Who thinks we need to get GOD out of Marriages?

[Strk]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: maXroOt
the tax breaks are only a very small part of it.

1. inheritance. if you die w/o a formal will, most, if not all, of ur stuff goes to ur spouse. but for gay couples, since they cant be married, dont get this benefit. also i think it also has an effect on life insurance and such

2. hospital visitation rights

3. job benefits. if you work for a company that gives health coverage, dental coverage, etc it also applies to your family (in most cases). so if you have a wife, she is covered. but if you have a gay partner, they are not covered since they arent "married."

those are just a few

1. A person can leave their worldly belongings to anyone they wish. All that it takes is a written request.

2. A person can allow anyone to visit them in a hospital. All that it takes is a written request.

In other words, anyone willing to take them time and prepare for these incidents will not have a problem.

While 1 and 2 can usually be taken care of with little effort(forgot about extreme cases in hospitals; thanks maXroOt), there is still a big issue with the third, the coverage some jobs provide is quite expensive.(It can be anywhere from $400 to over $1,000 a month for health insurance for an individual)

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: maXroOt
the tax breaks are only a very small part of it.

1. inheritance. if you die w/o a formal will, most, if not all, of ur stuff goes to ur spouse. but for gay couples, since they cant be married, dont get this benefit. also i think it also has an effect on life insurance and such

2. hospital visitation rights

3. job benefits. if you work for a company that gives health coverage, dental coverage, etc it also applies to your family (in most cases). so if you have a wife, she is covered. but if you have a gay partner, they are not covered since they arent "married."

those are just a few

1. A person can leave their worldly belongings to anyone they wish. All that it takes is a written request.

2. A person can allow anyone to visit them in a hospital. All that it takes is a written request.

In other words, anyone willing to take them time and prepare for these incidents will not have a problem.

While 1 and 2 can usually be taken care of with little effort(forgot about extreme cases in hospitals; thanks maXroOt), there is still a big issue with the third, the coverage some jobs provide is quite expensive.(It can be anywhere from $400 to over $1,000 a month for health insurance for an individual)

That's why it's a benefit, not a requirement.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: maXroOt
the tax breaks are only a very small part of it.

1. inheritance. if you die w/o a formal will, most, if not all, of ur stuff goes to ur spouse. but for gay couples, since they cant be married, dont get this benefit. also i think it also has an effect on life insurance and such

2. hospital visitation rights

3. job benefits. if you work for a company that gives health coverage, dental coverage, etc it also applies to your family (in most cases). so if you have a wife, she is covered. but if you have a gay partner, they are not covered since they arent "married."

those are just a few

1. A person can leave their worldly belongings to anyone they wish. All that it takes is a written request.

2. A person can allow anyone to visit them in a hospital. All that it takes is a written request.

In other words, anyone willing to take them time and prepare for these incidents will not have a problem.

While 1 and 2 can usually be taken care of with little effort(forgot about extreme cases in hospitals; thanks maXroOt), there is still a big issue with the third, the coverage some jobs provide is quite expensive.(It can be anywhere from $400 to over $1,000 a month for health insurance for an individual)

That's why it's a benefit, not a requirement.

They are benefits given without hesitation to married couples, which is a massive issue for homosexual couples, since they can live together for a lifetime and never receive one benefit.

 

[Witling]

Early on Bow asked, "What tax benefits." I don't have the patience I once had so I didn't read the rest of the thread. Yo, Bow. If you're married and you get health insurance for you and your spouse, you spouse doesn't have to consider his or her portion of the health insurance benefits as "imputed income." Not so with same sex relationshipt. Let me briefly explain "imputed income." Married couple = spouse receives coverage without any income consequences. If it's not a recognized "marriage," that portion of the health insurance premium that covers the partner is considered the partner's income.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: charrison

We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

Agreed. The day marriage became a secular institution was the day marriage was desanctified. IMO there should be two separate contracts, one as a civil union, open to hetero or homosexual couples, that is legally binding and confers legal benefits, and a marriage contract, one that confers no special legal status and that is granted by religious institutions.

Cheers!
Nate

my thoughts exactly !

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: charrison

We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

Agreed. The day marriage became a secular institution was the day marriage was desanctified. IMO there should be two separate contracts, one as a civil union, open to hetero or homosexual couples, that is legally binding and confers legal benefits, and a marriage contract, one that confers no special legal status and that is granted by religious institutions.

Cheers!
Nate

my thoughts exactly !

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I think we need to respect the right of the church to do their marriages their way, and sanction whatever unions they want. I think that when a man and a woman get married, if they want the tax breaks and such, they have to get a license from the state in *addition* to their church's sanction and whatever documentation that entails (which is pretty much the way it is now.) I also think that the government MUST NOT prevent *any* two individuals from being married under the State. The church's can refuse to recognize it all they want and that's their right to do so, but the government has no such right given its protections of voluntary contracts between individuals.

Jason

 

[wkabel23]

Personally I think arguing for the sanctity of marriage is a bit ridiculous in today's society...

I'd be interested in finding out what the divorce rate among Americans is...not to mention how much adultery is committed.

GWB amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage is so stupid it's beyond words. Our government is supposed to be secular, I guess Bush forgot that when he dipped his nose in a little coke

 

[maXroOt]

about the extreme circumstances: i bring it up cause it does happen, possibly more then you think. my mom only works at the hospital one day a week, and she has seen plenty of these cases where a gay person cant go and see there partner.

also, unless you take the government completely out of marriage, i dont think it is right to only give gay couples civil unions, they should be able to marry like the rest of america. otherwse, its "separate but equal" ... remember that phrase?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: maXroOt
about the extreme circumstances: i bring it up cause it does happen, possibly more then you think. my mom only works at the hospital one day a week, and she has seen plenty of these cases where a gay person cant go and see there partner.

also, unless you take the government completely out of marriage, i dont think it is right to only give gay couples civil unions, they should be able to marry like the rest of america. otherwse, its "separate but equal" ... remember that phrase?

I have come to think that people who are opposed to gay marriage aren't really concerned for the sanctity of marriage (the divorce rate is FAR too high for me to buy that argument), they're afraid that the gay people will give the insitution a better go than the straight people have.

And it wouldn't take very damn much to pull that off If anyone's destroyed the "sanctity" of marriage it's been the straight people.

Jason

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: maXroOt
about the extreme circumstances: i bring it up cause it does happen, possibly more then you think. my mom only works at the hospital one day a week, and she has seen plenty of these cases where a gay person cant go and see there partner.

also, unless you take the government completely out of marriage, i dont think it is right to only give gay couples civil unions, they should be able to marry like the rest of america. otherwse, its "separate but equal" ... remember that phrase?

I have come to think that people who are opposed to gay marriage aren't really concerned for the sanctity of marriage (the divorce rate is FAR too high for me to buy that argument), they're afraid that the gay people will give the insitution a better go than the straight people have.

And it wouldn't take very damn much to pull that off If anyone's destroyed the "sanctity" of marriage it's been the straight people.

Jason

Good theory... That is like blaming all white people or all men for all the problems in the world. Let's pretend that everyone was gay, and I mean everyone. Fast forward human civilization 120 years, and we'll see how well we are doing. OH WAIT... we'll all be dead with no progeny. That would solve all of our problems

Separate but equal doesn't apply. Two men together is different that a man and a woman. And don't try and play the racism card, either. A black couple can do everything that a white couple can, but two married men cannot do everything that a straight couple can. It's impossible,and so clearly different.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: maXroOt
about the extreme circumstances: i bring it up cause it does happen, possibly more then you think. my mom only works at the hospital one day a week, and she has seen plenty of these cases where a gay person cant go and see there partner.

also, unless you take the government completely out of marriage, i dont think it is right to only give gay couples civil unions, they should be able to marry like the rest of america. otherwse, its "separate but equal" ... remember that phrase?

I have come to think that people who are opposed to gay marriage aren't really concerned for the sanctity of marriage (the divorce rate is FAR too high for me to buy that argument), they're afraid that the gay people will give the insitution a better go than the straight people have.

And it wouldn't take very damn much to pull that off If anyone's destroyed the "sanctity" of marriage it's been the straight people.

Jason

Good theory... That is like blaming all white people or all men for all the problems in the world. Let's pretend that everyone was gay, and I mean everyone. Fast forward human civilization 120 years, and we'll see how well we are doing. OH WAIT... we'll all be dead with no progeny. That would solve all of our problems

Separate but equal doesn't apply. Two men together is different than two women. And don't try and play the racism card, either. A black couple can do everything that a white couple can, but two married men cannot do everything that a straight couple can. It's impossible,and so clearly different.

Two men together is different than two women

Huh??

 

[daniel1113]

Two men together is different than a man and a woman.

\correction

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Two men together is different than a man and a woman.

\correction

Cool... I thought you were one of those people who hate gays but gets turned on by watching bi-sexual women...

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: maXroOt
about the extreme circumstances: i bring it up cause it does happen, possibly more then you think. my mom only works at the hospital one day a week, and she has seen plenty of these cases where a gay person cant go and see there partner.

also, unless you take the government completely out of marriage, i dont think it is right to only give gay couples civil unions, they should be able to marry like the rest of america. otherwse, its "separate but equal" ... remember that phrase?

I have come to think that people who are opposed to gay marriage aren't really concerned for the sanctity of marriage (the divorce rate is FAR too high for me to buy that argument), they're afraid that the gay people will give the insitution a better go than the straight people have.

And it wouldn't take very damn much to pull that off If anyone's destroyed the "sanctity" of marriage it's been the straight people.

Jason

Good theory... That is like blaming all white people or all men for all the problems in the world. Let's pretend that everyone was gay, and I mean everyone. Fast forward human civilization 120 years, and we'll see how well we are doing. OH WAIT... we'll all be dead with no progeny. That would solve all of our problems

Separate but equal doesn't apply. Two men together is different than two women. And don't try and play the racism card, either. A black couple can do everything that a white couple can, but two married men cannot do everything that a straight couple can. It's impossible,and so clearly different.

In all fairness, you could put a lot of the problems on one or both.

And the latter of the second is only different for a certain industry.

Also, you have yet to really respond to the issue of benefits. The fact is, that is the biggest issue aside from the marriage itself.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Early on Bow asked, "What tax benefits." I don't have the patience I once had so I didn't read the rest of the thread. Yo, Bow. If you're married and you get health insurance for you and your spouse, you spouse doesn't have to consider his or her portion of the health insurance benefits as "imputed income." Not so with same sex relationshipt. Let me briefly explain "imputed income." Married couple = spouse receives coverage without any income consequences. If it's not a recognized "marriage," that portion of the health insurance premium that covers the partner is considered the partner's income.

Acknowledged, thanks. I realize this varies widely depending on individual situations, but generally speaking, do you have any idea on the degree to which this benefit is offset by the "marriage penalty", both before and after Bush's most recent tax loans?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Good theory... That is like blaming all white people or all men for all the problems in the world. Let's pretend that everyone was gay, and I mean everyone. Fast forward human civilization 120 years, and we'll see how well we are doing. OH WAIT... we'll all be dead with no progeny. That would solve all of our problems

Separate but equal doesn't apply. Two men together is different that a man and a woman. And don't try and play the racism card, either. A black couple can do everything that a white couple can, but two married men cannot do everything that a straight couple can. It's impossible,and so clearly different.

It's not like blaming all the white people or white men for anything, don't be absurd. I simply said that these freaky people who are so insanely against gay marriage are more likely afraid that gays will have a higher rate of success than straights have (success meaning that they have long term, meaningful, happy relationships with a low rate of divorce or cheating).

