RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:01:26 PM)

The state gets involved because marriage is, in large part, about property and legal rights. 
quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

FR

I think you also have to ask why the State gets involved in marriage at all? Why is being involved in the State's best interests?

I do find it interesting, however, that even in pro-homosexuality pagan Rome, marriage was still between men and women. It wasn't even a thought to them that men could marry men and women could marry women.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:02:26 PM)

Its about tax money, inheritance, benefits, insurance, ect ect ect.



Musicmystery -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:03:38 PM)

In which case, all the more reason to get gays into the institution of marriage. They have property.

Since that's clearly not the intent, we can surmise it's not the reason in play.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

you also have to ask why the State gets involved in marriage at all?


Because the party had no solutions to the issues people cared about, like economics and war and security, so they had to dig up something emotional to gather support in place of any real policy.

No, I'm not being sarcastic.




tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:06:48 PM)


Employees who are in a civil union recognized by the state must offer health insurance, death benefits, paid leave,,,, the state is on the hook for tax breaks, inheritance benefits.



Musicmystery -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:08:02 PM)

OK. Then let's get people OUT of marriage...it's ruining our economy!!!

[:-]



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:09:38 PM)

lol

In a way, you could say it is.



Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:13:44 PM)

According to John Boswell in his 1994 book
http://books.google.ca/books?id=hR0_CoNj6GAC&pg=RA1-PA16&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Same sex unions found recognition in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, Japan, South east Asia, Australia(in aboriginal tribes), South America, and many many more.
the man uses at least twelve books in his references



searching4mysir -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:14:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Employees who are in a civil union recognized by the state must offer health insurance, death benefits, paid leave,,,, the state is on the hook for tax breaks, inheritance benefits.



Exactly, so in exchange for that, what does the State get out of being in the marriage business?



searching4mysir -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:15:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

you also have to ask why the State gets involved in marriage at all?


Because the party had no solutions to the issues people cared about, like economics and war and security, so they had to dig up something emotional to gather support in place of any real policy.

No, I'm not being sarcastic.


So the State wasn't involved in the marriage business prior to the economy being in the shitter?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:16:13 PM)

Civil unions are creatures of statute. I don't know that the state MUST offer anything.   And what do you mean the state is on the hook for tax breaks, etc?  I am not understanding that statement.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Employees who are in a civil union recognized by the state must offer health insurance, death benefits, paid leave,,,, the state is on the hook for tax breaks, inheritance benefits.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:19:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Employees who are in a civil union recognized by the state must offer health insurance, death benefits, paid leave,,,, the state is on the hook for tax breaks, inheritance benefits.



Exactly, so in exchange for that, what does the State get out of being in the marriage business?


Its hard to take away a right once its given. Marriage was a legal entity long before the states had tax laws.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:19:03 PM)


Civil unions are creatures of statute. If a state chooses to include requirements regarding provision of employee benefits, they can, but I don't know that they have to.    And what do you mean the state is on the hook for tax breaks, etc?  I am not understanding that statement.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Employees who are in a civil union recognized by the state must offer health insurance, death benefits, paid leave,,,, the state is on the hook for tax breaks, inheritance benefits.




tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:20:23 PM)

quote:

Civil unions are creatures of statute. I don't know that the state MUST offer anything.   And what do you mean the state is on the hook for tax breaks, etc?  I am not understanding that statement.


Who pays more in taxes... two single people.. or a married couple?.. minus kids of course.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:21:41 PM)

Yes, I think marriage is here to stay. 
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Employees who are in a civil union recognized by the state must offer health insurance, death benefits, paid leave,,,, the state is on the hook for tax breaks, inheritance benefits.



Exactly, so in exchange for that, what does the State get out of being in the marriage business?


Its hard to take away a right once its given. Marriage was a legal entity long before the states had tax laws.





Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:24:22 PM)

I am neither homophobic, nor opposed to civil rights for G&Ls. But I sincerely believe, like Kirata stated, in marriage as being between a man and a woman.
If you are G or L and want to get married, go somewhere to do that. However, I will not honor your certificate...be it sanctioned by a judge, a rabbi, a priest, nor even the pope himself. Because personally? I think you are using it strictly to your advantage of what it will get you... and that's the extent of it. Case in point:
1. You can LEGALLY declare anyone from your Auntie Bea to your parakeet in your will as the inheritor of your estate.
2. You can LEGALLY change your last name to that of your lover's without marriage.
3. You can LEGALLY assign anyone you want on a Living Will, as a personal contact in an emergency, and as the Executor of your will.
You can assign all sorts of things legally, without getting married.

I recall the first time I heard the term "coming out," (since I grew up in a time when you didn't walk around with placards announcing your bedroom preferences.) And HONESTLY the first thing I thought was...does this mean I need to "come out" as a heterosexual now? Where is the rally for that? What's the procedure?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:40:05 PM)

Thanks for this, it is at least a nonsecular explanation of why someone would oppose gay marriage. It is true that a lot of these rights and other things can be granted or achieved in other ways.
Not all rights given to married couples can be "assigned", though.  For example, a married person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in court.  Also, communications between married people are subject to a similar privilege as attorney/client.  These are pretty important rights, and there is no way to get them, short of marriage or a state law that recognizes them as part of a domestic partnership. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: Clickofheels

I am neither homophobic, nor opposed to civil rights for G&Ls. But I sincerely believe, like Kirata stated, in marriage as being between a man and a woman.
If you are G or L and want to get married, go somewhere to do that. However, I will not honor your certificate...be it sanctioned by a judge, a rabbi, a priest, nor even the pope himself. Because personally? I think you are using it strictly to your advantage of what it will get you... and that's the extent of it. Case in point:
1. You can LEGALLY declare anyone from your Auntie Bea to your parakeet in your will as the inheritor of your estate.
2. You can LEGALLY change your last name to that of your lover's without marriage.
3. You can LEGALLY assign anyone you want on a Living Will, as a personal contact in an emergency, and as the Executor of your will.
You can assign all sorts of things legally, without getting married.

I recall the first time I heard the term "coming out," (since I grew up in a time when you didn't walk around with placards announcing your bedroom preferences.) And HONESTLY the first thing I thought was...does this mean I need to "come out" as a heterosexual now? Where is the rally for that? What's the procedure?




Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:43:24 PM)

Oops! My computer locked up so I couldn't finish my post. Sorry you have to put up with me a little longer. (LOL)

I don't see the point of all the bruhaha over "announcing" your sexual preference. Perhaps it's because I honestly and simply don't care who you like between your sheets? And I don't think your sexual preference makes you more important or any less than I am.

I see people has human beings. And that, to me, is enough...and in many cases more than a LOT of people see each other these days. I don't care if you wear your undies stretched on the top of your head or continually hop on one foot. Makes no difference to me.

As for all this panic about the pope saying same-sex marriage would be the end of life as we know it? I agree. But you are soooooooo taking this statement wrong!!
I (again honestly) believe he is referring to the old "be fruitful and multiply" thing that's supposed to part of marriage. Yes, I KNOW same-sex people can adopt, and one person can have their egg fertilized with a male friend and then implanted. I KNOW all of that. But I don't think that's what the "be fruitful and multiply" definition was meant to imply.

And speaking of the "be fruitful and multiply" equation...nevermind. That's a whole different thread.

Respectfully posted and now donning bullet-proof armor and waving a white flag,
Ms Click



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:44:40 PM)

Subject: Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report
Dear Senator Frist:
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that
are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.

In 1997, we issued a report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked us to update our 1997 compilation.

We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted
between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

You may want to take a look at the list.





http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:46:43 PM)

quote:

And speaking of the "be fruitful and multiply" equation


So if a woman, or man, cannot reproduce they should not marry?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:47:41 PM)

My state doesn't have an income tax, so marital status is not material.  The feds don't recognize civil unions for purposes of determining marital status for tax purposes.   
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Civil unions are creatures of statute. I don't know that the state MUST offer anything.   And what do you mean the state is on the hook for tax breaks, etc?  I am not understanding that statement.


Who pays more in taxes... two single people.. or a married couple?.. minus kids of course.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875