Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Samy,

Way to obfuscate and diflect. Do you think couples should receive benefits that single people do not? Isn't that a clear violation of the equal protection clause as well?

not silly, meaningless.
People who don't want to get married don't? What the @#%^ is this supposed to mean.
maybe, but since we're talking about 2 people entering into a relationship, this doesn't seem to apply
if you can't enter into a contract you can't, separate issue. not relevant. This also covers toasters btw.
I covered this, and it was my one other group of people, so yes.

So one pretty sketchy possibility. The reasons polygamy isn't allowed is different from the other two, you can't conflate them.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 4:41pm by Xsarus

You looked up obfuscate but not deflect?

Which is what I said two years ago when this was brought up and guess who didn't want that either?

You're correct. I apologize. However, you still seem ok with granting an exception in that case, but absolutely not in the case of homosexuals. I'd still like to know *why*. We already do know, but I want you to come out and say it.



I believe that they are. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that you only insist that there isn't a purpose for them because you've already taken a position on "gay marriage", and don't want to acknowledge anything that weakens it.

If there is no purpose, then why do the benefits exist?



If you accept my position that marriage benefits exist as an incentive to get heterosexual couples to produce children while in a contractual marriage, then not only does the prohibition against close relatives make sense, but *also* the requirement that the couple consist of an adult male and a female.


If it exists for no reason at all, then why have those other restrictions? I'm just saying that it's kinda silly to argue that the restriction against gay couples is unwarranted, if you're utterly unable or unwilling to address why *any* of the restrictions exist. Clearly, you're not really examining the issue very well.

So answering a direct question = obfuscation in the Redneck Crackhead Dictionary. So noted.

Money and incest.

Makes sense, since obfuscation is what they do when asked a direct question.

Not at all. There are some federal funds available to married couples, which would absolutely benefit a single person. If as a single person I could qualify for a better FHA loan for example. Remember, I'm talking about the marriage benefits, not "being married". From a legal point of view, what's at issue is a set of benefits which are available to one group of people, but not another.




A couple who'd like to have their pensions and SS transfer from one to the other, but don't want to have joint custody of children, or have power of attorney over each other, etc. Think outside the box a bit. The marriage contract is pretty darn binding. What if I want to put someone on my health care tax free, but *don't* want to suffer that persons bad credit? I can't do that right now, because in order to get the health care tax exemption I'm required to enter into a contract which requires that my finances be treated the same as hers. Bad credit and all.

It's not as minor an issue as you might think.



Of course it does! If three people want to form a marriage, they can't be recognized as such by the government, file their taxes as such, share SS/pensions, gain access to funding programs, etc.



Absolutely relevant. The issue is about the state funded benefits. I've argued this how many times before and you still don't get that I don't care at all who's *able* to enter into a marriage contract? My position has always been about the funded benefits. That's what affects me, since I'm among the group who has to pay for it.

There are a set of state benefits that are separate from the marriage contract. It's absolutely relevant that you can't get the benefits without agreeing to enter into the contract. In fact, that's a core part of my entire argument. The benefits act as an incentive to get people to enter into the contract. That's why they exist. Heck. That's why many states have common law marriage laws.

The objective is to get people to enter into that contract. Presumably because many people wont otherwise, and there's an advantage to the rest of us if they do. That's why we created a legal status which confers benefits, but which requires that the couple in question agree to be bound by the marriage contract.

Slippery slope. Pretty soon gbaji is going to argue for marrying donkeys, or some stupid shit.

I want to know why plural marriage is seen as such a bad idea, especially considering that the resulting family unit is more stable despite the prevalence of divorce we already see.

I mean, you've got children there; barring something going seriously wrong (and by "seriously wrong" I mean "more so than can presently occur") you've got at least one male and one female role-model for the children...

Is it just a case of people thinking "this encourages orgies"?