The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow

Huh? First off, it's not a right at all. It's a benefit. And I don't get to park in those blue space. They're for handicapped people. Can I sue to have the definition of handicapped changed purely because it's unfair for them to get to park in those spaces, but not me?

Did you just not get the analogy I was making?



Because a couple consisting of a male and a female *can* produce children. Statistically, they will and must in fact or we die out as a species. Ergo, it's sensible to create some sort of incentive to get those couples to enter into some kind of economic contract before producing said children.

The value to having marriage benefits for heterosexual couples is because not having them imposes a cost on society as a whole in the form of increased numbers of children being raised without both parents around. Specifically, imagine if there was no such thing as marriage (at all). Wouldn't the entire burden of raising children fall on women then? And if they couldn't manage it, who do you think will have to pay? And how well adjusted are the children relatively speaking between those possibilities?

That's why we subsidize heterosexual marriages.

There is no corresponding value to providing this benefit to homosexual couples because they will not produce children as a natural side effect of being a couple. They can adopt, but that's a separate issue (and is a choice). That's why we *don't* subsidize homosexual marriages. That's not to say that they can't marry. They can participate in a ceremony. They can profess their eternal love for eachother before witnesses. They can enter into the whole range of contracts that heterosexual marriage includes. The *only* think different is that their marriage does not qualify them for state funded or mandated benefits.


That's not a suppression of a right. It's simply setting qualifications for benefits. Rights are not benefits and denial of benefits is *not* a denial of rights.

Homosexuals looking at me in the locker scare me, Red. They scare my wife. They scare my son. Prolly my father.

Hmmm, we're at an impasse.

Totem

Why is your wife in the locker room with you while you are being stared at by homosexuals?

Asking for fashion advice?

You're right, I misread the "don't get to use" and thought you were stating that you get to use the right.

I'm also not entire sure that anyone pays for the parking spaces, I believe they're required by law to be placed in a parking lot when it is paved. Regardless, if the government does give some kind of a reimbursement for them, everyone pays for that reimbursement equally, we don't make non-handicapped people have to pay less. Your analogy would be valid only if non-handicapped people had to pay for the parking spot and handicapped people didn't.



Wrong, wrong, wrong. Couples that marry and can't have children are granted the same benefits as couples who can have children. On top if it, children grant an ADDITIONAL benefit given, so as much as you may want to ignore it, a certain amount is given solely for marriage.

Again, why the hell should I pay for your base benefit if you don't want to pay for mine?



It probably keeps coming up because your logic is stupid and hypocritical. Maybe you should try harder.

Edited, Nov 5th 2008 7:24pm by CBD

Edited, Nov 5th 2008 7:26pm by CBD

Power of attorney. Included in a default marriage contract, but not excluded from any two people for any reason whatsoever.



Power of attorney. Included in a default marriage contract, but not excluded from any two people for any reason whatsoever.



Difficult, but not solved by changing the definition of the legal status of "married" at the state level. This is not significantly more challenging for you than establishing guardianship for a heterosexual spouse of someone with a child by someone else.

What you're asking isn't automatic in the case of heterosexual marriage either. The same legal recourse is available to you. Now I'll grant that in this case a gay couple may have a harder time in this area, but then how about focusing on this one area instead? Changing the entirety of the marriage benefit system just to do this one thing is like tossing the baby out with the bathwater.



Except they aren't limited to those. Hence, the "baby with the bathwater" statement. You also automatically get additional tax choices. You automatically get beneficial loan programs. You automatically get any of a number of other benefits that your state may grant in addition to those.



Those protections are derived by legal contract in both cases. The only key difference is that the act of otherwise qualifying you for a marriage also obligates the couple to whatever "default marriage contract" exists in your state. Legally, it's no different though. There is nothing preventing you from filing your own identical contract and having the same legal protections.



Power of attorney has been pretty firmly tested in court. This is a cop-out IMO...

Wills, living wills, and power of attorney are contested in courts every day in this country. All it takes is a homophobic judge agreeing with a vindictive family member, and a person's spouse's rights are stripped away like a drunk co-ed's too-tight tank top.

Shamelessly stolen from the first Google hit:

Tax Benefits

* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits

* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Note that if you are in a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, many of the benefits of marriage won't apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file jointly. And other federal benefits, such as COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Consult a lawyer with expertise in this area to learn more about the rights and benefits available to same-sex couples.

I "pay" for it by having to walk farther than I might have to otherwise. Also, someone pays for the space, either way. If it's the business, who's going to pay for that? The customer, right? So I'm paying that tiny bit of extra money every time I shop there so that the owner can pay the additional expense of having handicapped parking spaces, but I don't get to use them.

Yes. Handicapped people pay that extra to. But they get the benefit.


The point is that I don't complain that I can't park there. I understand why those spaces exist and who they are for. And I'm ok with that.




Ok. So you and I go out to dinner. We split the bill evenly, but only I get to order and eat.

