Gay marriage?

[Fixer]

[quote="Dreamer";p="139717"]Anyone else have any idea why there are economic benifits to getting married?[/quote]
Certainly not taxes. I can't think of any other benefits. If anything, marriage is more of an added liability issue than any additional benefits.

[amsfan]

Like I have mentioned before:
I say all human has their freedom to do what ever they want when ever they want no matter what time they want , whereever they want, or whatever the circumstance is.
But the statistics of US has shown that only 50% (estimate) of people agree whether another has the freedom to do certain things such as gay marriage.
That is a low number...and I hope this number (the percentage of people concuring on the same issue about freedom)will rise in the future.

my dollar

[Polarix]

I have to throw my support behind the crowd who believes that people should be able to make decisions about their love and the people they wish to spend their life with, without having established religions or laws to deal with.

I still can't see why anyone would care who the man down the street marries. How does it affect them? It doesn't. If they don't want to enter into gay marriage, then that is certainly their decision, but why would they have the right to make that decision while the man down the street does not?

Of course, the entire discussion is absurd since it doesn't seem that there's really anyone here voicing against gay marriage.

[Mr.Shroom]

I blame the 700 Club.

Seriously. The real issue is the non-conservative gays. They're the ones who've got all our religious figures and 'Send-Us-Money' TV churches up in a hoopla. The skinny white dude in leather assless chaps dancing atop the plastic penis float? Thats the reason they don't want gays getting married.

But the thing is, Mr.McBondage the Dancing Queen there probably isn't looking to tie the knot anytime soon. The people who REALLY want it are the conservative gay men and women whos only difference between your average Joe\Jane is they want to share the rest of their lives with people of the same gender. And a good deal probably share alot of Christian ideals (if not the faith overall).

And who PRAYS for a Judge to 'be removed'? Thats just creepy.

[bloodredhearts]

I think that no matter what your views may be on homosexuality, they will always be out there. They're people too, and I don't think anyone should have to push their own views on someone who's already decided a path they want to go. There will always be religions and beliefs that disagree with it, but I think that people who strongly agree with these things should only apply it to their own lives. The hate and disapproval of homosexuality in our society needs to be lightened somehow, as the population of gay people is constantly increasing. A type of gay marriage should be open for people who want it, but they should come up with a system where they don't have to do it in a church, or go by church rules. That way, everyone's happy.

[Martin Blank]

No marriage has to be done in a church. You can already get married by a Justice of the Peace or by a ship's captain (needs to be something formal, though I'm not sure of the rules), and both can be secular ceremonies.

Non-religious people get married, too.

[Dragonmaster Zoc]

Coming in to this topic I had something to say, but now I'd just be saying "me too," like some brain-dead AOL-er. What's the point in having an opinion if other people agree with you?

[Metzgirl]

/dons flame proof armor/

I believe that homosexual marriage is wrong. From the economic stand point, people get married to better support a family; thus the tax breaks, health benefits, etc. that married people recieve. While homosexual people can adopt, they cannot, by themselves, have children naturally. Adoption is an expensive and time consuming process. Even if the couple can afford to go through it, they still have the chance of being turned down.

This article says it much better than I can:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/HOMARRIA.TXT
The first section is on homosexual marriage. The rest is of little relevance to this current topic.

/dives into flame proof bunker/

[Mr.Shroom]

I often feel the same, Zoc. We've got a few sharp cookies in here, or at least people who make the same points I would, often in better forms than I could draw up myself. My solution? Don't freakin' post.

And you can't really be flamed for posting an unpopular opinion, unless you're a illogical ranting jerk about it, Metz.

And that entire article actually does have to do a great deal with homosexual marriage, technically. However, I find that both your and that articles reasonings about gay marriages are rather unfounded. The gay population is still a rather large minority towards compared to the hetrosexual population, so any decline would be minor. I fail to see how 'gay marriage' could be viewed as some sort of elitest joke, as such, let alone an enforcement. If you REALLY could view accepting gay marriage as an enforcement, you'd also have to view allowing African American's certain rights as an enforcement from the so-called 'ruling elite'. A different group, granted, but the same overall concept!

