Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Inasmuch as it's interesting, which is to say: Not very.
Quote:
Those taxpayer benefits were passed in 1948. Race is not a taxpayer benefit.
Hey, you were the one to drop 1948 in there. Tax advantages is merely one of a plethora of benefits. Inheritance is a fairly big one. Division of assets in case the marriage ends. Right to make medical decisions for a loved one. And some practical stuff - having the right to hospital visits, for one thing. People have been sitting in hospital parking lots as their life partner drew their last inside. That's not right.
Inasmuch as it's interesting, which is to say: Not very.
Hey, you were the one to drop 1948 in there. Tax advantages is merely one of a plethora of benefits. Inheritance is a fairly big one. Division of assets in case the marriage ends. Right to make medical decisions for a loved one. And some practical stuff - having the right to hospital visits, for one thing. People have been sitting in hospital parking lots as their life partner drew their last inside. That's not right.
I was responding to a specific poster who mentioned tax benefits.
"marriage" is just a word. Call it domestic partnership and it covers everyone. Not a big deal.
Conservatives angling for the votes of people like mtl1 didn't just vote against domestic partnership laws, they modified state constitutions to keep domestic partnership laws from being voted on at all. It wasn't until they realized they were losing that they suddenly developed a desire to compromise.
Government has always been involved in marriage. Hammurabi wrote tablet after tablet on what we'd call family law: inheritance, the rights of widows, the punishment for adultery etc. etc. Courts have been involved wh was married and who wasn't, and what made a marriage legitimate or not, ever since the idea of government by law was a thing.
Conservatives angling for the votes of people like mtl1 didn't just vote against domestic partnership laws, they modified state constitutions to keep domestic partnership laws from being voted on at all. It wasn't until they realized they were losing that they suddenly developed a desire to compromise.
If you read the thread, you'll see that mtl1 is actually a pro big-government liberal that wants to keep marriage related laws.
Us conservatives want fewer laws and a smaller government that doesn't control what people can and cannot do in their homes.
You're talking nonsense. Marriage is a social construct that has been defined and redefined dozens of times in different societies. Harm, on the other hand, is pretty damn foundational.
You've probably realized by now why this argument doesn't work.
The notion of harm has also been redefined, sociobiologically, throughout history. As you said yourself, forced marriages used to be tradition. Now we consider them harmful or abusive. Can you prove that these primitive cultures were being willfully harmful?
You need another standard to distinguish the idea of 'harm' and that of 'marriage' (as far as epistemic priority is concerned).
"marriage" is just a word. Call it domestic partnership and it covers everyone. Not a big deal.
It was a word with a specific definition and meaning. That was my argument gays should've accepted the title of civil union, but no they refused and had to have it called marriage. That assumes all partnerships are equivalent and I don't accept that they are.
That was my argument gays should've accepted the title of civil union...
You're rewriting history - civil unions were never offered. In fact, civil unions were specifically banned in dozens of state constitutions - back in the 1980s and 1990s, where the gays might have been OK with a different arrangement. Conservatives went out of their way to stomp that idea out. Kinda dumb in retrospect, eh?
If you read the thread, you'll see that mtl1 is actually a pro big-government liberal that wants to keep marriage related laws.
Us conservatives want fewer laws and a smaller government that doesn't control what people can and cannot do in their homes.
There you go with a strawman. You call yourself conservative yet support gay marriage that wasn't even recognized until 2015. You are not the conservative but the liberal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
