[Fraqtive42]

corporatism, corporate statism, crony capitalism, corporate kleptocracy

Basically, powerful people with narrow corporate interests are co-opting the US government to receive favorable treatment for themselves at the expense of the health saftey and freedom of others.

This is a wholesale whoring out of our Constitution, and it makes me sick. And before I advocate or join in on the burning down of this mother, I will at least attempt to advocate for reason and intelligence in problem solving

Issues like gay marriage and vaginal probes are designed by elites to distract and manipulate the public. In an ideal world, educated people would be elevated to positions of leadership, and when asked about gay marriage or abortion, would give rational responses that sound a bit more like, "I will protect your freedom," rather than, "I will make your homophobia feel better, there there little man"

I see what you mean and agree with you, but I don't think "corporatism" is the best word to describe it. Historically, corporatism has involved negotiations between government, labour, and business interest groups to make economic decisions -- hence it is a form of collectivist social organization which (both in the past and now) hasn't had anything to do with the "corporatism" that you are describing.

And? These subsidies were put into place to benefit the single social arrangement which is most likely to produce children.

Not entirely -- I would say that the social and psychological benefits of marriage in general (be it homosexual or heterosexual) are also reasons for the subsidies put into place.

Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, do not have their fertility rates change according to whether they are married or not. So, unless one disagrees with the logic of subsidizing those who, through childbirth, perpetuate society, you'll find that everyone regardless of their sexual orientation benefits from the subsidies given to heterosexual married couples, whereas the only people who benefit from homosexual marriage are those gays who are married.

It depends on the heterosexual married couple, and whether or not they have children. With regards to the perpetuation of society, subsidizing a heterosexual couple that doesn't bear children in the future is the equivalent of subsidizing a homosexual couple. I would say that subsidization of non-reproducing couples is only a small price to pay for making marriage (as a social bond) more valued by society in general. Subsidization of non-reproducing couples also isn't entirely without merit -- marriage brings psychological and social benefits to couples, as stated above.

[Lexington]

And? These subsidies were put into place to benefit the single social arrangement which is most likely to produce children.

If that were true, the subsidies would be directed toward families that produce children, not just to any married couple. Rick Santorum, father of 7, would be a welfare queen. An elderly couple, newly married in their, say, 70s, is probably not going to have any children, just guessing.

And besides, of course gay couples can have children. They can adopt or have a surrogate mother have the child through in vitro fertilization.

Oh, and how many of these benefits specifically advantage child-bearing couples anyway?

[Jeliza-Rose]

So it seems that it really is all about "homos" and gay marriage with you guys!!?

But it really just proves that the article in my original post is basically correct...you really are still crazy.

Thanks guys

[hip hop bunny hop]

Not entirely -- I would say that the social and psychological benefits of marriage in general (be it homosexual or heterosexual) are also reasons for the subsidies put into place.

Eh? I'm talking about why these subsidies were originally put into place. Admittedly, I know more about their context in Europe than the USA, where they were put into place as birth rates dramatically declined in the last portion of the 19th century.

It depends on the heterosexual married couple, and whether or not they have children. With regards to the perpetuation of society, subsidizing a heterosexual couple that doesn't bear children in the future is the equivalent of subsidizing a homosexual couple. I would say that subsidization of non-reproducing couples is only a small price to pay for making marriage (as a social bond) more valued by society in general. Subsidization of non-reproducing couples also isn't entirely without merit -- marriage brings psychological and social benefits to couples, as stated above.

Unfortunately, our current laws are imperfect when it comes to distinguishing between those couples who do and do not have children. However, allowing same-sex couples to receive the same benefits would only worsen the current situation. Naturally, those couples who receive state benefits for being married will like them, but what group doesn't like receiving benefits? Just because homosexuals would like to pay less in taxes and receive other benefits isn't sufficient reason to hand them over.

Regarding how we go about making marriage more valued by society; if we allow gay marriage, we are further emphasizing that marriage is about the two adults in the relationship, not about children. As such, I oppose gay marriage.