I'll go through these for ya.

1. drugs/marijuana - the reason they're illegal is to 'protect' society. many including myself disagree with this, but the point has merit - drugs take away from society as a whole and can cause people to do nasty things which disrupt and harm the lives and happiness of others. they hurt more than just the person taking them, basically.
2. polygamy - once again, the idea is to protect society... but i disagree with this one too. if 2 men want to marry the same woman or the same man wants to marry 2 women, i don't particularly care. how does that harm me or anyone else? their life, their choices. i'd just call it a more-than-2-person civil union.
3. beastiality - who has ever tried to make beastiality legal? anyway, i'd call it cruelty against animals, which i'm ok with protecting.
4. speed limits - you harped on this one... which i find funny... guess what. when you or i speed, we are not only risking our own lives, but we are risking causing a serious accident on the road with *all the other drivers*. this is why speed limits exist. it is because our actions might harm others, and so for the good of everyone we sacrifice the ability to go ridiculously fast. it makes perfect sense - my perceived right to speed infringes on person-A-sharing-the-highway's right to be safe.
5. age of consent - another obvious one, people aren't seen as being mature enough to make certain decisions before they reach a certain age. gov. needs to protect them to maintain a healthy society.
6. incest - really? really? same as beastiality. who wants this to be legal? but continuing to point out the obvious, this leads to birth defects and thus isn't allowed.

Happy now? Above are all the reasons that all of those things are illegal, even the ones i might disagree with. They all have reasons involving protecting society as a whole and preventing one person's actions from negatively affecting the lives of others. In no instance has anyone explained how a man and another man (or 2 women) getting a civil union or marriage is going to negatively affect anyone else. it is their decision made about their lives, and them being together legally won't harm another person or society. They should have the right to the same protections and benefits under the law that straight married couples have.

 

[QUOTE=al4t1gbundy,Nov 25 2008, 10:38 AM]So I still do not see how gay marriages effect anyone else other then the gays themselves.

 

Of course choosing which statistics are reasonable is a difficult path to trot, but more often than not, people take statistics at face value without considering the reasons behind a specific stat.

I have a friend who feels that black people are prone to breaking laws, being disrespectful and are generally obnoxious everywhere they go. He argues up and down that statistics don't lie. Meanwhile his cousin has been in and out of jail, had multiple encounters with the law, been banned from specific parts of his home town, is a leech on society when he collects unemployment checks and lives with his parents. I see no difference between my friend's cousin and what my friend considers the culture of blacks. My friend simply argues that his cousin is "different" and is nothing like blacks. While I've spent time with my friend's cousin and see him to be a decent guy with limited common sense and even less in the "good judgment" bucket, he's still a contributor to the thug statistic.

Obviously statistics can be made to support any argument through incoherent interpretation, but there is a fine line of reason there that we have yet to walk.

[QUOTE=magician,Nov 25 2008, 01:28 PM]That may or may not be true, but intolerance is hardly equivalent to violence.

 

You're right; that's (one reason) why I'd never argue that.

Continuing that analogy begets an interesting rejoinder that those opposed to homosexual marriage in particular (and, perhaps, to homosexuals in general) might raise: keep your sexual preference secret (as you do your vote) and you'll have no problems.

I'm pretty sure that they haven't been called Israelites since the Old Testament; I believe that Israelis is the modern term.

 

[QUOTE=magician,Nov 25 2008, 10:55 AM] There are many societal benefits (read: costs) afforded to married couples that are not available to those who aren't married.

 

[QUOTE=rahvis,Nov 25 2008, 10:59 AM]I have a friend who feels that black people are prone to breaking laws, being disrespectful and are generally obnoxious everywhere they go.

 

Encouraging people to keep their sexual preference a secret would be fine if all people were required to do the same. Further, marriage/civil union between couples (MW, MM, WW) would have to be kept secret as well. Without doing this across the board, we come back to the idea of "separate but equal," which we all agree is not equal.
Yeah, I know. I don't know what I was thinking...
Elistan typed out the below on page 3:

- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

None of these "costs" impact tax payers. The fact is, the gay population pay taxes just like everyone else and as US Citizens are entitled to the same rights as anyone else. In fact, the gay people I know are generally quite a bit more well off than the straight couples I know; which means they likely pay more in taxes than the straight couples I know. By Magician's point above, I think that if anything, gays have more right to marriage than straight couples.

 

Someone asked how allowing homosexuals to marry could possibly affect married heterosexuals. I gave an example of how it can affect them.

I wasn't answering whether they're entitled to those benefits or not, only whether the marriage of couple A can affect couple B.

 

Um, these do:

- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

 

[QUOTE=magician,Nov 25 2008, 02:17 PM]History has many lessons.