Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

Quote by: tinybear No, no. I mean someone who used to post here but doesn't anymore.

Since you seem to have someone in mind, why not end the suspense and tell us? :)

[jose]

Quote by: tinybear Hey doesn't Lucifer remind you of someone?

yea darrell

[underbear1]

St. Lucifer I don't need your permission to be a faggot, any more than you need my permission to be a breeder pig!

Staying a vast distance from you would be my pleasure

[Jack]

"Say, is that a banana in your pocket or do you have an anomolous physiological condition?"

Until the birth of this thread, I would never have conceived that mostly straight folks could posses such a wide range of attitudes toward the union of two people who in the majority of cases would never touch their own lives. And I extend my gratitude for the tolerance of at least 268 members of this forum. No wonder I like it here so much.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Isherwood "Say, is that a banana in your pocket or do you have an anomolous physiological condition?" Until the birth of this thread, I would never have conceived that mostly straight folks could posses such a wide range of attitudes toward the union of two people who in the majority of cases would never touch their own lives. And I extend my gratitude for the tolerance of at least 268 members of this forum. No wonder I like it here so much.

Why thankyou Ish. I like you too. ; )

[Technosoul]

Here would be my opinion if I were a President or on the Supreme Court.

Gay marrages should come under the right for religious freedom. If any religion says it is okay for gays to get married - and if they say it is not a moral problem - and if that religion wants to conduct such a marrage union - then the state should honor that union the same as they would those of so-called straghts. Otherwise the state would be violating their "religious freedom" and their rights to have a religion that does not conform to the religion of the majority. And so being, in order not to force gays to join such a religion, they should also have the right to gain a secular marrage, so as to have equal rights with their religious counter parts. So being - legal rights must be affored to all those who proclaim or have proclaimed for them, that they are in fact married.

[Chilly]

Quote by: Mulkaccino Originally posted by Haik, The fact that there are laws against it is about as rediculous as the segregation laws in the early 1900s against blacks. I think in the next few generations of youth it will be more widely accepted. I think it's a litte more complex then that, but I agree for the most part. Marraige is a religious institution adopted by the government. So the religous get a say as to what the givernment does. That is the real issue and that is the problem.

I think it was the other way around. Initially, marriages were arranged and were for various reasons, including creating a union between tribes for more land or power and even countries. Money was the other big issue and women were simply property. Even in the OT there is no mention of Hebrews celebrating any sort of religious ceremony with regard to marriage, is there? I believe marriaged were initially legal/civil unions. In pagan and pantheist cultures, non-religious peoples had all sorts of non-religious "union" ceremonies to declare their union.

[Dirty Name]

Technosoul,

State recognition of marriage isn't a matter of religious freedom. It's a matter of family law. Using your argument, we could make a case for religious freedom for a wide variety of harmful behavior.

Further, the state is not now preventing same-sex couples from marrying. The state merely denies those "married couples" certain legal and economic benefits because same-sex couples do not qualify for the benefits. It's no different than the state denying an unemployed person the right to collect jobless benefits if the circumstances of their termination don't meet established state guidelines.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Using your argument, we could make a case for religious freedom for a wide variety of harmful behavior.

Except you've yet to establish that same-sex marriage would be harmful behavior.

[Dirty Name]

Except you've yet to establish that same-sex marriage would be harmful behavior.

No, same sex marriage has nothing to do with the analogy I am drawing using his religious freedom argument, I was merely taking his logic to the extreme. First, he has to establish that religious freedom gives us carte blanche to do whatever one wishes.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Dirty Name Technosoul, State recognition of marriage isn't a matter of religious freedom. It's a matter of family law. Using your argument, we could make a case for religious freedom for a wide variety of harmful behavior. Further, the state is not now preventing same-sex couples from marrying. The state merely denies those "married couples" certain legal and economic benefits because same-sex couples do not qualify for the benefits. It's no different than the state denying an unemployed person the right to collect jobless benefits if the circumstances of their termination don't meet established state guidelines.

IT is nice to see freedom of speech at work in our democracy, you have a right to express that opinon, I do not agree. And stand firm behind how I would rule this case if I were a judge on the Supreme Court. To say that "religious beleief systems" have not been involved during Bush's political attacks on the gay objectives would mean you have not been watching the news for a while. So I stand firm and what is right is just flat right. Lots of men and women get married with no intent for having children or a "family" and they get their rights, do the rights related to being married apply only to married men and women who have children? No. So the "family" or the "reproduction" theory you mentioned has nothing to do with this case. Manipulated morality does. But should not.

[belverron]

It's unconstitutional by the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment if traditional marriage serves no legitimate purpose. Some people find legitimate purposes under every rock, though.

Scalia would hate me for that opinion. Traditional morality be damned.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: belverron It's unconstitutional by the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment if traditional marriage serves no legitimate purpose. Some people find legitimate purposes under every rock, though. Scalia would hate me for that opinion. Traditional morality be damned.

Yeah, I'm going to marry my pet cat, she is the only that loves me.

