neighboring property. Should that really be the standard of what the law is. You want to give a property right in your property (a "negative" right) to your neighbors to be able to force you to manage your assets in a way that is beneficial to them? I guess that is an effect on others, but not a very strong argument because everything can affect others.

Gay marriage - look at the studies on the social value of a monogamous, heterosexual parental environment. This only makes sense, considering that by our nature, we were designed to procreate as a male and female.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Minnesota Spring said the key phrase was "safety of others." That's what I was responding to. I don't think that the laws I cited are ridiculous, though some of those do exist.

No, I didn't mean that your list of rules was ridiculous. I would consider them all perfectly reasonable. I think laws governing things like paint colors of houses, for example, would be an overstepping of bounds. Or those old ones like no singing in public, or no skipping, that sort of thing. I think that to impose a restriction of any kind there needs to be very compelling evidence that it's worth the erosion of our rights. That can get tough for many issues, where the rights of one person arguably very much negatively impact the rights of another, but in the case of gay marriage I don't think there's any evidence that it hurts any other individuals or society as a whole.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

No one is forcing any religious organization to begin performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

If only...

Says NPR: "As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups."

Scroll about halfway down (to "Act Three: A Nationwide Story")... Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Insider trading is not as clear as you think. There is always a willing seller. Arguably insider trading would simply make markets more efficient.

Lots of things can depreciate the value of neighboring property. Should that really be the standard of what the law is. You want to give a property right in your property (a "negative" right) to your neighbors to be able to force you to manage your assets in a way that is beneficial to them? I guess that is an effect on others, but not a very strong argument because everything can affect others.

Gay marriage - look at the studies on the social value of a monogamous, heterosexual parental environment. This only makes sense, considering that by our nature, we were designed to procreate as a male and female.

If you're going to look at studies, take a look at the recent study that showed that the kids of lesbian parents had better outcomes than the kids of straight parents. Kids with Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers - TIME

I certainly agree that a monogamous, stable environment is important for raising kids, but the key point there is the stability of the relationship, not whether or not the parents are gay or straight.

[snofarmer]

What will I ever do if you make good on your threat.

A will can easily be contested by the family and probably can take years. Who gets the retirement benefits or SS?
How about taxation?
You need to open your eyes and see the big picture.

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

I know "how things work." If you want somebody to get your house when you die, it is really not that hard to do. Maybe you have a lot to learn.

I am not sure what "name calling" you are referring to.

Unless your posts get a little more serious and less condescending, I'm done responding to you.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

If you're going to look at studies, take a look at the recent study that showed that the kids of lesbian parents had better outcomes than the kids of straight parents. Kids with Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers - TIME

I certainly agree that a monogamous, stable environment is important for raising kids, but the key point there is the stability of the relationship, not whether or not the parents are gay or straight.

And reasonable people (including me) disagree with you.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

What will I ever do if you make good on your threat.

A will can easily be contested by the family and probably can take years. Who gets the retirement benefits or SS?
How about taxation?
You need to open your eyes and see the big picture.

Ha, you win. I'll bite.

Don't use a will. Where are you getting your legal advice? Use a trust to avoid probate. Or, if you are really committed to each other, you could always own the property jointly (just like most married couples) so that it never gets probated. It's not like joint tenancy is reserved exclusively for married couples.

Social security? What's that?

Taxation? Not sure if you are still talking about death (estate taxation) or about "married filing jointly" status... but either way, it's true that in many cases, there is some advantage to filing jointly. And homo couples can't file jointly. But what's your point? That's the public policy of encouraging hetero marriage at work. Much to my chagrin, we use the tax code to further public policy way too often, including many liberal pet causes.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

And reasonable people (including me) disagree with you.

Yes, but you don't have any evidence on your side. You can choose not to marry someone of the same gender and not raise your kids in a gay/lesbian household, but just because you don't think it's healthy does not give you the right to impose those standards on everyone else.

There are a lot of personal family decisions that people make that I don't agree with and think are bad for both the individual children as well as society as a whole, but that doesn't mean that I get to go out there and force them to adhere to my views of how they should live.

[Glenfield]

I think the burden of proof is on those who advocate change, not those who advocate maintaining the status quo. I start with why should we do this, not why not do this? Other may differ but that's how i come at the question.

So far, I have seen what is basically a libertarian view that the change will cause no harm. But I do not accept complete libertarianism. I believe that society has limits on all sorts of things. So far, I have not heard an argument that is compelling to me as to why the state should change the definition of marriage, nor any assurance that this would be the last steps. I wouldn't advocate gay relationships or gay parenting, but I generally don't have a quarrel with people who choose them for themselves. Some of the better parents I know are gay couples but state sanctioned marriage is not necessary for them to live together or have children.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

If you're going to look at studies, take a look at the recent study that showed that the kids of lesbian parents had better outcomes than the kids of straight parents. Kids with Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers - TIME

I certainly agree that a monogamous, stable environment is important for raising kids, but the key point there is the stability of the relationship, not whether or not the parents are gay or straight.

And I looked at your article... It was really pretty surprising--a lesbian UC-San Francisco prof (married to another lesbian activist) determined that kids raised by lesbians perform better by a few metrics than kids raised by heterosexual couples. I never would have expected that.