The bottom line has NOTHING to do with the reproduction of the species, and the very argument is an exercise in total absurdity. It's only a VERY small percentage of people who are gay, and the idea that "everyone" will turn gay and in a given length of time we'll all die out is remarkably silly.

The only issue that truly matters is this: Do people have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? If so, then your points are moot. If two men find that their happiness is best served by having a romantic relationship together, you have no right to abridge their rights to Life and Liberty because you have a different view. Go and marry a woman, have sex, have kids, get a minivan and chill out! Leave others alone to pursue their Lives, their Liberty and their Happiness as they see fit.

Jason

 

[daniel1113]

Nothing I said is absurd. You said that those against gay marriage are simply scared that gays will be more successful at marriage than themselves. A homosexual couple can't even have children, so it is irrational, not to mention absurd, to think that they could be more successful than straight couples. Not that having children is the only goal of marriage, but it is definitely one of the cornerstones. Everyone has the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but that doesn't mean that everything must be legal, either. At the same time, two men don't have to be married to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Nothing I said is absurd. You said that those against gay marriage are simply scared that gays will be more successful at marriage than themselves. A homosexual couple can't even have children, so it is irrational, not to mention absurd, to think that they could be more successful than straight couples. Not that having children is the only goal of marriage, but it is definitely one of the cornerstones. Everyone has the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but that doesn't mean that everything must be legal, either. At the same time, two men don't have to be married to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Daniel,
Would you say that "sterile" (male-female) couples should not be allowed to marry?

What about female-female couples that persue artificial ensemination?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Nothing I said is absurd. You said that those against gay marriage are simply scared that gays will be more successful at marriage than themselves. A homosexual couple can't even have children, so it is irrational, not to mention absurd, to think that they could be more successful than straight couples. Not that having children is the only goal of marriage, but it is definitely one of the cornerstones. Everyone has the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but that doesn't mean that everything must be legal, either. At the same time, two men don't have to be married to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Excuse me, besides your religious bias (if you are religious) what's the problem with gays getting married? Is it that you feel threatened by them for some strange reason?

 

[M4tth3wV]

What I don't understand is, why not compromise and make civil unions that are legally the same as traditional marriage but not called marriage. This would have the added benefit of appealing to people that were not religious. Imagine more people getting "joined legally' as opposed to married with a religious inference.

Why try to fit a square peg in a round hole. Make your own friggin hole that fits.

 

[Rilescat]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: charrison

We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

Agreed. The day marriage became a secular institution was the day marriage was desanctified. IMO there should be two separate contracts, one as a civil union, open to hetero or homosexual couples, that is legally binding and confers legal benefits, and a marriage contract, one that confers no special legal status and that is granted by religious institutions.

Cheers!
Nate

Quite so. Let people have their marriage the way they want to proceed with it, that being religious or secular. The government should recognize marriage in relationship to the offspring (whether born or adopted) and otherwise leave things alone. As for the tax implications, I believe that to be a different matter entirely. The tax system is a huge mess and the differences in married/single are just one of the little items off to the side concerning the much larger problem.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: M4tth3wV
What I don't understand is, why not compromise and make civil unions that are legally the same as traditional marriage but not called marriage. This would have the added benefit of appealing to people that were not religious. Imagine more people getting "joined legally' as opposed to married with a religious inference.

Why try to fit a square peg in a round hole. Make your own friggin hole that fits.

What's the difference what you call it?

 

[M4tth3wV]

Exactly my point.

Obviously A LOT to everyone.

Traditionalists think marriage is for a man and woman .... Same sex thinks marriage is the ONLY answer. No room for argument, only cuz of the name. This is a fact you must consider especially since the traditionalists are the majority.

What's the big deal with what you call it. It seems more like a question of fulfilling needs than making everyone happy with nomenclature. If I wanted to marry a dude, I'd first be concerned with legal rights than a label.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison
We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

:beer: