 |
Flipside Movie Emporium
Discussion Forums Locked & Archived for Browsing
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
 Posted: 03.23.2004 3:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I really wouldn't call this a human rights battle, because, gays are known to be in the top percentiles for education, income, etc, for one, and for a certificate proving marriage (for me, a family is out of the question, for the child could endure some pretty rough things socially in that situation), so there really, is no point. Even if I way gay, I probably wouldn't be for gay marriage, even though I can't really ensure that.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
matt header
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't agree that a child "could endure some pretty rough things socially," or at least I can't agree that it would be rougher because his parents are homosexual. A child has it extremely rough having only a single mom or a single dad, or if his parents are divorced; I don't think his situation would be any worse if he had two moms or two dads, especially if the two parents were in love. Certainly he or she could be made fun of, but that's practically inevitable for any child in any family; if he is dearly loved by his parents, then I think that outweighs the negatives, especially since loving parenthood is nearly as difficult to find these days as a ridicule-free childhood.
And, in any case, who says the gay marriage has to result in offspring? Marriage should be about love, not raising children. If the gay partners want to prove their love, want to have their union writ legally, then denying them that right to marriage is a human rights violation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | (for me, a family is out of the question, for the child could endure some pretty rough things socially in that situation) |
A child from a interracial couple can endure some pretty rough treatment socially, too, but I suspect few people in this day and age would use that as a argument against interracial marriage. Also, I'm interested in hearing about the economic issues involved in gay marriage. Like Eric, I wouldn't put a price tag on equality either, but if the argument is strong enough I'd surely take it into consideration.
As a sidebar, I'm reading an article in Discover about the neuroscience of morality and ethics. Fascinating stuff.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| matt header wrote: | | My favorite argument in favor of gay marriage, written by columnist Dan Savage |
My favorite quote from his column:
"One day I would like to live in a country where my decade-long relationship is treated with the same respect--and afforded the same rights, protections, and responsibilities--as Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage."
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Third M?n
Studio Exec
Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Chasing Stef around post-war Vienna
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| matt header wrote: | | And, in any case, who says the gay marriage has to result in offspring? Marriage should be about love, not raising children. |
But having children is the greatest showing of love a couple can ever do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the only problem I have with that statement is--why do the gays need marriage to solidify their love if there will be money loss at the expense of this?
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Third M?n wrote: | | matt header wrote: | | And, in any case, who says the gay marriage has to result in offspring? Marriage should be about love, not raising children. |
But having children is the greatest showing of love a couple can ever do. |
I completely disagree. My wife and I don't have children, and at this point we've decided we don't want any. Yet I don't think we "show" any less love than a couple with children.
Danny, how will gay marriage result in money loss?
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, there are two scenarios I can think of where we would lose money tax-wise, first and foremost.
1) A gay couple decides to have a child, resulting in one quitting work. Here, we now have a single-income to tax, as opposed to duel.
2) A less likely situation is presuming the couple hasn't already moved in together, and does because of there marriage. Duel homeowners' tax to single. You may say that this can happen at any time in their relationship, and I wouldn't argue, but marriage definitely promotes it.
Both of these are much bigger than the marriage tax that they'd pay. Even assuming 1% of gays fell into this situation, generously speaking, we'd be down a billion in only a few years. If you want specific equations, I'll show you them.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Third M?n
Studio Exec
Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Chasing Stef around post-war Vienna
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | I completely disagree. My wife and I don't have children, and at this point we've decided we don't want any. Yet I don't think we "show" any less love than a couple with children.
|
I know it's completely possible for a couple to utterly love each other without having any children -- that's fine, regardless of what you believe. But it is true that having children of your own, engaging in sexual intercourse with someone you love, in order to procreate, is a sample of total commitment and love. My parents, who have five children, may be as happy as you and your wife -- and viceversa --, but all I'm saying is that having children only serves to soldify your love for one another, and it usually makes it stronger.
Just my opinion, of course. Don't forget that I'm a Roman Catholic with strong Christian beliefs, I go to church every Sunday and blah, blah, blah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | Well, there are two scenarios I can think of where we would lose money tax-wise, first and foremost.
1) A gay couple decides to have a child, resulting in one quitting work. Here, we now have a single-income to tax, as opposed to duel. |
This might be true if unemployment was zero. Let's assume that one partner does indeed decide to quit. His job will still exist, and another individual will fill that position. The tax revenue will merely shift from one individual to another. Even if the scenario you've described would occur, I still don't see why that's reason to deny human rights to one group. Seems to me this argument basically boils down to: let's continue to oppress one group, so the rest of us can continue to enjoy lower taxes. In other words, we're essentially demanding one group to shoulder a portion of our taxes for us. (Besides, some heterosexual parents also decide to become single-income homes--perhaps we should ban opposite-sex marriage in order to boost the economy?)
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Third M?n wrote: | | the night watchman wrote: | I completely disagree. My wife and I don't have children, and at this point we've decided we don't want any. Yet I don't think we "show" any less love than a couple with children.
|
I know it's completely possible for a couple to utterly love each other without having any children -- that's fine, regardless of what you believe. But it is true that having children of your own, engaging in sexual intercourse with someone you love, in order to procreate, is a sample of total commitment and love. My parents, who have five children, may be as happy as you and your wife -- and viceversa --, but all I'm saying is that having children only serves to soldify your love for one another, and it usually makes it stronger.
Just my opinion, of course. Don't forget that I'm a Roman Catholic with strong Christian beliefs, I go to church every Sunday and blah, blah, blah. |
This opinion may be founded upon Catholicism, but I don't think it's founded upon Christianity in general. Speaking as a Christian, I agree with Night Watchman here--in both theological and secular contexts, there are multiple reasons for marriage to exist, and there are multiple ways to express love and total commitment. The willingness or ability to raise children is not the standard by which to judge any relationship. Are we to assume that the more children a couple has, the stronger--and superior--is their love? I think that standard fails to acknowledge the complexity of humanity, human relationships, and family dynamics.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: |
This might be true if unemployment was zero. |
That's almost theory, too. A person in the gay's job is a) either shifting from there position, in which a new worker would take there job, or b) a new worker themself.
So, with new workers comes more gay workers, meaning more gay marriages. There is always a gap, if you follow the idea.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | Well, the only problem I have with that statement is--why do the gays need marriage to solidify their love if there will be money loss at the expense of this? |
Then by extension we ought to bristle at the thought of heterosexual marriage--why do straight couples need marriage tax breaks when it results in money loss on a national level? Consider the Bizarro Universe argument: I bet if we allowed gay marriage and banned straight marriage, our tax revenue would skyrocket!
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | beltmann wrote: |
This might be true if unemployment was zero. |
That's almost theory, too. A person in the gay's job is a) either shifting from there position, in which a new worker would take there job, or b) a new worker themself. So, with new workers comes more gay workers, meaning more gay marriages. There is always a gap, if you follow the idea. |
Honestly, I don't follow. Are you suggesting that all new workers come from the gay ranks? Are there no unemployed heterosexuals? And why will more gay workers result in more gay marriage? Do homosexuals only find romance in the workplace?
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassi43
Grip
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 5
Location: u.k
|
| Posted: 03.23.2004 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i am not against it but they should call it something else instead of marriage. marriage is with a man and an womam. if there is going to be an legal certificate uniting the same sex bonding them together legaly in our secular soceity then the word should different from 'marriage'.
(something not in the dictionary; at the moment}
_________________
"?//-// |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2007 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