Is that fair? Of course not. You'd only do that if there was some reason you felt ok with helping to pay for me to have a meal. And if the government were considering making it a requirement for you to do so, you'd certainly feel it was valid for you to consider whether the circumstances warranted the benefit you're providing for me. I can't claim I have a "right" to it anymore than a handicapped person has a "right" for handicapped parking to exist. It's a benefit. A nice thing we do for those who we feel need it.


My point is that I'm ok with the benefits granted by the legal status of marriage when applied to heterosexual couples. It makes sense to me. I'm ok with paying that extra in this case. I'm *not* ok with paying that extra in order to subsidize a gay marriage. If they want to marry, that's great. But I don't feel that they need for me to pay for it. They are in no greater "need" than I am. I would oppose that just as I'd oppose someone saying we should change the definition of handicapped to include left handed people. They don't need to park up front anymore than I do, and gay couples don't need the benefits granted by the state status of marriage anymore than I do.

Get it?



Sigh. But they *could* have children, right? We can't know for sure beforehand.

Let me put this another way. If we have an outbreak of salmonella in say peppers from a particular company (just to stay somewhat topical). Not every single pepper will be tainted though. Most are going to be completely safe in fact. But we don't test every pepper and then sell those that are good and dump the ones that are bad. That would be too expensive and take too much time. We simply treat all of them the same and dump them all so that we're sure we get all the tainted peppers, right?


Same deal here. We can't test every couple to see if they can or will have a child. It would take too much time and be too expensive. But just as we can say it's only peppers from that company (and not artichokes or peppers from other companies) that are tainted, we can say that *only* couples consisting of one male and one female can produce a child together. No more. No less. Thus, we treat them all the same. All qualify for the benefits because any one of those couples *could* produce a child. We just can't say for sure which ones will...


A gay couple cannot produce a child together as a natural consequence of being a couple. It's physically impossible. Thus, while we can't say for sure which heterosexual couples can or will produce children, we can absolutely say that no gay couples will. Thus, it's silly to include them.

If you want to argue that we should further tighten the restrictions on marriage benefit, that's a completely different argument. But I think arguing that since the restrictions aren't perfectly tight that we should just loosen them is bizarre. It's like saying that since not everyone who speeds will cause an accident that we shouldn't have speed limits. Silly...



No. Those benefits are provided for being the guardian of a child. Period. Single people get the same benefits.

I think we can all agree that children are better off being raised by two parents rather than one, right? And the "best case" for children is to be raised by the two people who are their biological parents. Thus, it makes sense to provide additional benefits for those who marry.

Those benefits need to be an incentive. Meaning that they have to exist prior to children appearing. If we wait until after children are born to provide benefits for them, then we're back to the state supporting single women bearing the full brunt of child-raising. The whole point of marriage is to try to prevent that as much as possible. It's not perfect, but it's better than if it didn't exist at all...



First off. I'm single. Technically, it's really: "Why shouldn't I have the ability to choose which sorts of benefits I pay for that other people enjoy?".

Let me make this really clear (again): I agree with and am ok with paying to provide the state marriage benefits to heterosexual couples. I am not ok with doing so for gay couples. That's my choice and is certainly my right.

You've asked me why. I've explained my reasons (at length, and this is about the 80th time). My reasons haven't changed. No one has yet explained adequately why I should subsidize gay marriage. Instead, I keep getting arguments about how maybe not all heterosexual marriages should be subsidized, but not why gay marriages should.




I've explained my logic over and over a zillion times on this board. I've literally seen every single argument that's been made here. Many many times. No one has *ever* presented a valid counter to my argument. What typically happens is we get to a few bits past this point, usually devolving into name calling, and then the topic drops off the front page and is forgotten, only to re-appear a few months later with most of the pro-gay-marriage people having conveniently forgotten every argument I made.


I get that you disagree with me. What I don't get is why so many people argue this issue as though they'd never heard my argument before. It's the "But what about this?" bits that slay me. I suppose I'll just keep repeating the same arguments and hope that maybe one day, when this topic comes up, someone will actually preface their pro-gay-marriage position with at least some recognition for the sorts of arguments I use every single time.

Just once. That would be nice...

Those are all state funded or mandated benefits Joph.

Gay couples don't need those. More correctly, there's no socio-economic benefit to the state for providing them to gay couples.

And I'll respond to Samira here as well: Some of those are state benefits. Some are contractual powers. Those which anyone can get via contract any gay couple can get as well. Those which are state benefits exist pretty specifically because of the presumption that as a group heterosexual couples will produce children, so we provide those to heterosexual couples so that in the event that they do produce children, they are available (the incentive bit).

The benefits I pay for and don't believe that gay couples need them. The contracts don't cost me anything, so I don't care one way or another (and they're not prevented from obtaining them).


You need to separate which are legal contracts between the two parties, and which are benefits provided for or mandated by the state.

Edited, Nov 5th 2008 5:23pm by gbaji

First of all, those are all Federal (or Federally-regulated) programs. Secondly, what socio-economic benefit is there for providing these benefits to hetero couples that wouldn't apply to gay couples?