Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Should they and do they are two completely different things!! You are claiming they DO care based on YOUR belief that they SHOULD care. PROVE that they DO care and I will consider you coherent! I am tired of you talking out of your a**.. PROVE something or your position is completely irrelevent to this discussion.

Yak, yak. Blah, blah.

I come in here every night, and I answer criticism from 8,9,10 people on this subject without any help.

Now Nikkums comes in here demanding I dance like a good little monkey or he won't answer my questions.

Nikkums, the question is simple:

What individual legal right - available to straight people - are homosexuals denied?

Like you see your own colleagues saying, we aren't here to PROVE anything to each other. We are here to sharpen our own understanding of the issue and our own skill in debating it.

So either defend your own position or shut up. I defend my argument virtually every night from attacks on multiple fronts. While most folks don't agree with me, I think most would at least grant me the fact that I don't lay my argument out for people to pick apart.

Like what you see in my signature, it's time for my opponents to lay out an argument "For Gay Marriage" or "Against Traditional Marriage," so that I can spend the next six months picking the ever-loving hell out of it.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name Just because a lesbian gets pregnant with a turkey baster doesn't mean the government should incentivize that behavior.

But you claim the government is giving straight couples incentives to do the very same thing by allowing them marriage and thus the benefits and tax breaks that go along with it. How do straight couples benefit more than homosexual couples do?

[Dirty Name]

But you claim the government is giving straight couples incentives to do the very same thing by allowing them marriage and thus the benefits and tax breaks that go along with it. How do straight couples benefit more than homosexual couples do?

No, straight couples, married or not, engage in sex and produce children.

Lesbian couples don't do that.

Quote by: Nikkums What legal right - available to straight couples - are gays denied? TO GET MARRIED!! Legally married, just like everyone else. Not jump through hoops, and pay more money, and have to change birth certificates inorder to adopt their spouses name. To not be treated like a second class citizen because the dynamics of their personal relationship are slightly different from the "all american family" that does even exist anyway.

This question was asked the wrong way. Of course, couples don't have rights, only individuals do, so that was my fault. The correctly stated question is:

What legal right - available to other individuals - are gays denied?

and have to change birth certificates inorder to adopt their spouses name.

For the record, straight people have to file paperwork to legally change their last name too, even when they are married.

To not be treated like a second class citizen because the dynamics of their personal relationship are slightly different from the "all american family" that does even exist anyway.

And of course the same could be said of polygamous couples and yes, even a brother and sister couple.

I'm still waiting on:

The Case For Gay Marriage

Does anyone want to step up to the plate, or is your entire argument based on the ability to scream "homophobe!"?

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name Yak, yak. Blah, blah. I come in here every night, and I answer criticism from 8,9,10 people on this subject without any help.

It must be so difficult to create elaborate stories all by yourself :rolleyes:

Now some 44 post noob comes in here demanding I dance like a good little monkey or he won't answer my questions.

Frustrating isn't it..

Nikkums, the question is simple: What legal right - available to straight people - are homosexuals denied?

and I answered it! To have a different process for one group of people to accomplish a lower grade copy of the same status is prejudice and descriminating to that couple on and individual level.

Like you see your own colleagues saying, we aren't here to PROVE anything to each other. We are here to sharpen our own understanding of the issue and our own skill in debating it.

How can you have a valid position without any research or PROOF to back it up? Without it you are stating opinion and propaghanda.

So either defend your own position or shut up. I defend my argument virtually every night from attacks on multiple fronts. While most folks don't agree with me, I think most would at least grant me the fact that I don't lay my argument out for people to pick apart.

Take your own advice. Refusing to provide anything to back up your claim is not defending your argument. Do ANY folks actually agree with you?

Like what you see in my signature, it's time for my opponents to lay out an argument "For Gay Marriage" or "Against Traditional Marriage," so that I can spend the next six months picking the ever-loving hell out of it.

I personally believe society as a whole became "against traditional marriage" when divorce became legal :rolleyes:

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name What legal right - available to other individuals - are gays denied?

Which state/country are we speaking of?

For the record, straight people have to file paperwork to legally change their last name too, even when they are married.

No, actually, they do not. A marriage certificate, once signed, legally changes the name of the spouse who prefers to do so. If a couple is to go through a "union" the spouse who prefers to change their name has to complete a regular "name change" and their birth certificate must be changed to reflect the new name. A straight married couple does not have to change their birth certificate.

The Case For Gay Marriage

This is a global issue, not just one the united states is dealing with. The dynamics/interests of the US tax system is not relevent to a problem the entire world is facing. Homosexuals are globally petitioning for their right to marry, and deserve that right equally in all countries.
Marriage would allow them the adopt the children of their spouse. Custody can not be shared between "friends". All children deserve the stability of a two parent home.
Marriage is most commonly for the purpose of uniting two people and providing a social/legal symbol for their commitment to eachother. Without marriage, homosexuals are not privy this social stance, and therefore implies their relationship to be invalid.
Just as homosexuals would reap the benefits of marriage, they would also be forced to suffer the downfalls (eg. incurring responsibility for their spouses debt after their death).
The only difference between a hetero and a homosexual marriage is what happens in the bedroom behind closed doors. Homosexuals work, procreate, pay taxes, and with the same percentage as heterosexuals, prove themselves to be a productive and positive influence to society on an economic/social level. The contributions to society are equal between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and therefore they should be granted an equal status in return.

Quote by: wikipedia.org The participants in a marriage usually seek social recognition for their relationship, and many societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. The reasons people marry vary widely, but usually include one or more of the following: the public declaration of love; the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations and procreation; legal, social and economic stability; and the education and nurturing of children Marriage is not a prerequisite for having children. In the U.S., the National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 1992, 30.1 percent of births were to unmarried women.[13][14] Some married couples remain childless by choice or due to infertility, age, or other factors preventing reproduction

Likewise, slave marriages in the United States were not binding, so that many contrabands escaping slavery during the American Civil War sought official status for their marriages. Among the rights distinguishing serfdom from slavery was the right to enter a legally recognizable marriage.

Homosexuals are not the only ones in history to consider legal recognition of marriage to be a status of equality in society...

[Nikkums]

OH, I also found this on wikipedia. I thought some of you might find this interesting as well

In most countries, the tax-rate structure is progressive, that is, a higher income pays a higher rate of tax. In such a context, income averaging is advantageous to the taxpayer. Married couples normally combine their income which, when the spouses' monetary incomes are disparate, affords them the advantage of this income averaging. To compensate for this somewhat, many countries with progressive taxes enact higher tax rates on that averaged income (married couples in such jurisdictions pay more than twice the tax of a single person making half of the income). Couples with disparate incomes (which is the case for a stay-at-home spouse married to a "breadwinner") will gain a tax advantage from income averaging. However, married couples having roughly equal personal incomes gain nothing from such income averaging yet remain subject to the higher tax bracket (for married filing jointly) and thus pay more total tax than they would as two single persons. This is commonly called the marriage penalty in the tax laws. Moreover, when the rates applied by the tax code are not based on averaging the incomes, but rather on the sum of individuals' incomes, higher rates will definitely apply for two-earner households in progressive tax systems. This is most often the case with high-income taxpayers and is another situation where some consider there to be a marriage penalty.

This explains clearly that not all marriages are benefitial tax wise. Marriages where one spouse stays home to raise children does indeed benefit from tax breaks, whether or not this is intended to provide stability is irrelevent. The fact is, only married couples with children are recieving this tax break, couples who do not have children, regardless of their sexual orientation, are penalized. Allowing homosexuals to marry would in no way grant them tax breaks, unless they had children, in which case they are as entitled to these breaks as any other couple would be.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dirty Name My how cynical you are. And of course I disagree. The method DOES matter, and the government has no interest in encouraging procreation where one biological parent isn't present.

The government is here to serve us, not control and manipulate us.

You must come from a very authoritarian mindset, dirty name.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You must come from a very authoritarian mindset, dirty name.

Or the people that pay him do.

[Nikkums]

While I am at it..

My arguement against "traditional" marriage. (if there is such a thing)

Marriage was originally a method to bestow new ownership of property ( women being said property.). It involved the male buying a wife by providing a dowry (or sometimes a bride price) to her family. In turn, she becomes property of her husband. Should the wife become a widow, not only was she still property of his estate, she had no legal grounds to any other property the couple owned.
Often, both parties are expected to be virgins before their marriage, but in many cultures women were more strictly held to this standard.
Marriage did not involve divorce, and in some cultures had an age limit for women.
Marriage was not available to inter-racial or inter-faith couples.
Marriage was not a legal status, but a religious ceremony.
Marriage was often arranged by the families of the couple inorder to ensure their stability/advancement on a social and sometimes economic level.

These are all things that our society has changed to accomidate the rights of its citizens, and rightly so. Redefining marriage is not a new concept.

Currently other issues, besides the inclusion of homosexuals, are pressing governments to redefine, once again, the dynamics of marriage.
One example would be father's rights, especially in the instance of a "no-fault" divorce where mothers are granted custody by default.

Marriage has never truly had a concrete definition and therefore can not be considered "traditional" or non-traditional. Marriage is a concept that we have created as human beings, and has constantly and consistantly evolved to adapt to our ever changing society/culture.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Incorrect.

Don't make me go back and find the entry stating you work(ed) for a conservative organization that used the information you obtained in this forum to provide talking points about the issue of same-sex marriage. I didn't dream this up, you know. Just fess up to your true purpose for utilizing this forum.

Quote by: Dirty Name The assertions are mine.

But do you actually subscribe to them outside of your employers need for you to formulate them as part of your job?

Quote by: Dirty Name Such as the fact that they don't experience pregnancy and childbirth within their relationship - a glaring inequality.

Now's not the time to divert from your usual diatribe. You mean unplanned pregnancy and childbirth. There are many, many gayfolk that experience planned pregnancy and childbirth within their relationship.

Quote by: Dirty Name I would argue that there are no gaps at all, but, like you, I too am here to demonstrate to the newbies the flaws in the "homosexuality is immoral vs. shut up, you religous bigot, we want free money" debate.

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

Quote by: Dirty Name The bottom line is that there is no compelling interest for the government to encourage a child-rearing environment that requires a third party. In the event a lesbian intentionally impregnates herself, she has made a willful decision to purposefully deprive her child of the opportunity to be raised by the child's biological father.

Not always. The child's biological father is often granted rights, too, including the right of guardianship if something happens. You really are misinformed about the details.

Quote by: Dirty Name While there are examples of well-adjusted children raised intentionally without a biological father, and while people are certainly free to do so, there is no compelling reason to encourage and empower lesbians to engage in such behavior.

Nor is there any compelling reason to deny such engagement. You're way out of your league here.

Quote by: Dirty Name I challenge any of you people to explain how the public interest is served by encouraging such behavior.

That's simple. Children raised in a loving home often turn out to be model citizens. And in the case of gay households, kids tend not to be indoctrinated into parental prejudices that children from hetero households often receive.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name My how cynical you are. And of course I disagree. The method DOES matter, and the government has no interest in encouraging procreation where one biological parent isn't present.

Hear that, everyone? The government does not encourage artificial insemination!

All of you infertile men in heterosexual marriages, watch out. The government does not support your right to have a reproductive marriage.

[Zinkovich]

What legal right - available to straight couples - are gays denied?

