Homosexual Marriage

[Nikkums]

Quote by: italiangm There are many couples without kids in which one spouse stays at home. There are a number of reasons for this. For some it's about tradition. One spouse manages the household. Perhaps one of the spouses is medically disabled, but in the opinion of an examiner, not enough to qualify under any private or givernment safety-net program. There are also entrepreneurs and executives that use their homes to entertain customers and prospects. The stay-at-home spouse participates in this process by managing the household and preparing for these events. Some debaters here want you to believe only opposite-sex stay-at-home spouses are sacrificing job opportunities to manage the needs of the employed spouse and the household. It's a lie. But let's get to the practical side of the matter... Since you bring up taxes, let's consider the married-filing-jointly option. Here, the household's total tax is designed to be less to help balance out the stay-at-home spouse's sacrifice. All things being equal, that sacrifice is identical for a stay-at-home spouse regardless if they're in an opposite-sex or same-sex marriage. Yet, the married-filing-jointly option is not available to same-sex spouses due to federal DoMA, which does not recognize same-sex marriage for most federal purposes, including the assessment of federal taxes. Let's assume the same-sex spouse is disabled. A percentage of medical expenses may be deductible if the disabled person had an income. Oftentimes, they don't. With opposite-sex married couples, medical expenses are deductible using the married-filing-jointly option for those expenses that exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. There are many more inequalities not related to taxes. Private, often heavily regulated businesses take their cues (or outright take advantage) from state and federal laws when it comes to the recognition of marriage and treatment of benefits. Almost all health and vehicle insurance premiums are calculated as separate policies for same-sex couples, while opposite-sex married couples get a reduced rate. In the case where an employer does recognize same-sex couples, and premiums/benefits are paid by an employer, the employee's portion of the premium/benefit is considered tax-exempt. However, due to laws that only recognize opposite-sex married couples, the spouse portion of the premium/benefit is taxed and deducted from the employee's paycheck. This doesn't happen with opposite-sex married couples.

Thank you for taking the time to list these. I hear, repeatedly, of the benefits to marriage, which change from country to country, so the term "benefits" can mean different things to different people.
I personally do not feel that any group is more or less deserving than another when it comes to these "perks".
But, to entertain the opposition, I must ask:
Is there any evidence as to WHY married couples are given these benefits?? AND Does the US have an "equivilent to spouse" option? (in some, but not all, cases this can mean a working parent of an adult child, who may or may not be working, can claim them as ETS and recieve tax breaks or medical benefits through employers ect that are similar if not the same as "filing jointly" option, only for relatives rather than mates)

[italiangm]

Quote by: Nikkums Is there any evidence as to WHY married couples are given these benefits??

If you're speaking of opposite-sex married couples, yes. But the answer is one based on the couple being irresponsible when it comes to conception.

If an opposite-sex couple becomes pregnant due to sloppy contraception, there's a tax advanatge in the case of a stay-at-home spouse if they marry.

Taken a step further, a couple that is careless enough to become preganant, is also more likely to be financially irresponsible. Without the married tax advantage due to a stay-at-home spouse, the probability of the couple needing to apply for other taxpayer-subsidiy programs increases.

So subsidize the lack of personal responsibility at the front end by reducing taxes -- or-- subsidize it on the back end with support programs. Either way, it's taxpayer-funded support of irresponsible behavior.

Quote by: Nikkums AND Does the US have an "equivilent to spouse" option? (in some, but not all, cases this can mean a working parent of an adult child, who may or may not be working, can claim them as ETS and recieve tax breaks or medical benefits through employers ect that are similar if not the same as "filing jointly" option, only for relatives rather than mates)

Not that I'm aware of, unless you consider adult adoptions a form of "ETS". Adoptees are considered dependents, which can trigger a number of benefits if certain requirements are met.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Nikkums;364159[quote ]It IS a huge thing, but it is not confined to marriage, and benefits are awarded to those with children, regardless of their marital status, age, sex. The steps have been taken to protect families, and most importantly, children. What does marriage have to do with that?

What I think DM was saying is that marriage provided stability for the family. Heteros are the one's who have the kids that will provide society with the taxes for future generations.

Which tradition? The tradition of betrothing our children? The tradition of awarding husbands custody of wives? The tradition of only WHITE marriages?? Since when has tradition, when it comes to marriage, been something worth upholding?

It's a tradition people in this country like. You're talking about rubbish type stuff. The institution of marriage is a tradition that started long before Christ, but Christ made it a sacred institution, so lets say that was the starting point for the tradition, which goes back over 2,000 years. It is a tradition. Our country has redefined who can get married, but it has remained one man, one woman.

We? Who is we?

The United States. This argument is tied to religion. You can't really separate that aspect of it.

Religion has long retired it's monopoly over marriage. Religion only has a place in the marriages of those who allow it for themselves and is completely individual. We do not enforce religious beliefs onto people.. don't bring it into this debate please.

I don't think it has, not in the US. A good number of people in the US are religious to some degree. They may not follow it completely, but they still stick to a lot of the teachings. You can't disallow that, and neither can the politicians.

I still say we will have to become more secular, and that's the bottom line, for homosexual marriage to become the law of the land.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I still say we will have to become more secular, and that's the bottom line, for homosexual marriage to become the law of the land.

Is that a bad thing? The laws and government are already ostensibly secular; is there a reason the people shouldn't be secular as well, at least when it comes to civil and social interaction? Why should your beliefs have any influence on your politics?

[italiangm]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Why should your beliefs have any influence on your politics?

How can it not?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: italiangm How can it not?

You're right; sorry, I should have been more specific. Your specific dogmatic beliefs should not have any influence on your politics, beyond the ways in which they help to form your morals. Your morals most definitely have an influence on your politics. But whether or not you think someone will go to heaven when they die should not have any influence on your position on laws pertaining to those people. Laws should be based on societal criteria, not spiritual ones. That, I think, is a position that a religious person can hold, and it is one people in this country should strive for.

[italiangm]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint You're right; sorry, I should have been more specific. Your specific dogmatic beliefs should not have any influence on your politics, beyond the ways in which they help to form your morals. Your morals most definitely have an influence on your politics. But whether or not you think someone will go to heaven when they die should not have any influence on your position on laws pertaining to those people. Laws should be based on societal criteria, not spiritual ones. That, I think, is a position that a religious person can hold, and it is one people in this country should strive for.

What you describe was mostly true for many years until preachers of megachurches starting practicing politics from the pulpit.

What resulted is a very vocal subset of the popoulation that unrelentingly believe their marching orders come from a higher power, not the constitution or jurisprudence.

Meanwhile, those of us that don't march to this group's drummer have become the unfortunate targets of legislation from the pulpit.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe You're talking about rubbish type stuff.

No, Nikkums is indeed historically correct.

If it is your desire to have the current characteritics of marriage stay as they are, that's one thing.

But to say the characteristics that have defined marriage since its beginnings never changed is, as you say, 'rubbish'. 20 minutes in a history book about the subject will prove that marriage has meant different things to different people over time.

I suspect the definition of marriage can and will be redefined in the future, to fit the whims of a given culture.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: italiangm What you describe was mostly true for many years until preachers of megachurches starting practicing politics from the pulpit. What resulted is a very vocal subset of the popoulation that unrelentingly believe their marching orders come from a higher power, not the constitution or jurisprudence. Meanwhile, those of us that don't march to this group's drummer have become the unfortunate targets of legislation from the pulpit.

True; isn't that interesting? Do you see those megachurches as expedients aimed at money, or power, or both? Because I can't believe that they are actually intended to promote religious ideals; as far as I know, all religions teach humility, and the conceit that 50,000 people must come to ONE church because only Reverend Haggard can tell tehm the TRUE word seems rather, well, conceited. Something based so clearly on a contradiction has to have a more insidious motive.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: italiangm How can it not?

Exactly!

[italiangm]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint True; isn't that interesting? Do you see those megachurches as expedients aimed at money, or power, or both?

There are different points of view depending where you sit.

From the average person in the congregation's point of view, they:

[1] want to follow their laws in exchange for eternal afterlife in a good place
[2] desire friends and fellowship of people with like mindsets
[3] desire to do good works for their fellow man
[4] look to their ministers for interpretation and guidance to obtain [1]
[5] are willing to pay for such guidance and good works
[6] are willing to recruit/convert/save new members with 'the good news' and/or guilt and fear

From the megachurch minister's point of view, they:

[1] are unusually effective/compelling speakers with powerful presence/looks
[2] live out an easy existence
[3] know others seek something to believe in/pass troubles to
[4] know others will pay for guidance/process to provide {2]
[5] enjoy centralized power and control from the pulpit
[6] know there is money in numbers
[7] will use fear and intiimidation to achieve {1] thru [6] including political manipulation

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Because I can't believe that they are actually intended to promote religious ideals; as far as I know, all religions teach humility, and the conceit that 50,000 people must come to ONE church because only Reverend Haggard can tell tehm the TRUE word seems rather, well, conceited. Something based so clearly on a contradiction has to have a more insidious motive.

There's power in numbers. Power within a large congregation's self-perpetuating social networking circles, Power to fund a minister's salary, erect a huge edifice, sell materials at a profit to promote their message, and still have a bit left over to fit in a few good works to justify their existence. Once set in motion, it's the ideal self-marketing machine that pays very little tax and enjoys generous discounts.

A small congregation can barely afford their minister, let alone the rest.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: italiangm No, Nikkums is indeed historically correct. If it is your desire to have the current characteritics of marriage stay as they are, that's one thing. But to say the characteristics that have defined marriage since its beginnings never changed is, as you say, 'rubbish'. 20 minutes in a history book about the subject will prove that marriage has meant different things to different people over time. I suspect the definition of marriage can and will be redefined in the future, to fit the whims of a given culture.

Some of that stuff still goes on in some cultures, and may have happened to a small degree even in the states, but it was a different time, it's not now,

The institution of marriage between one man and one woman hasn't changed all that much. Usually in the US a man and a woman choose each other, marry, and have kids. There can be parental involvement, but this is highly unusual. Parents may have influenced their children, but betrothing their kids, naw. I'm talking US history here. We come from an English background, but even so, this is the USA. Marriage in the states has been one man, one woman, everything else has been over-ruled.

Marriage can change, and may change suddenly in the next few years. This is how it goes. It can change, but up until now, it has had religious implications that go back to before Christ. Apparently even then it was one man, one woman. There may have been polygamy in some cultures, but not in the English background that we come from, and even further to the Judean. How they got together, who knows. They probably didn't have the methods to meet people back 2,000 yrs ago, so Mom and Dad may have set you up with a doofus, or for money, or for whatever reason, but it was still religious, and one man, one woman. Not two men, or two women. Just didn't happen.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint True; isn't that interesting? Do you see those megachurches as expedients aimed at money, or power, or both? Because I can't believe that they are actually intended to promote religious ideals; as far as I know, all religions teach humility, and the conceit that 50,000 people must come to ONE church because only Reverend Haggard can tell tehm the TRUE word seems rather, well, conceited. Something based so clearly on a contradiction has to have a more insidious motive.

I don't think it's so much about power, but it is about having enough money to do more things. They can go on retreats. Nice retreats. Have a really big church, pay for a good minister. All that.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Is that a bad thing? The laws and government are already ostensibly secular; is there a reason the people shouldn't be secular as well, at least when it comes to civil and social interaction? Why should your beliefs have any influence on your politics?

Religion is a business, so I don't see it falling to the wayside. There's lots of money in it.

[Dirty Name]

Society. It's not the 50s any more.

Lazy. What about society has changed that makes marriage an outdated concept? And why haven't millions of married couples been informed of this change?

Quote by: isherwood Look wayyy back in this thread. I've stated I'm not even sure why gays want to get involved in the concept of marriage.

I'm not sure why you bother to participate in the discussion then. Sounds like your point of view is more valid under a different topic.

So long, Isherwood.

Quote by: Fushigi Does the state have a compelling reason to encourage or protect artificial insemination for hetero couples?

Excellent question. No, it does not. The state doesn't need to encourage procreation at all. It merely needs to ensure that procreation happens in the best possible environment, and we as a society get the best "bang for the buck" with the institution of marriage as it currently exists.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint It would be valid, if you could prove both of your arguments true: that the marriage benefits successfully promote stable marriages, AND that the children of those marriages made more stable by the marriage benefits and not by other means such as religion or social mores are better off in some societally beneficial way than children whose families were not made more stable by government marriage incentives. So, can you prove those? Or just deflect me cleverly and pretend you've won the argument?

Wordy. Very wordy. Lots of clauses in this little contract you've written. Let's see if we can figure out what part of my argument you don't understand. Because my argument really isn't as complex as you are trying to make it out to be.

You claim my argument should prove:

1) that the marriage benefits successfully promote stable marriages

2) that the children of those marriages (are) made more stable by the marriage benefits

3) marriage stability cannot be attributed to other means such as religion or social mores

4) that the offspring are better off in some societally beneficial way than children whose families were not made more stable by government marriage incentives

Is that about it, in a nutshell? Let me know.

Quote by: Captain Chaos We have tax breaks for kids. That is enough.

You are now essentially arguing to do away with financial marriage benefits altogether. Aside from those benefits, gay couples can replicate virtually all other benefits. Thus, you are essentially wanting not to promote gay marriage, but rather to strip married couples of financial benefits.

Why? Because it's "unfair"? You'll NEVER get a majority of the country to agree to that argument. Have fun trying. =)

You see, whenever I get you people to admit that this is your fundamental position, I always know I have won the battle for public opinion. Volconvoans may not agree, but the majority of middle America sure as hell will.

DMs point is that we should restrict marriage to hetero couples because they need the extra money to help them stay stable in case they have kids by accident.

No, again you're wrong about what my "point" is.

Tweaking only a few of your own words, I'll summarize it for you.

We should restrict marriage to hetero couples to assist them in forming stable relationships because they are very likely to have children.

The "accidental pregnancy" claim that you've erroneously siezed on was one answer to a specific question about my argument. It's certainly not the central theme.

Quote by: Nikkums the ONLY people who recieve any sort of tax benefit from marriage are the couples where one spouse stays at home (assumably to raise children).

Now you're getting it.

NOW, assuming that homosexual couples "can't have kids" as DM seems to think

Homosexual couples probably could have kids - as long as one is male and the other female, and the guy closed his eyes and imagined being with someone else.

But I guarantee you with 100% accuracy that no same-sex couple has EVER had a child without involving a third party, and that third party involvement is not something that we as a society have any compelling reason to promote or care about in any way whatsoever.

People should be free to decide whatever they want. But that doesn't mean they should be free to do whatever they want AND qualify for certain benefits.

Wouldn't this be in the governments best interest?

It would be in the government's financial best interest, certainly. But that's a one-dimensional look at a situation that is far more complex.

How is this "unfair" to heterosexual couples??

That's not even my point. My argument doesn't really touch on the issue of fairness, it focuses on the fact that there is no REASON to recognize same-sex couples because their sexual unions are inconsequential from the state's point of view.

Contrast this with heterosexual couples, whose sexual unions can be highly significant to the state, and you begin to see the basis for my argument.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Tradition is definitely the biggest reason for heterosexual marriage only.

I don't see it that way. Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy.

That said, tradition should not be brushed aside without a second thought. We should ask ourselves, why does this tradition exist? Often, the answer is because our ancestors already figured out what works and what doesn't.

WHY it works is the part we are debating now.

And people raising kids get tax breaks.

And what of those who make sacrifices (that are beneficial to society) in preparation for raising children, but who never successfully carry a child to term?

Please don't focus with laser-like intensity on this single aspect of my argument, either. There's a lot more to it than just this.

What does marriage have to do with that?

Oh for God's sake... go to the inner city and take a look at the single moms, then drive to the suburbs and look at the two parent homes and tell me which parenting method is more beneficial to society.

Stop acting like you are clueless about the relationship between stable families and marriage.

Quote by: Nikkums Religion has long retired it's monopoly over marriage. Religion only has a place in the marriages of those who allow it for themselves and is completely individual. We do not enforce religious beliefs onto people.. don't bring it into this debate please.

Your side is just as guilty of trying to label me and my argument as "religious."

Sorry Nikkums, I know YOU aren't implying that, I just wanted to make the observation.

Quote by: italiangm Some debaters here want you to believe only opposite-sex stay-at-home spouses are sacrificing job opportunities to manage the needs of the employed spouse and the household. It's a lie. But let's get to the practical side of the matter...

This is one of the most shameful characterizations of the argument I've seen.

Italiangm, you know damned well that a gay guy sitting at home preparing for a party on behalf of his gay lover:

a) is exceedingly more rare than heterosexual couples who do the same thing

and

b) has ZERO potential for becoming pregnant in the future.

Again, the argument is about creating stable relationships among sexually procreative couples, regardless of their current parental status.

And YES, a large number of stay-at-home women exist in this country who eventually get pregnant, while ZERO gay stay-at-home men ever get pregnant.

Your anecdotal argument is one of the worst I've ever seen. You're letting your frustrations cloud your logic.

There are many more inequalities not related to taxes.

So what? I've argued all along that gay couples and straight couples AREN'T equal anyway. So naturally there will be inequalities when it comes to benefits.

Private, often heavily regulated businesses take their cues (or outright take advantage) from state and federal laws when it comes to the recognition of marriage and treatment of benefits.

And when/if the gay market becomes lucrative enough for them to change their policies, those business will change their approach to attract homosexuals. Either the market isn't as big as some would have you believe, or the demand just isn't that great for the products and services you are talking about.

Almost all health and vehicle insurance premiums are calculated as separate policies for same-sex couples, while opposite-sex married couples get a reduced rate.

Again, if the gay market was lucrative enough, insurance companies would alter their policies to attract more gay couples. Ultimately, however, this is a business decision, not a legal question.

In the case where an employer does recognize same-sex couples, and premiums/benefits are paid by an employer, the employee's portion of the premium/benefit is considered tax-exempt. However, due to laws that only recognize opposite-sex married couples, the spouse portion of the premium/benefit is taxed and deducted from the employee's paycheck. This doesn't happen with opposite-sex married couples.

Yep. As it should be.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Wordy. Very wordy. Lots of clauses in this little contract you've written. Let's see if we can figure out what part of my argument you don't understand. Because my argument really isn't as complex as you are trying to make it out to be. You claim my argument should prove: 1) that the marriage benefits successfully promote stable marriages 2) that the children of those marriages (are) made more stable by the marriage benefits 3) marriage stability cannot be attributed to other means such as religion or social mores 4) that the offspring are better off in some societally beneficial way than children whose families were not made more stable by government marriage incentives Is that about it, in a nutshell? Let me know.

Oh, very well done, sir! You managed to put me off yet again, so you could squeeze in another post berating your opponents and still not offer one iota of proof that your argument is valid. And my compliments for the offhanded insult to my intelligence, as well! I do understand your argument, but I'm sorry you don't understand my objection to it.

Now that you have taken my words and broken them down into a handy little simplistic numbered list, yes, that is my request. Prove those four points, with empirical evidence, in order that we may believe you are making a valid argument here. Please.

[fushigi]

Quote by: fushigi Does the state have a compelling reason to encourage or protect artificial insemination for hetero couples?

Quote by: Dirty Excellent question. No, it does not. The state doesn't need to encourage procreation at all. It merely needs to ensure that procreation happens in the best possible environment, and we as a society get the best "bang for the buck" with the institution of marriage as it currently exists.

Still, it would be a better environment for children of a woman in a lesbian relationship if her parents were married for all concerned. I believe these children would be better off if their parents were married, just as I believe ALL children are better off when their parents are married.

[syc-sadist]

just like to correct "dirty name" from a while back

changes made to the following......"even if the woman sacrifices a potentially lucrative career in order to prepare a good home for child rearing?"


changed too......
'even if a Woman or MAN sacrifices a potentially lucrative career in order to prepare a good home for child rearing"


now don't forget it can work both ways and should :)