Since I know you're all obsessed with Maine politics...Follow

Why should they require two people? That's just as "arbitrary" as requiring two people of opposite sex, isn't it?



That's not one of the benefits. That's in the contract.


The benefits are things like tax breaks and qualification for funded programs and such. Basically, you get to file taxes in the married columns, which may or may not be beneficial. There are some loan programs you may qualify for. Health insurance is paid pre-tax. You get to keep your spouses social security and pension when they die.


Those are the state benefits. There might be a few other minor things, but that's what this whole thing is about. Silly, isn't it?


All the stuff we care about. Joint guardianship, joint power of attorney, joint finances and property ownership, inheritance, visitation rights and medical decision making powers, etc. Those are all part of the civil contract of marriage. That's what married people want and what they consider necessary to be considered "married".

Nothing at all prevents gay couples from entering into those contractual agreements. Nothing.

Excellent! And we can also use the money to make a "How To" video about being gay for elementary school indoctrination into The Gay Agenda!

No. You will not get the tax benefits. You will, however, gain the power of attorney, visitation rights, joint property ownership, joint guardianship, and any and every other contractual power you choose to give/share with eachother in the contract you sign.


See how that works? Which is more important? Which actually defines a relationship as a "marriage"? The fact that your property is shared and you have power to make decisions about and with eachother? Or the fact that you can file your taxes in a different column?


It's the contract which establishes the legal parameters of a marriage. The state benefits are just that: Benefits. You don't need them to be married. People got married for thousands of years before governments started giving tax breaks to them. The benefits are not necessary and absolutely do not determine whether you are married or not.

Sure. As I said earlier, everyone would like to receive a benefit if they can.

But people don't normally associate those things with what defines their relationship as a marriage. They do speak to things like joint property, joint power of attorney, visitation rights/powers in hospitals, etc.

If the question is "Does this thing make my relationship a marriage", people care about what's in the marriage contract. It's what defines the relationship legally. They don't care that much about the state benefits. They change over time and are a relatively recent thing anyway.


If you ask people this question outside of the context of the gay marriage debate (just marriage in general), everyone will agree with what I'm saying. It's only when people realize the relevance to the question and the gay marriage political issue, that suddenly they insist that the state benefits are absolutely necessary for a marriage to be a real marriage, and anything that restricts people from getting them is some horrific violation of their rights. Funny, huh?

Wrong.



Here's a simple flow chart for the gay marriage concept.

Gay couples should be allowed to marry just like straight couples because there is no reason to deny them the right to marry. -> Married gay couples also deserve the benefits married straight couples get because there is no reason to deny them the benefits.

Saying "Well you can get a bunch of them so it's fine isn't it!" is asinine, discriminatory, and flat out immature.

so you think instead of letting two men or two women receive those powers under an already established system, they should have to jump through hoops and hire attorneys to somehow word a document appropriately to get the 1,000+ rights and benefits given to married couples. That is ******** and you know it. There is no reason to make gay people go through that.

Also, why don't heterosexual couples have to do the same thing? why should anyone get married if it is sooooo easy to get the benefits otherwise?

Here is the problem: if you require health insurance to cover people, but don't require them to have insurance, they can wait until they feel sick to sign up. In doing so, they will save themselves loads of money - which the rest of us will have to pay.

You're paying for it now. But, yes, health care is one of those things where half measures and compromises develop a unique sort of absurdity. If we have single payer health care, paid for by a tax, this isn't a problem. If we have complete free market health care where we we let people die who can't afford care, this isn't a problem. In any other circumstance it is, but the magnitude of the potential issue is ludicrously overblown. Yes, there will be fraud. There's fraud now. Yes, people will game the system; people game the system now. It will, perhaps, add .00001% to the overall cost of this plan. Don't worry about the moral hazard, it's not that big of a deal.

This debate would be moot if we had a fair tax system.

Why should a married couple get tax breaks? Why should people who have children get tax breaks? States have opened up a can of worms by putting people in different social classes and awarding tax privileges to certain social groups.

A government should give people equal social rights, tax them equally and fairly according to their ability to pay, and leave the concept of "marriage" up to the churches.

Of course there are reasons. You just choose to disagree with them. That's your right of course, but how about not insisting that there is "no reason"?

Cite?

Show me how often someone walked into a hospital, declared that he had a medical power of attorney, and was "ignored"? You do realize that people are granted this all the time? It's a normal thing. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. Yet, somehow, magically, it's honored all the time in hospitals all over the country.


What you're talking about is a gay partner walking into the hospital insisting that even though he and his partner never once filed any sort of legal contract, that they are married and that he should have the authority to make medical decisions and then insisting that he's being discriminated against when they say no. Um... that wont fly regardless of your relative genders or relationship.

Lol!

What does "through the government" mean? A contract is the same regardless of who wrote it up for you, right? It's an agreement between you and your partner, not between you and the government.




Huh? I presented no desire at all. I just pointed out the fact that marriages have existed long before governments granted benefits to people for entering into them. Homosexuality has no bearing on this. It's not really about homosexuality. You've just been told that it is and continue to believe it.

Recognized by the government? The entire point of this page of discussion about how you're full of sh*t when you act as though a contract can grant me and Bard all the benefits of a normal married couple? Let's not be deliberately stupid here.



LOL!!! The argument about same-sex marriage isn't about homosexuality? Are you out of your fucking mind? You want to be taken seriously when you say stupid sh*t like that?

Remarkable. Absolutely remarkable.

EDIT: Stupid tags.

Edited, Nov 6th 2009 6:49pm by CBD