Just hoticed there was no response to this 3 months ago.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Fair enough. I guess those weren't the points that I was making, though others may have been. I'm more of the position that the government needs to draw the line regarding marriage somewhere and that the current place is logically appropriate. If benefits are awarded (via marriage) to those who cannot procreate, then what motive is there for bestowing these benefits? It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the angle I view it from.
So why are the 'benefits' of marriage (benefits like being able to inherit your partner's property, protection against having to testify against your spouse in criminal court, being able to make medical treatment decisions for your partner if the partner is medically incapacitated) - most of which have no real bearing on whether or not the couple has children - dependent on the couple having children? How does that make sense?
Pretty sure that if you will your estate to a non-family member, they will get it regardless of whether or not they're in a homosexual relationship with you at the time.
Rubbish. You are speaking out of your ass. There are countless examples within the gay community of homophobic relatives contesting such wills, and winning. It is easier to successfully contest a will in such a situation than if the couple was actually married. There are over 1400 legal protections - at the federal and state levels - associated with marriage. It is simply not possible to replicate these protections with a few legal contracts. (And why should same-sex couples be made to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees just to achieve a minute fraction of the basic protections offered to heterosexual couples?)
At any rate, all of the above is irrelevant to my question. You suggest that the logically appropriate place to draw the line re: marriage is with heterosexual couples, because the purpose of awarding the benefits associated with marriage is the support of procreation. (That is what I infer from your comment above).
I asked you to explain just how drawing the line at heterosexual couples is logically appropriate.
It does not seem logically appropriate to me, particularly when I see that:
-infertile heterosexuals are able to marry
-married heterosexuals who choose not to have children do not have their marriage licenses revoked
-heterosexual couples who don't procreate, but instead choose to adopt children, are entitled to marry.
-gay couples who are raising their own biological children (from prior heterosexual relationships) are not entitled to marry.
Instead of answering my question, you prattle on about the practicalities of same-sex couples replicating the legal protections associated with marriage. Answer the question.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not terribly familiar with the testimony part and can't really see why a spouse shouldn't have to testify against his/her spouse in the first place.
The notion that a person is legally exempt from testifying against their spouse is a time-honoured legal principle, and is justfiable for many reasons. But more to the point, heterosexaual married couples DON'T have to testify against their spouse. Long term gay couples ARE legally obliged to testify against their partner. A recent, high profile, example: Rosie O'Donnell's partner was obliged to offer testimony in the legal case between O'Donnell and the publisher of her magazine. The court ruled that because they were not legally married she would have to testify. It's a glaring discrepancy between the way married heterosexual and homosexual couples are treated by the legal system.
But this is all irrelevant to my question. Here is your comment (the comment I responded to):
"I'm more of the position that the government needs to draw the line regarding marriage somewhere and that the current place is logically appropriate. If benefits are awarded (via marriage) to those who cannot procreate, then what motive is there for bestowing these benefits?" - PsychoWizard
You appear to believe that the so-called benefits (actually, legal protections) of marriage are awarded on the basis that heterosexual couples are able to procreate. At least, that is what I infer from your comment above.
So what then is the logical basis for allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry?
With respect to the possibility of bearing children within the union, how is a same-sex couple any different than a sterile heterosexual couple?
And what of the many, many heterosexual married couples who choose not to procreate? Why should they have access to marriage -- if procreation is the rationale marriage benefits and protections?
You also need to explain why incestuous couples and polygamous groups should be excluded from marriage, if the sine qua non of civil marriage (or the legal protections associated with it) is the support of procreation. These arrangements are perfectly likely to result in offspring, afterall.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As for medical decisions - power of attorney for healthcare may be bestowed on anyone you see fit, regardless of their relationship with you. The legal avenues for these things already exists and is the same for any couple, whether married or otherwise, as long as they do the paperwork.
Do you think all gay couples have sufficient money, knowledge, or legal sophistication to arrange medical power of attourney? And do you think such power of attourney is always respected by the courts? A married person automatically has the right to make medical decisions for their incapacitated spouse. There is no requirement for a formal transfer of medical power of attourney to the spouse. That right to make medical decisions for the spouse takes precedence over any claims made by the ill person's family. This has been tested in courts all over the US (and the civilized world). The value of this automatic granting of power of attourney to one's spouse re: medical decisions stems from the fact that that most people don't anticipate being medically incapacitated. Most people who end up in the emergency ward of the hospital are not legally prepared. People don't typically carry with them legal documents proving power of attourney for their partner. However thanks to legal precedent, a married person can be confident of being able to see their spouse in hospital, and make medical decisions for that spouse (if the spouse is incapacitated). That is not the case for same sex couples. Frequently gay people will be denied access to their partners in hospital. On occasion the ill gay person will die in hospital, without their parter ever having been able to see them in their dying moments. This typically happens when the biological relatives of the ill person are like you, i.e., extremely homophobic, and refuse access to the ill person. The biological relatives have the right to make medical decisions in such cases, not the long term partner. If the ill person dies, their partner will not be legally entitled to make burial arrangements, that right is also awarded to the biological family. Gay family ties are treated as if they are non-existent, whereas numerous legal precedents act to support and protect the family ties of married heterosexual couples. Gay couples do not have access to the same legal protections as heterosexual couples, and suffer as a result. Your blithe dismissal of that suffering, without having even bothered to apprise yourself of the facts, leaves me sickened.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why are the benefits of marriage awarded at the point of marriage if the rational behind those benefits is supporting procreation? Why are they not awared at the point when the couple has their first child?
They are, at least as far as taxation goes - you get child credits after you have kids. I'm not sure if this credit applies outside of marriage or not, but it's my understanding that filing jointly doesn't give you much of anything in and of itself. I'm not aware of many other benefits that you get from being married.
Your ignorance makes me think it is a waste of time interacting with you.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why do infertile heterosexual married couples have access to the benefits of marriage?
Are you suggesting fertility tests prior to marriage?
No, but then I'm not the moron who believes the sine qua non of civil marriage (or the legal protections associated with it) is procreation. Actually, I am
asking you to explain why marriage is awarded to inferttile heterosexuals, if the purpose of civil marriage (or the legal protections associated with it) is procreation. You wonder why I didn't respond to this post. It is because of your deep dishonesty. I asked you a very simple question. Answer it.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
A significant percentage of gay couples are raising children, why are they not entitled to marry?
Raising children is not the same as having children.
And the significance of that is precisely what, you dumb fvck?
If you think a distinction between having and raising children is so terribly important, then why are heterosexual couples who adopt children entitled to marry? What is the logic behind that?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why are the children of these gay couples made to suffer or have access to less state and federal protections or support because their parents happen to be gay?
What state and federal protections are granted to children based on marriage? If anything, I would think that more protections would be granted based on single parenthood.
Protections such as access to social security benefits if one of the parents dies. If the non-biological parent in a same-sex family dies, the child will not be eligible for any government assistance (that would normally be given to a child as a result of the death of a parent). If the couple had been married, the child would be eligible for a parental death allowance. This is particularly disadvantageous for the children of gay couples when the main income earner of the family dies suddenly, and the deceased person is not the biological parent of the children. Another issue is custody of the child after a parent dies. Even if the child has been raised within the same-sex family since infancy, if the biological parent dies there is a high chance the child will be removed from the remaining parent. And so you have kids losing one parent, then being ripped away from the remaining parent and being dragged off to stay with (often homophobic) relatives who are determined to 'protect' the child from his/ her remaining parent's homosexuality. Step parents within married heterosexual couples, on the other hand, are free to adopt their step-child. Gay couples are specifically legally barred from doing that in most jurisdictions. There are many other types of legal protections for the children of married couples, pertaining to medical treatment in case of the death of a parent, child custody and child allowance payments in event of a breakdown of the parental relationship, access to government assistance in cases of parental death, and so on.