[Derach]

can anyone give me some specifics about the legal benefits of being married? ... Are we talking about the tax deduction? That seems so minor to be insignificant ... what does it amount to? $1000 worth of writeoffs against taxes paid? Is it about med benefits? ... If someone's paying for a 'family plan' ... who cares if the family includes 2 men or 2 women running the show? ... as long as it's not 15 people on on the plan in the name of 'family' .... but that's already illegal .... Is this about making decisions for eachother about health and property? ... You have squabbles there regardless of the sexual orientation of people ... Heck, I've heard of mistresses going after property right in front of the 'legal' spouse! ... I just don't know what the big benefits of marriage are that are so desparately coveted by both sides of this issue. I've been married for 13 yrs and the only benefit is that my wife keeps the house clean, and that's not mandated by the state ... I guess my health ins covers her, but I pay the premiums for her being on it. I just don't know what the big deal is ... seems there are much bigger fish to fry than this issue.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Derach can anyone give me some specifics about the legal benefits of being married? ... Are we talking about the tax deduction? That seems so minor to be insignificant ... what does it amount to? $1000 worth of writeoffs against taxes paid? Is it about med benefits?

Depends what you consider minor.

During 2004, my same-sex household paid a bit more than $13,000 in taxes and health/property insurance premiums alone than a heterosexual married couple with no children under identical conditions would have. During 2005, it was a bit less than $13,800.

I haven't even included two sets of health insurance deductibles in those figures. Luckily, there were no property claims and their own separate deductibles. If we had been living in an area that got hit with a natural diaster... well... it hurts my brain to even think about it.

Now calculate a total figure based on 10 years. (We just celebrated our 10th anniversary.)

If I die tomorrow, my partner will inherit my estate. But since he isn't my family by blood or marriage, he'd also pay taxes that a family member would not. We've estimated the tax burden to be somewhere between $80,000 and $95,000, compared to $0 for a legal spouse.

I don't consider these numbers minor. Do you?

[Derach]

Italiangm - I don't buy it ... I don't know any heterosexual couples who are compelled to get married for tax reasons ... maybe one or two for insurance reasons ... but that's the fault of a broken insurance industry more so than the fault of the fed or state gov't. I wonder if you take ins premiums and deductions out of the equation, what would the difference in your tax expenditures between your current situation and if you were a married couple?

[underbear1]

Married couples receive 1000 benefits which singles and gays can not qualify for, the largest is probably survivor benefit of a spouse under Social Security, but pension funds, child custody, hospital visitation, are significant issues that aren't going to be dismissed under some bogus insurance arguement.

[Derach]

Underbear - I had no idea as a married man I enjoyed 1000 benefits ... one would think more hetero's would get married to enjoy all those bennies. Personally, I think that if Woody Allen can marry his step-daughter, and if Brittany Spears can marry a HS sweetheart for a day, whose to tell a couple of guys or girls they can't get married. The most painful parts of this equation must be in child custody (that's ugly in any case). Gay couples raising kids is a very sensitive issue... Little boys and girls both need a man(dad figure) and a woman(mom figure) to help them get through adolescense. I know I wouldn't have made it through those years without each of my parents in my life from a gender perspective. I know kids do it, but, by God, most of those kids have MAJOR challenges and issues in their lives (ADHD, spec ed, teen pregnancies) ... even more than 'average'. I have a son just getting into adolescense (he's 11 and a half, just noticing the girls in class) and I can't imagine him not having his mother and the special bond they share and the way she can tell him what girls think like and how they feel in a way I never knew, let alone could explain to my kid. I'm not saying I think gay couples should be banned from having kids, or anything like that, but the issue of raising children without the guidance of a member of each gender in the immediate household should not be taken lightly by anyone, including single parents or unmarried couples. I know there are a lot of scum bag hetero parents that have no business raising kids either, and I'd certainly prefer those kids be raised in a loving same-sex relationship. In the end though, to the VAST majority of people, there are inate male tendencies, and inate female tendencies that are best represented to children in the environment of a loving heterosexual couple. But in my perfect world, ice cream sundae's would be free and make you lose weight, too.

[underbear1]

Gays/lesbians create our families and extended families, some may be supportive blood relatives, many aren't blood relatives. Two men raising a child can have supportive womyn friends who will add the needed female element into our children's lives, and vise versa for lesbians with male friends.
I grew up with alcoholic parents and a father who provided handsomely for his family (he was a CEO), but he might as well have not had children, who he never had much emotional ties to, and too drunk to notice. So don't think because two opposite sex parents are together, that it's Ozzie and Harriet.........(Jesus, am I dating myself with that reference!)
btw. for the people not in their 50's, (think the Cosby family, or some other fabricated sacchrine straight family sit-com.)

[italiangm]

Quote by: Derach Italiangm - I don't buy it ...

I really don't care whether you "buy it" or not. Facts are facts. With the exception of gender pairing, people who are in the exact same relationship I am, with the same income and expenditures, are keeping almost $14k more per year. For those who claim that's the cost of the relationship, I say BULLSHIT! What it REALLY represents is the cost of living in a society that prides itself on equality, but doesn't walk the talk.

Quote by: Derach I don't know any heterosexual couples who are compelled to get married for tax reasons ...

Taxes had nothing to do with why my partner and I love each other. But it's hard to ignore the fact we don't get to share the same benefits as any married hetero couple in the same situation. Any hetero couple would be raising hell if the situation was reversed.

Quote by: Derach maybe one or two for insurance reasons ... but that's the fault of a broken insurance industry more so than the fault of the fed or state gov't. I wonder if you take ins premiums and deductions out of the equation, what would the difference in your tax expenditures between your current situation and if you were a married couple?

If a hetero married couple took the premiums and deduction out of the equation, they'd be in the same boat as my partner and I are now. What's your point?

Very few employers (and the insurance companies they contract with) recognize same-sex couples when it comes to benefits. When they do, it's often because they require a legally-recognized relationship (ie, marriage).