Getting hitched isn't just romantic and symbolic. It's a good deal financially. For straight couples, married status is interwoven with legal and financial benefits for taxes, retirement, property ownership, inheritance, insurance rates, family and medical care, even car rentals. But for the thousands of gay and lesbian couples flocking to San Francisco to get married, whether they'll be granted the rights and privileges that come with marriage is up in the air. "We know we're not likely to get any benefits as a married couple; it's simply a statement," said Robin Marks, 41, waiting in line at City Hall to marry Dominique Bailey, 30, both of Roseville (Placer County). State recognition of the San Francisco same-sex unions will be argued in court in the days ahead. Meanwhile, registered domestic partners in California currently have 15 of the same rights as married couples, such as hospital visitation and the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner. A new domestic-partner law to be implemented on Jan. 1, 2005, will grant almost the full gamut of marital rights except joint filing of state taxes. Still, even the new law falls far short of the privileges accorded married couples under federal law. The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act precludes recognition of same- sex marriages. The federal government has compiled a 58-page list of 1,049 rights and responsibilities contingent on marriage. Many have enormous potential impact on people's lives: adoption, child custody, sponsorship of a non-American partner. Others have significant financial consequences: survivor's rights to Social Security benefits, tax-free inheritance of a spouse's estate. Some are small but telling: family discounts at national parks. "Without federal recognition of our relationships, domestic partnerships are fool's gold; they don't really provide couples with the security that comes with civil marriage," said Molly McKay, executive director of Marriage Equality California. When it comes to company-sponsored benefits, same-sex couples have made strides but still lag behind their straight counterparts. About a third of Fortune 500 companies offer full benefits to domestic partners. Unlike married people, however, employees in a domestic partnership must pay income tax on the value of health coverage extended to their partners. And many companies either don't cover domestic partners or provide only limited benefits. "My company has domestic partner benefits for health care only," said Susan Trainor, 40, a sales manager at Abbott Laboratories. The Redwood City resident clasped a bouquet of irises as she waited to apply for a marriage license with her partner of a decade, Ann Harty, 40. "My partner can't inherit my pension; she can't even drive my company car." Insurance is another area of disparity. An unmarried couple pays about 22 percent more for car insurance than a married one, according to Doug Heller of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. Homeowners insurers may require one partner to be treated as a renter. Life insurance firms can challenge one partner's "insurable interest" in the other. On Wednesday, state Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, introduced a bill, the California Insurance Equality Act, requiring insurers to offer the same coverage to domestic partners as they do to spouses. "Insurance protection cannot be taken for granted," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay civil rights group that is sponsoring the bill, along with John Garamendi, state insurance commissioner. "When you have community property and joint responsibility for debt, you should be treated the same as married couples." The same-sex couples now lining up to tie the knot could face a Catch-22 when it comes time to file their 2004 taxes. It's illegal for a married person to file as a single person or for someone to use different marital statuses on their state and federal taxes. "We're advising people that they should file both ways, pay the higher of the two taxes and include a letter about why they did what they did," said Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Her group's report on issues for same-sex couples getting married in San Francisco is available at NCLR : Home. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service declined to comment. When one partner dies, the law offers little consolation for a surviving same-sex partner. Gay-rights advocates tell poignant stories of people who lost their homes and were left destitute after a partner of many years died. Often they were hit with huge tax bills for their partner's estate -- married couples inherit from each other tax-free -- and weren't entitled to inherit Social Security or federal pensions. "If Dale predeceases me, I won't be able to keep the house because I can't afford the taxes," said Patrick LoChiatto, 46, waiting in line with his partner, Dale Risden, 56. The Oakland residents, who own a landscape and architectural firm in San Francisco, have been together for 23 years. Since San Francisco's crop of newlyweds can't count on their unions being recognized, estate planners and financial advisors said they need to take extra steps to protect themselves. "Domestic partners need a trust, they need durable powers of attorney for financial and health, probably a cohabitation agreement," said Jill Hollander, who owns Financial Connections, a Berkeley firm specializing in financial planning for gay and lesbian couples. [b]To be sure, marriage carries burdens: liability for a spouse's debts, potential requirements for spousal support and child support; sometimes married people end up paying higher taxes. Advocates of same-sex marriage say they are eager to share the penalties as well as the perks. The starry-eyed couples massed at City Hall seem acutely aware of how an unmarried state penalizes them, even though that's not why they're lining up to wed. "Our taxes are ridiculous," said Rose Zamudio, 44, waiting to marry Sharon McAuley, 42. "Our lawyer and accountant fees are bigger because we're not married." They've had to take steps to safeguard their joint business, Tuscan Gardens in Petaluma, where they also live. But their wedding day wasn't a time to dwell on that. "We're not getting married for money; it's for love," Zamudio said just before she held hands with McAuley under the City Hall dome and wiped away tears as they recited their wedding vows after eight years together.

WEDDING PERKS: Married couples save on inheritance, insurance

Read the bold. As you can see, the difference can be one between a comfortable widow and a homeless widow.

[Zinkovich]

Here is a unbiased, objective government produced list of over a thousand perks and benefits granted to only legally married couples: http://www.gao.gov/atext/d04353r.txt

Your argument is weak on the front of there being no significant benefits, Dirty Name.

[Dirty Name]

No, actually, they do not. A marriage certificate, once signed, legally changes the name of the spouse who prefers to do so. If a couple is to go through a "union" the spouse who prefers to change their name has to complete a regular "name change" and their birth certificate must be changed to reflect the new name. A straight married couple does not have to change their birth certificate.

Tell that to my wife who had to jump through a number of hoops to get it done.

[Dirty Name]

The government is here to serve us, not control and manipulate us. You must come from a very authoritarian mindset, dirty name.

And you must get it through your head that in the United States of America, the government is OF, BY and FOR the people.

[Dirty Name]

Or the people that pay him do.

Get over this, already. I've changed jobs three times since you went ape on this last time. You might also want to review this: Fallacy: Ad Hominem

[Dirty Name]

Don't make me go back and find the entry stating you work(ed) for a conservative organization that used the information you obtained in this forum to provide talking points about the issue of same-sex marriage. I didn't dream this up, you know. Just fess up to your true purpose for utilizing this forum.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Regardless, dig it up. I'm pretty sure you've inferred a few things that you can't support from what I told you.

[Dirty Name]

There are many, many gayfolk that experience planned pregnancy and childbirth within their relationship.

No, there are ZERO. Every one of those "planned pregnancies" requires a third party.

Not always. The child's biological father is often granted rights, too, including the right of guardianship if something happens. You really are misinformed about the details.

Hardly. It's you that doesn't understand the definition of the word "couple" or the phrase "within the relationship." Are you now advocating polygamy? Sure sounds like it.

There is no compelling reason why such behavior should be encouraged. If it happens, fine. That's why we have child tax credits. But our society has no reason to encourage this.

Nor is there any compelling reason to deny such engagement. You're way out of your league here.

Out of my league. Hah. That's a good one. I presume you mean "encouragement" by the way.

In effect, you are saying that we should encourage people to have children but don't allow them to be raised by their biological father.

Why would we do this? I'm talking about the big picture here, as a society, not about the individual reasons one lesbian might feel compelled to do it.

And in the case of gay households, kids tend not to be indoctrinated into parental prejudices that children from hetero households often receive.

I'm not even sure what this means. I do know that I can produce studies showing that children benefit from the influence of having a fatherfigure in their lives, and that lesbian relationships exclude this.

[Dirty Name]

Here is a unbiased, objective government produced list of over a thousand perks and benefits granted to only legally married couples: http://www.gao.gov/atext/d04353r.txt Your argument is weak on the front of there being no significant benefits, Dirty Name.

List the significant benefits. I looked at your list and found a bunch of typical government perks for all sorts of unique circumstances, some of which are quite difficult to comprehend how they are related to marriage. For example:

Prohibition on providing certain benefits with respect to
persons who are fugitive felons.

Look, the bottom line on this particular subject is that I am certain the law, in all it's incomprehensible vastness, contains certain provisions that could be construed as unnecessarily discriminatory, and I'll even grant that homosexuals have a long way to go before the law considers their circumstances fairly.

But the answer to this problem is not to just declare gay couples the legal equivalent of heterosexual couples - because those two entities simply do not have the same needs nor provide the same benefit to society.