Huh. I won't deny it: I'm disappointed with you. I expected more than three two simple questions and a rude observation. I was hoping for some real fire and for my post to be sliced in pieces with the aid of many scholarly research papers. Even a bit of trolling would have been warmly appreciated, such telling me I ought to be at school or that I'm too young to understand. Well, here goes anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
External support for what, exactly?
|
I personally find a lot of the claims there to be be made out to be from US law, and that this article was stating it to be the case. For instance:
Quote:
|
In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
|
Where in US law does it say that? Where in US law does it say that "propagating society" is the most important reason for marriage? I think that for issues so important, some kind of reference would be expected.
Quote:
|
If that's what you believe, why would you argue for an extension of marriage benefits to more people in society? Why not just get rid of them entirelly?
|
This here doesn't give credit to what I think is marriage as a whole. It's not about money, neither is it solely for increasing the population. It's a way of publically expressing your love for another person, and starting a family. The function of the family itself isn't money either, and I don't think that offspring should be necessary for a family to be recognised.
Quote:
|
The rest of your post doesn't deal with what I said, the quotes I pulled from the article, or the general point of my post.
|
This is more like it: completely ignoring what was my critique of the article you referenced.
Come on, I'm sure there was a lot in there that was directly relevant to what you quoted, just have a bash and tell me why I'm wrong about it.
Quote:
|
Correct; so, why should the rest of society subsidize their marriages?
|
You aren't purposely forgetting that financial commitments are being made by the gay people themselves? They pay like everyone else, society doesn't have a rule that marriages ought only to be permitted if children are planned.
OK, let me ask you a question: supposing that gay marriage were to be proposed WITHOUT any form of state subsidy whatsoever. Would you still object even if you as a taxpayer weren't in any way paying for it?