Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.
So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.
Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…
- Works (and pays taxes)
- Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
- Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
- Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.
So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.
GREAT! Keep 'em coming.
Well that sure is progressive. Who needs children or families when you can have some wealthy queers from San Francisco move in? Besides, children don’t pay any taxes at all. They’re just parasites.[/quote]
You are presenting a logical fallacy of a false dilemma. There is plenty of room in Maine for both gays and heterosexuals. Allowing gays to marry has not, to my knowledge, prevented a single heterosexual couple from starting a family.
It’s a question of value. Traditional marriage is more valuable as it is geared towards reproduction and child rearing. It is the children and the family that creates and nurtures them that creates the value. You actually realise this - even if only subconsciously - because you are trying to add value to gay unions by saying how they have benefited your state. You are trying to raise the social value of gay unions to the level of traditional families - unsuccessfully I might add.[/quote]
And now we get to your next logical fallacy, the straw man.
Nowhere did I claim that gay unions present the same social value of a heterosexual union. The reasons for this are self-evident for a species intent on long-term survival.
I simply claimed that they can be a positive social force, which is absolutely true. Raising children is not the only way to contribute positively.
I’d gladly trade a heterosexual who moved to Maine because his Massachusetts state benefits expired for a homosexual engineer who moved here to live his life without being hassled by backwards rednecks in Alabama.
No one is “hassling” gay people. Sure there’s a handful of loons like Westboro Baptist that do but 99.99% of “rednecks” have never and would never harass gay people.
Well, the 0.01 % sure do a good job of making themselves heard on the matter. I’m quite sure that harassment of gays is alive and well in the US, and there are many parts of the world where being gay is grounds for execution.
It also defies common sense to think that a gay person could expect similar treatment in a place like Alabama compared to a place like Maine.
But gay people’s subjective experiences in different locations is neither here nor there. We were discussing your logical fallacies, no?[/quote]
Well, you cried logical fallacy but that’s not the case. Possibly I misinterpreted what you were initially saying. After clarification it appears you are saying that traditional marriage has more intrinsic value but that doesn’t mean gay marriage doesn’t have some value too. But that is missing the point. It is not being married that is of value to society. It is marriage itself that is valuable to society. It is the institution of marriage that has the value. Now if you diminish the institution of marriage to a contractual arrangement between two people then the actual value of marriage itself is annihilated. Marriage no longer has any value to society.[/quote]
Looks like you followed that up with another straw man.
Nowhere did I say that gay marriage, or marriage in general, is nothing more than a contract. Indeed the feelings and commitment that two gay people have towards each other are not inherently less genuine than those shared by a man and a woman.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that broadening the definition of marriage reduces the intrinsic value of traditional man/woman marriages that produce babies. I do not see the cause/effect relationship here.
Explain how this mechanism works.