Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Waychel · Jan 16, 2005, 01:58 am

Starboy, I can only respond to your statement of, "you act as if America created marriage" with the reply: "You act as if America is barring homosexuals from being married in the first place, which is not the case." America may not have created marriage, but it DID create the laws surrounding marriage as it is to be recognized and considered by the judicial system.

As I've mentioned many times throughout the course of this topic, marriage as recognized by the court of law ultimately comes down to the issues of law surrounding marriage; mainly in consideration to divorce. Issues of alimony and community property came about NOT out of equality towards women exactly, but out of CONSIDERATION to their former state of co-dependancy and the social roles played by them in the course of a marriage. Should two independent homosexual men have the right to demand alimony from one another in the event of a divorce? This is but one question among hundreds of thousands which would need to be posed in the event that homosexual marriage were to become federally recognized.

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as absolute equality in the legal system with regards to marriage because income, dependancy and even GENDER are differences between spouses that are scrutinized by a court in a divorce case. Why is it that in the majority of custody cases, our courts side with the mother and not the father? The answer is that the majority of psychological studies conducted on children support the theory that children have a natural predisposition of dependancy and belonging towards their mother. Thus, the issue of gender ALONE tends to facilitate a court's decision on matters of custody (unless the mother can be proven to be unsuitable as a provider for her children, among other things). Our system may strive for equality, but this is just one example of how individuals are not equal in circumstance; the REAL issue at hand in such proceedings.

The only thing being "denied" towards married homosexuals are the following:

1.) The ability to list their spouse as a dependant on tax returns.
2.) The ability to lay claim to the social security benefits of their spouse.
3.) The ability to demand alimony or a share of community property in the event of a divorce with their spouse.

These are NOT institutions of marriage, but institutions of MARRIAGE LAW as it has been constructed BY the US.

"You act as if America created marriage"

Well, that may be because -- with regards to what homosexuals are actually being "denied" -- WE DID.

Jan 16, 2005, 01:58 am	#174 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Starboy, I can only respond to your statement of, "you act as if America created marriage" with the reply: "You act as if America is barring homosexuals from being married in the first place, which is not the case." America may not have created marriage, but it DID create the laws surrounding marriage as it is to be recognized and considered by the judicial system. As I've mentioned many times throughout the course of this topic, marriage as recognized by the court of law ultimately comes down to the issues of law surrounding marriage; mainly in consideration to divorce. Issues of alimony and community property came about NOT out of equality towards women exactly, but out of CONSIDERATION to their former state of co-dependancy and the social roles played by them in the course of a marriage. Should two independent homosexual men have the right to demand alimony from one another in the event of a divorce? This is but one question among hundreds of thousands which would need to be posed in the event that homosexual marriage were to become federally recognized. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as absolute equality in the legal system with regards to marriage because income, dependancy and even GENDER are differences between spouses that are scrutinized by a court in a divorce case. Why is it that in the majority of custody cases, our courts side with the mother and not the father? The answer is that the majority of psychological studies conducted on children support the theory that children have a natural predisposition of dependancy and belonging towards their mother. Thus, the issue of gender ALONE tends to facilitate a court's decision on matters of custody (unless the mother can be proven to be unsuitable as a provider for her children, among other things). Our system may strive for equality, but this is just one example of how individuals are not equal in circumstance; the REAL issue at hand in such proceedings. The only thing being "denied" towards married homosexuals are the following: 1.) The ability to list their spouse as a dependant on tax returns. 2.) The ability to lay claim to the social security benefits of their spouse. 3.) The ability to demand alimony or a share of community property in the event of a divorce with their spouse. These are NOT institutions of marriage, but institutions of MARRIAGE LAW as it has been constructed BY the US. "You act as if America created marriage" Well, that may be because -- with regards to what homosexuals are actually being "denied" -- WE DID. Last edited by Waychel; Jan 16, 2005 at 02:05 am.