And let me adress this laughable arguement of 'social engineering' that undermine 'traditional society'. Its a self-contradicting statement, really, as our traditional concepts are MADE into traditions due to a basic form OF social engineering: enforcing a certain way of thinking\doing\being upon the next generation and so on and so forth. I won't even give the snowballing logic behind the 'flight from human sexuality' that brings forth the downfall of our concepts a comment, let alone the many quotes from various antiquated psycosexual studies\researchers that many modern scientists would laugh at you for even regarding!

IF anything, the only issue even worthwhile of mention and debate on that subject is Metz's comment on the difficulty of adoption. The fact that the system fails to work does not mean that the ACT itself is wrong, but that there are problems with the SYSTEM that has been created to carry out that act. Perhaps allowing gay couples to marry would push our society to address and correct the many problems and uneeded complications that occur from adoption.

And on a frank sidenote, Metz, I doubt if you've actually read that article all the way through. The science quoted is outdated and unfounded, the logic akin to that of a tabloid doomsayer, and the constant 'ethical' references are often times self-contradicting. I'm more than sure that you can say your own thoughts FAR better than the 'Page of Authentic Femininity' put it.

[Dreamer]

I didn't read that artucle. But what what you said, Metz, it might have some of the same arguments I was making previously, about economic benifits being a reason for getting married and that being to make having children more affordable.

[Mr.Shroom]

If you didn't read that article, then you don't actually know what the heck you just agreed to. Let alone the loose and poorly formed based logic upon the economic benifits of marriage.

[Dreamer]

Okay, I am new here, so I am trying to do my best not to offend anyone. But let's be a little serious here, Mr. Shroom. Loose and poorly formed? Did you want a frickin' formatted discourse in these forums? Is that what you were looking for? I'm sorry I didn't support the entire argument with facts and figures. And did I say I agree with the article? No, I said "it might have some of the same arguments I was making previously." Hmmm, who's not reading now? Okay, maybe I should restate the argument, because I hate to see a good argument called "loose and poorly formed."

First let's put aside the idea that there are not economic benefits to marriage:

Tax Benefits
-Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
-Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
-Inheriting a share of your spouse’s estate.
-Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
-Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts and marital deduction trusts.
-Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse, that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Government Benefits
-Receiving Social Security, Medicare and disability benefits for spouses.
-Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care or special loans.
-Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
-Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.
-Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
-Receiving wages, workers’ compensation and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
-Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
-Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
-Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
-Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
-Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
-Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
-Applying for joint foster care rights.
-Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
-Receiving spousal or child support, child custody and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
-Living in neighborhoods zoned for “families only.”
-Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
-Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto and other types of insurance.
-Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
-Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
-Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium.
-Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
-Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
-Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
-Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
-Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
-Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/arti ... 985EE7E825

Now, there are obviously benefits to being married. A lot. Now, why do those benefits exist. I think there are a lot of arguments as to why they exist. I believe one of the best arguments is to encourage families to have children. These are modern times, yes. People can have children without being married. But this does pose problems (such as the onset of, so-called, bastard laws (need I post more, or can we just agree I know what I am talking about and leave it at that?) So there are incentives to havein a child in-wedlock and not out-.

So give benefits, such as those listed above, to encourage people to get married and have children. It cost a lot to raise a child. And that's not taking into consideration private schools, or possibly paying for college, or the designer clothes your kids just "have to have!"

Finally, the important part. Not every married couple can have children. And some gay couples would adopt. But it is not feasible to figure out who these couples are, straight or gay. Would an application process be better? Should we put a box on the marriage license (check here if intend/possible to have children)? Should the government and other agencies who distribute these benefits investigate every claim to minimize costs? Yeah that would minimize costs I'll wager. And cost 30 times as much in red tape and paper. So let's make it simpler. If you're married, let's assume you have children. So let's make it easier and give benefits.

This is done ALL THE TIME!!! There are inequities like this ALL THE TIME because there are some things that are just inherently unequal and you can't avoid it!! Statutory rape does not apply if an older woman has sex with a boy for example. "Wait!" you might say, of course it does! But it doesn't. Sexual abuse, maybe, but not statutory rape. And sexual abuse has to be proven. As far as statutory rape, well it's a no-intent crime. All you have to do is do it, no excuses. Is that fair? Sure it is. A woman won't run the risk of raping a boy because she has other possible damaging effects, like pregnancy. It's the way it works. Should we test the woman, see if she is sterile (incapable of having children) and knew that fact and then if all that was true, charge her with statutory rape? Nope, too expensive.

Okay, whatever... I'm tired of trying to explain this argument. If anyone thinks it's such a bad one, why not bring up a specific point and then I'd be happy to argue against it. But the argument itself, please. If you want to argue statutory rape, start a new thread. What else I realized. I think you didn't read my previous post, Shroom. I think you just read the one on this page and assumed that was my argument. I hope that's not true...

But I think it's a good argument. Well, at least not loose and poorly formed anyway.

[Martin Blank]

Not to sound like I'm against such marriages, but to set some points straight...

[quote="Dreamer";p="143031"]Tax Benefits
-Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.[/quote]
You're apparently not aware of the "marriage tax" then, which tends to result in higher taxes for married couples. This has been something some have been trying to phase out, but it is sill present and it may make a comeback.

Estate Planning Benefits
-Inheriting a share of your spouse’s estate.
-Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
-Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts and marital deduction trusts.
-Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse, that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Much of this (save the restricted trusts) can already be done through legal means by simply being prepared and writing a will and a living will ahead of time. Similar trusts can be set up for others, though, albeit without the same benefits. My mom has removed my dad from all medical decisions, because she's a no-code, and she knows he'll over-ride her wishes to try to keep her alive. This has fallen to a friend of hers. I need to get my will formalized, but I will be leaving all major decisions to a specific friend or, secondarily, my mother, because I can't trust anyone else in the family to follow my wishes.

Employment Benefits
-Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.

Many employers already offer this, and the number that do is growing.

Medical Benefits
-Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
-Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Most hospitals will let things like this slide, as long as it's only the one person. I don't remember ever being asked to leave a hospital, in fact, even when I was clearly not related to the patient. The medical decisions, as I mentioned above, can be legally specified to a non-relative through documentation providing that person with limited power-of-attorney.

Family Benefits
-Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Most, if not all, states already allow homosexual couples to adopt. The barriers are a bit higher, but the rights are there, and it is more common than many people think.

Consumer Benefits
-Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto and other types of insurance.
-Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Again, many companies are already extending these benefits to "domestic partners", which include gay couples.

There are benefits to being married, but many of them are already there by filing the proper forms or looking at the right companies. There are some companies owned by the church that do not extend such benefits for moral reasons, but many other companies do, and they are reaping windfalls for it because homosexual couples are moving in masses to them.

Statutory rape does not apply if an older woman has sex with a boy for example. "Wait!" you might say, of course it does! But it doesn't. Sexual abuse, maybe, but not statutory rape.

Yes, it does. There have been a number of cases that have made the news nationwide in the last couple of years alone about older females carrying on sexual relations with underage males and going to prison for statutory rape.

If you want to argue statutory rape, start a new thread.

Don't go off-topic yourself if you don't want someone else to talk about the off-topic point.

[Elric2056]

As a straight person who has many friends who are gay, lesbian or bi I support gay marriages despite my religious background. Since many of the points I would make have been presented here, I will not review them again, but I will point out that as a resident of Ontario, Canada where it is currently legal for gays to be married I am very proud of the way the government here has handled this situation. Despite the protests regarding the prospect of gay marriage by some groups (including the provincial government of Alberta), the federal government has asked that the surpreme court rule on a few things related to the rights of gays with respect to marriage in Canada and have laid out a bill which they hope to eventually introduce in order to formally legalize gay marriage in this country. And the discussion within both the Liberal Caucus (the current ruling party) and across all of politics regarding this topic things have at times been anything but quiet. Check the Canadian news if you want to see other views of both sides of this but for now thats all I've got to say... enjoy...

[Dreamer]

I really enjoyed your post, MB. Thank you very much for considering my argument honestly!

As far as a lot of the points you made, the are largely valid. But I must note that it doesn't include all of them. In rereading them, it still seems like it is more benificial to be married than to not. (My company also has domestic partner insurance, which is good for my fiancee, but it is not as inexpensive as when married).

Oh, and as far as not wanting to talk about statutory rape, that was only because it was one example. There are many inequities in the law that are applied because they are necessary, statutory rape laws are just one example. But in all fairness, I did search the web and found a few instances of statutory rape in a few states, but not the majority. Looks like the tide is turning. But with stories like this one you have to wonder if the tide is turning at all!

But in the end, I think there are benifits to getting married. And honestly, I don't think gays should be deprived of those benifits. The only argument I can think of is because of child rearing. But that's honestly it, and I don't think it's enough to deprive gays of these rights.