Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
While I'll give you (or anyone else, assuming you were just picking at a statement out of context of the point it was in) the fact that marital status and the material benefits it brings are more of a legality matter than a human rights mater, the implication of a recognized union that is not discriminated on based solely on whether or not that union is comprised of a male and female is CERTAINLY obvious and should not be referred to in a document.
Any prerequisite not based on personal morality, should you appeal to their nature, whether standardized or assumed, is met in the case of same-sex marriage. It's not hurting anyone if same-sex couples marry, and simultaneously, they would enjoy the same benefits that we afford traditional married couples not being discriminated against because of their choice of partner.
|
Thank you for remembering this is about the
material benefits of
state recognized marriage.
In regards to the underlined; if that's you're line of argument, why offer
anyone benefits for being married? Not being married doesn't
harm anyone else, so why should those who are not married pay higher taxes, be burdened with unfavorable loan rates, unfavorable car insurance rates, etc.?
The arguments that justified these unfavorable conditions were primarily related to (1) increased reproductive rates of married couples, & (2) the improved outcomes of children from married couples. But do these arguments still make sense if you're going to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples?