Homosexual Marriage

[banko]

People seem to be stuck on tax breaks. How about these rights that cost nothing to the government?

- the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner
- the right to visit their partner while in the hospital
- power-of-attorney for an incapacitated partner
- automatic inheritance of a deceased partner's assets, when the partner dies without a will
- the right to include a partner as a spouse on an employee's health insurance plan (after paying the appropriate extra premium, of course)
- the right to co-habitate

Currently if I were gay and lived with the same man for 20 years I would have none of the above rights. Seem fair?

[italiangm]

Quote by: banko People seem to be stuck on tax breaks.

Between insurance premiums and the inability to check "married-filing-jointly" on a single 1040, my same-sex household paid over $14,000 more last year than an opposite sex household under identical conditions (one income, no kids).

So kindly excuse my insensitivity if you don't think the loss of $14,000 in a single year to be worthy of one's focus. I'd be more than happy to accept voluntary contributions to make up those losses!

Which, if anyone is calculating, turns out to be a whopping $0.00004 per taxpayer.

Quote by: banko How about these rights that cost nothing to the government? - the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner - the right to visit their partner while in the hospital - power-of-attorney for an incapacitated partner - automatic inheritance of a deceased partner's assets, when the partner dies without a will - the right to include a partner as a spouse on an employee's health insurance plan (after paying the appropriate extra premium, of course) - the right to co-habitate

With the exception of health plan, we were able to work around those issues. Further, the right to co-habitate isn't much of an issue in Texas if you own the property you inhabit. Of course, it would've been nice not having to consult an attorney to ensure our documents would stand-up if contested.

Quote by: banko Currently if I were gay and lived with the same man for 20 years I would have none of the above rights. Seem fair?

Of course not! However, one of the issues re: same-sex marriage/civil unions is that non-gay folks will indeed pay a few pennies more to achieve equality with our hetero counterparts.

[banko]

Quote by: italiangm Between insurance premiums and the inability to check "married-filing-jointly" on a single 1040, my same-sex household paid over $14,000 more last year than an opposite sex household under identical conditions (one income, no kids).

So how does that impact the debate over allowing same sex marriages? Are your taxes going to go down because gays are now allowed to marry? Are they going to go up?

Quote by: italiangm Of course not! However, one of the issues re: same-sex marriage/civil unions is that non-gay folks will indeed pay a few pennies more to achieve equality with our hetero counterparts.

So non-gays or hetero's will have to pay more to acheive equality with other hetero's? This seems to be discussion about your tax system in the US. I still fail to see how it will affect the right of one gay person to have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner? Or any of the other issues I listed.

Gays are currently not allowed the things I listed in many places yet hetero couples are. That is not being treated equally. I know in Canada, allowing gays to marry hasn't changed my taxes any.

[italiangm]

Quote by: banko So how does that impact the debate over allowing same sex marriages? Are your taxes going to go down because gays are now allowed to marry? Are they going to go up?

Up by pennies.

Quote by: banko So non-gays or hetero's will have to pay more to acheive equality with other hetero's?

Well technically, everyone (gay and straight) will pay a few pennies more, taxwise.

Quote by: banko This seems to be discussion about your tax system in the US. I still fail to see how it will affect the right of one gay person to have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner? Or any of the other issues I listed.

First, you gotta know something about our Constitution to know why the money lie was used as leverage to prevent same sex marriage and the rights you've listed.

The US Constitution, Article 4, Section 1 says:

"Each State to Honor all Others -- Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

This means that a marriage -- including all rights and responsibilities thereof -- recognized by one state, is recognized in all states.

One of the many lies sold to taxpayers was that granting same sex marriage would be an expensive proposition. Taxpayers and businesses weren't interested in the details about equality or the actual costs involved, all they heard was they'd be shelling out more money in taxes and premiums and got all upset.

As same-sex marriage gained traction in a few states, Congress drummed up the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (FDoMA). Essentially, it allows only a marriage between man and woman to be recognized for all Federal purposes. Meanwhile, states began implementing their own DoMAs and even going as far as amending their state constitutions to define marriage.

All these actions essentially eliminated same sex marriage -- including the rights you mentioned -- except in the few rational states that recognized there was no compelling state interest to restrict same sex couples from marriages/unions.

Quote by: banko Gays are currently not allowed the things I listed in many places yet hetero couples are. That is not being treated equally.

Agreed.

Quote by: banko I know in Canada, allowing gays to marry hasn't changed my taxes any.

Well, that's Canada.

I'm speaking about the country I know best because I live here. Folks with gripes about the absence of rights without same-sex marriage in their country are free to express their grievances here as well.

[banko]

Wouldn't the extra income from same sex marriages provide additional funding for states? Shouldn't this be a simple supply and demand argument then. There is a demand, so provide the product and charge a price accordingly.

Bottom line is that in 25 years gay marriage will have become a reality, and no one will even care.

[italiangm]

Responding to the comment you edited out, I expect you do pay more in taxes, since every Canadian citizen's healthcare is covered to a greater degree by those additional taxes. There is no universal healthcare in the US.

Quote by: banko Wouldn't the extra income from same sex marriages provide additional funding for states?

What extra income? In the US, if both people in a hetero marriage are wage earners, they both pay taxes on their income. After reviewing their tax situation, they can decide if filing jointly or separately gives them a smaller household tax bill.

However, if one spouse decides not to earn income and stays at home -- for whatever reason -- the average couple usually pays less taxes by checking the "married filing jointly" box. In this scenario, the wage-earning spouse is allowed a bigger deduction, resulting in less tax paid. If same sex marriage was recognized by the federal government, then the same deduction would apply if the same wage-earning conditions exist, thus reducing the tax base. However, the number of same-sex households is a mere fraction of hetero households, and the probability of only one wage-earner getting the additional deduction is even less likely. However, I am indeed in that situation with my same-sex spouse. The loss of that deduction was part of the $14,000 more we paid than our hetero counterparts.

Quote by: banko Shouldn't this be a simple supply and demand argument then. There is a demand, so provide the product and charge a price accordingly.

Even though the supply exists, about 50% of US citizens think the demand will be prohibitively expensive, cause children to become confused about gender-roles, and invite <enter favorite deity here> to rain down fire and brimstone upon the land.

Quote by: banko Bottom line is that in 25 years gay marriage will have become a reality, and no one will even care.

That's what we keep telling folks, but that other 50% ain't havin' any of it.

[texasdave]

italiangm,
As I said, homosexuals don't need marriage so they don't deserve the tax breaks that go with marriage.

[Jack]

homosexuals don't need marriage

Care to elaborate or attempt to make that comment the least bit intelligible? Gays don't need marraige? I don't accept your premise that marriage is all about the kids. You never did show me in the marriage vows where it discusses children. Marriage is supposed to be about two adults who love each other and desire to spend the rest of their lives together. That applies to any two adults. Children are a byproduct of some marriages (and many one-night stands). The are not the purpose of marraige.

[italiangm]

texasdave, see Homosexual Marriage

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave italiangm, As I said, homosexuals don't need marriage so they don't deserve the tax breaks that go with marriage.

Why do heterosexuals need marriage?

Marriage has nothing do to with having kids. Its a lifetime commitment to your partner, whom you love. Why do you think homosexuals are any less deserving of marriage?

[Night]

You guys are forgetting, us homosexuals are born without anything resembling a human heart and don't require any love of affection from the one they love. Interestingly enough, Texasdave is the only person on these forums intelligent enough to think such a thing!

Quote by: texasdave homosexuals don't need marriage

[Matt W]

Quote by: texasdave italiangm, As I said, homosexuals don't need marriage so they don't deserve the tax breaks that go with marriage.

Neither do heteros. I really don't see how these two sentences link together in any meaningful sense....:eek:

[texasdave]

isherwood,
Secularly speaking, marriage is a contract between two people and the state. What is the state's interest in regulating it or even making such a contract? The state's interest isn't about love at all since that is entirely subjective. The state is not in the business of validating love. You don't have to love someone to marry them. You can marry without love, you can love without marriage. The state's interest is in promoting the general welfare of society. Children are necessary for the survival of our species. Yes, you can have them outside of marriage but that carries a greater risk of child abandonment and that puts additional burdens on the state and by proxy, society. So, in the interest of protecting children, the state institutes the legal contract of marriage as a means of keeping families intact. It also promotes having children through tax breaks etc. Children benefit society so the state seeks to promote and protect the relationships that produce them. Homosexual relationships do not produce children and can only aquire them from heterosexual unions. So, homosexuals do not need marriage. Homosexuals loving each other is irrelevant to the issue.

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave Children are necessary for the survival of our species. Yes, you can have them outside of marriage but that carries a greater risk of child abandonment and that puts additional burdens on the state and by proxy, society. So, in the interest of protecting children, the state institutes the legal contract of marriage as a means of keeping families intact. It also promotes having children through tax breaks etc. Children benefit society so the state seeks to promote and protect the relationships that produce them. Homosexual relationships do not produce children and can only aquire them from heterosexual unions. So, homosexuals do not need marriage. Homosexuals loving each other is irrelevant to the issue.

I don't think marriage was initially introduced into society way, way back for all the above reasons. The bond between two people (initially man and woman) was seen as a sacred bond, and marriage was a declaration of a galvanisation of that bond. While raising better children would be a spinoff, it's roots are much more cultural and traditional.

You talk about marriage as if it's all about the children. A man and woman can get married and live and die together without having a single child. That's where your argument breaks down.

A heterosexual couple don't NEED a marriage to raise stable and happy children. That's a fallacy. You are trying to pass off a consequence as the function.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave isherwood, Secularly speaking, marriage is a contract between two people and the state.

No, marriage is a contract between two people who, at that moment at least, want to spend their lives together. In our society that occurs when two people love one another. The recognition of marriage is where the government gets involved, and where love becomes a non-issue. At that point, it is a contract between two people and the government in which the government recognizes that the two people are part of a single unit in some ways. The question is not, why should the two people be recognized as a single unit, the question is, why shouldn't they?

Quote by: texasdave What is the state's interest in regulating it or even making such a contract?

A truly outstanding question, and one which you don't answer.

Quote by: texasdave The state's interest isn't about love at all since that is entirely subjective. The state is not in the business of validating love. You don't have to love someone to marry them. You can marry without love, you can love without marriage.

This is true. On the other hand, the idea of good reasons for wanting to marry and bad reasons for wanting to marry is also entirely subjective and also entirely outside of the state's interest. The fact that you think it is acceptable to take love out of the equation and insert "breeding" as something that is a good reason for marriage is equally ridiculous and insupportable. The state is not in the business of validating morality, and just because you think people should be married before they have kids doesn't make it so.

Quote by: texasdave The state's interest is in promoting the general welfare of society.

Ah! A wonderful statement. We agree absolutely.
Now recognize this: homosexuals are part of our society. The general welfare of homosexuals would be promoted if they were given recognition on a par with heterosexuals. Since we can clearly see from societies and states that have allowed gay marriage and civil unions that heterosexuals' welfare is not in any way hindered by gay marriage, the state's mission becomes clear.

Quote by: texasdave Children are necessary for the survival of our species. Yes, you can have them outside of marriage but that carries a greater risk of child abandonment and that puts additional burdens on the state and by proxy, society.

I disagree entirely that marriage is what keeps children from being abandoned. Look at the rates of divorce and the numbers of kids that have to live with joint custody and remarriages and stepfamilies, that have to be used as weapons in vicious divorces and separations. Tax breaks and the government recognition of marriage does not create nor preserve strong family units. The idea that people stay married for a tax break is utterly ridiculous, and yet you continue to repeat it as a given! What good do the tax breaks do? Forget about this other fallacy that somehow marriage promotes childbearing and the promotion of childbearing is necessary for the human race to survive, all of which is a lie, and just prove to me that giving someone some money makes them better parents.

Go on. Show me how the tax breaks help kids.

Quote by: texasdave So, in the interest of protecting children, the state institutes the legal contract of marriage as a means of keeping families intact. It also promotes having children through tax breaks etc. Children benefit society so the state seeks to promote and protect the relationships that produce them.

Government does not institute legal marriage, it recognizes a religious and communal institution; the government recognition of marriage has no appreciable effect on it. Come on, tell me that you know some people that have said, "Well, I hate my wife and I want a divorce -- but I can't give up that married filing jointly tax break!" Give me even some anecdotal evidence that government recogntion has done jack squat for the institution of marriage. I'll bet that ever since the tax breaks and such have been introduced that the marriage rate has declined and the divorce rate has gone up. Haven't they?

Oh, and children do not benefit society. They are a burden on society. You could make the argument that they are the purpose of society, but they sure as hell don't make society better for the rest of us.

Quote by: texasdave Homosexual relationships do not produce children and can only aquire them from heterosexual unions. So, homosexuals do not need marriage. Homosexuals loving each other is irrelevant to the issue.

There is a non-sequitur here: you assume that people who have children need marriage. Prove that, please.


Here, you don't seem to enjoy long replies, so let me boil it down for you. Marriage does not help children, so the children argument is useless. People will have children without marriage. Some people who have children will do a good job of raising them, and some will do a bad job; there are things like child tax credits, healthy families programs, free quality education, that society can do to promote the raising of children. But none of those things relate to marriage. None. For the state to recognize marriage as a means of helping children is illogical.

[pikatore]

With your silly hypothetical 'Christophobia' you brought up earlier, think of it this way. If we did indeed sideline, prejudge and restrict you, you would feel exactly the way a homosexual would when people like you say your piece.

[againstthewind]

Since the US denies it's Christian roots, the nation has become very antagonistic to the church. If a church gets involved in a political issue, that's a violation. I even heard of Americans United trying to tell the military that they couldn't get military jets to do flyovers because a bunch of Christian organizations supported the event.

[pikatore]

for gods sake, againstthewind, that post wasn't an invitation to lament of the segregation of Christans. Start a new thread on that by itself and see how it goes.

[Vivid]

Rights For Everyone:

Whether you are homosexual or not, you should repost this in support of your friends and loved ones who are. Love is not defined by color, creed, or gender.

WRITE TO YOUR REPRESENTATION IN THE CONGRESSIONAL BODIES.

Legislation to amend federal hate crime language to include gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons in the class of people protected by that legislation is CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION.
Let no more evil be perpetuated by our silence.

I am the boy who never finished high school, because I got called a fag everyday

I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a transsexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.

I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore, nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the woman who died when the EMTs stopped treating me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I didnt have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don't believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am a warrior for my country serving proud, but can't be my true self because gays aren't allowed in the military.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.

I am the person ashamed to tell my own friends im a lesbian, because they constantly make fun of them.

I am the boy tied to a fence, beaten to a bloody pulp and left to die because two straight men wanted to "teach me a lesson"




This is the boy, Matthew Shepard. On October 7, 1998 Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson lead him to a remote area east of Laramie where they demonstrated unimaginable acts of hate. Matthew was tied to a split-rail fence where he was beaten and left to die in the cold of the night. Almost 18 hours later he was found by a cyclist who initially mistook him for a scarecrow. Matthew died on October 12 at 12:53 am at a hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado. KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS GAY!!!

---IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HOMOPHOBIA IS WRONG... REPOST THIS


We need to keep talking about this, and keep talking about it, and keep talking about it, until things change for the better.

[Matt W]

And that looks suspiciously like a spam chain letter, Vivid. Don't post cut-and-paste jobs - we'd rather you brought your own arguments to the forums. :rolleyes: