3 ms·

> Marriage means subventions by the government. Marriage is not a subvention. You are not granted a cash bonus for being married. You access differences in tax

> Marriage means subventions by the government. Marriage is not a subvention. You are not granted a cash bonus for being married. You access differences in tax consideration, yes, but that is not the same as getting direct payment. Moreover, there are a variety of legal rights that are available to married couples vs. non-married couple and non straight couples deserve access to those rights just the same as anyone else. > So I suppose you could argue that the subventions are really for promoting families with the ultimate goal of having children. Even though gay families can adopt, you could argue that promoting gay marriage does not bring more children into the world. > Not saying that is my opinion, or that marriage is currently perfectly designed for that goal (after all, childless couples can marry too and get some benefits). But I can understand if people feel "if I am paying for other people's marriage, I want to pay for more children being brought into the world in my country" - or something like that. Then I think it would be acceptable to oppose (gay) marriage on that ground. Marriage isn't granted or denied to straight people based on their ability to have or not have children, this argument does not hold water. Also, marriage is not strictly about reproducing anyway. Biology-based arguments of this kind is highly discriminatory in general and shouldn't be allowed as the basis for law. > It's not a question of denying people the right to be together, but a question of what the community should pay for. This is not a question of what the community should pay for, the community would pay less if more overall couples and families were stable, this is a question of discrimination of the most basic kind. > From my European perspective it seems much less ethical to deny people health care (talk about basic human rights), yet I am sure many who support gay marriage are opposed to public health care for a variety of reasons (they don't want to live in a socialist country or whatever). That there is a bigger problem compared to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that some people are still being denied the ability to marry and access the rights that come with that status.

facepalm 12y ago
"You access differences in tax consideration, yes, but that is not the same as getting direct payment." Of course it is. The public pays money for it. "Moreover, there are a variety of legal rights that are available to married couples vs. non-married couple and non straight couples deserve access to those rights just the same as anyone else." As I said, I am not against it. I would argue that those rights are also a subvention. "Marriage isn't granted or denied to straight people based on their ability to have or not have children, this argument does not hold water" I'm aware of that - my point is that I can understand if people think about it that way. Also I think there have throughout history been special rules for marriage if a couple can't get children. For example it might have been legal to get another wife, things like that. I don't think you can argue that children have no bearing on marriage whatsoever. Especially since presumably the "right to adopt" is the main issue people have with gay marriage. Don't know about the US, but where I live, the only other significant right married people get is bringing their spouses into the country (giving them citizenship). Things like "visit your spouse in hospital" or "split your income for tax reductions" can be arranged in other ways. "this is a question of discrimination of the most basic kind." That is just hate speech, not an argument. "That there is a bigger problem compared to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that some people are still being denied the ability to marry and access the rights that come with that status." Of course not - my point is that many who now feel like "good people" because they support gay marriage at the same time fight for denying people health care. I just wanted to illustrate that things are not always as obvious as people think.

facepalm 12y ago

"You access differences in tax consideration, yes, but that is not the same as getting direct payment." Of course it is. The public pays money for it. "Moreover, there are a variety of legal rights that are available to married couples vs. non-married couple and non straight couples deserve access to those rights just the same as anyone else." As I said, I am not against it. I would argue that those rights are also a subvention. "Marriage isn't granted or denied to straight people based on their ability to have or not have children, this argument does not hold water" I'm aware of that - my point is that I can understand if people think about it that way. Also I think there have throughout history been special rules for marriage if a couple can't get children. For example it might have been legal to get another wife, things like that. I don't think you can argue that children have no bearing on marriage whatsoever. Especially since presumably the "right to adopt" is the main issue people have with gay marriage. Don't know about the US, but where I live, the only other significant right married people get is bringing their spouses into the country (giving them citizenship). Things like "visit your spouse in hospital" or "split your income for tax reductions" can be arranged in other ways. "this is a question of discrimination of the most basic kind." That is just hate speech, not an argument. "That there is a bigger problem compared to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that some people are still being denied the ability to marry and access the rights that come with that status." Of course not - my point is that many who now feel like "good people" because they support gay marriage at the same time fight for denying people health care. I just wanted to illustrate that things are not always as obvious as people think.