Marriage equality, and the SCotUS

[sees_all1]

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

You know marriage is one of the seven sacraments in the church right? Why do gays want to associate themselves with us bigots?

<_<

[Kaida23]

For the record sees, the tax benefits for married couples with kids really aren't all that great. At least not here in Canada anyway. Well, unless you're poor in which case it really doesn't matter if you're married, only that you have kids.

 

When I was married my ex didn't work but I couldn't claim her as a dependent, and I made too much money so we didn't qualify for any of the federal or provincial tax rebates. I actually get more back as a single guy then I did while married with two kids. Where exactly are these tax incentives you keep going on about?

[sees_all1]

Where exactly are these tax incentives you keep going on about?

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/7-Tax-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html

 

Another one not listed there is with Social Security, and married couples with a single earner. When the single earner dies, the spouse continues to receive benefits afterwards, even though the spouse never *worked* for the benefit. The idea is that one parent would go make money, and the other would go take care of the kids, both being full time jobs.

 

Another government benefit exclusive to marriage is not having to testify against your spouse in court.

[Kaida23]

Fair enough. Not spectacularly great benefits unless you've got a lot of extra cash to contribute to things, but benefits none the less.

[Quyneax]

When getting married, the whole question "what sex/gender are you?" is not required, unless you wish to discriminate by sex.

 

Discrimination by sex is forbidden. I do not see why this should not apply in marriage as well.

 

Of course you can discuss whether discrimination by sex should be forbidden or not. Personally, I believe it should be, just like discrimination by 'race' or 'class'.

 

All the discussions about the legal benefits of marriage are irrelevant. They can be changed to fit whatever division of money we find fair. Naturally, laws may not discriminate by sex.

 

Children don't come into marriage. They are not allowed to marry, marriage is not required to have children, children are not required to have a marriage.

Of course there is a relation between children and marriage, but I think that is because both stem from love and the intention to be commited to eachother for a long time.

 

I think in the end, the most important reason for people to marry is romance. I do not think that is something you should deny to anyone.

[TTanT]

I feel like other people are stating what I meant to state far more coherently than me, and am forcibly reminded of why I normally don't post in debate threads.

[Giordano]

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

You know marriage is one of the seven sacraments in the church right? Why do gays want to associate themselves with us bigots?

Because God loves, (most) churches hate.

 

Deny me all you want, but the reason why homosexuality is uncomfortable is because of our religious uprising. Christianity founded more of Western civilization than the ancient Greeks ever did.

 

Denying gays to wed makes you look like a medieval serf: bigoted and uneducated. So very sorry the church was built for such ideals, but I cannot change historical fact.

[sees_all1]

Because God loves, (most) churches hate.

I'm sorry for you.

[champion]

I'm sure a few (if not most) of you have seen this video already, but it really puts everything into perspective (make sure to watch the whole thing if you haven't seen it).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

 

Sure this focuses on the religion aspect more than what many same-sex marriage opponents might think they're arguing with, but it ultimately just comes down to the fact that same-sex marriage is something society is accepting more and more quickly to the point that in a couple decades or so it'll be almost non-issue, just like interracial marriage is now. If heterosexual couples can get married, same-sex couples should be able to as well.

 

In the end I think we don't really have anything to work towards but making each other happy in one way or another. The effect both on me personally and on society of gays marrying would be so negligible it's a non-issue. Might as well make it easier for other people to be happy since we're all going to die anyways.

[Randox]

The problem goes way beyond taxes, and is also the reason what we in Canada call common law marriage exists (I don't know what it's actually called, nor am I sure what a real common law marriage is). Essentially if two people live together for long enough they automatically assume many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage regardless of being married in any way or not. I assume Americans have something similar.

 

If two people live together, and they buy a house together, and are not married or are legally recognized by some cohabitation law, and the one whose name the house (or car) is under dies, the partner probably doesn't get it regardless of how much money they put into it. Instead, their property is treated like that of any dead person, and generally becomes property of their surviving family. It leaves open the possibility that even if the will leaves the house and car to their partner, the family can try to challenge that will in court and take it for themselves. It's even worse in the more likely event someone leaves, as depending on whose name is on what someone might end up walking away with everything with the other unable to legally challenge it like would be possible in a divorce.

 

Telling gay people they shouldn't be allowed to get married and thus at the same time denying them joint ownership of possessions in the eyes of the law seems like a pretty mean thing to do. Screw taxes; they want to make sure their freaking house doesn't walk out from under them, that they can have a joint savings account without being open to having all their money vanishing over night. If their partner dies, they want to be able to collect a pension.

 

You need to have something that gives people in this situations the legal rights that marriage affords, otherwise your asking people to live in a very dangerous financial relationship that can end with people living on the street. Given that people enter into marriage already explicitly for tax and legal reasons, it seems pretty stupid to me to deny that same ability to people who actually love each other when your allowing strait people who have no feelings for each other whatsoever to get in on that.

[Range_This11]

My parents divorced after 23 years of marriage when I was in 8th grade and it was the best thing that has happened to my family. Both my parents have remarried and are happy and I am closer to my sister, mother, and father than I ever was growing up. Both my sister and I are college graduates and I will be entering a graduate program in the fall (as you know). I don't think that marriage statistics necessarily predict a child or family's economic success.

See the article, there is a connection between poverty and single parenting.

http://www.policymic...live-in-poverty

 

Basically what this article boils down to is that two incomes are better than one for economic stability. That is a total no-brainer. However, we would do well to remember that Americans do not always make life choices based on economic factors, and even when they do, the decisions are not always rational economic decisions. If that is the crux of the author's argument--and that article is a few statistics with a lot of conservative opinion interpretation--then I fail to see how it is a compelling case against gay marriage, though I'm not sure that's what you're trying to get at. Wouldn't two earners, homosexual or not, be beneficial to a child's economic well-being?

[Randox]

Despite my picking some of the worst examples (because those can be covered in other ways, even if they end up being more expensive in legal fees and taxes), most of the something like...apparently 1400 rights and privileges you get through marriage can't be done except by being married, because they are bestowed upon you by the government. A really big area that's affected is parenting and adoption, since it looks like you end up, in the eyes of the law, with one parent and one bum who lives in the house with you and your kid. You can make your partner a legal guardian, but parent still trumps guardian legally, and if my understanding is correct, if the worst happens the child actually goes to the family because next of kin would also trump legal guardian if they wanted to make a fuss about it.

 

For the most part your just loosing out with financial options, but there are a lot of things that get hairy if you and your partner split, or one of you dies and you don't get along with their family.

[sees_all1]

If that is the crux of the author's argument--and that article is a few statistics with a lot of conservative opinion interpretation--then I fail to see how it is a compelling case against gay marriage, though I'm not sure that's what you're trying to get at. Wouldn't two earners, homosexual or not, be beneficial to a child's economic well-being?

It's not a compelling case against homosexual marriage, it's the case for traditional families. My point is that over the past 100 years, laws have been passed to give incentives for married people to stick together in order to strengthen families. The underlying assumption is that one parent will work, and the other parent will stay at home with the kids raising them. The laws make it easier for families to live under a single income.

 

The point is that there are civil unions which grant homosexual couples many of the same protection as marriage, but not all of them. Homosexuals want "marriage" because they want all the benefits of marriage; I'm arguing that these benefits of marriage aren't really applicable to homosexual couples because they can't procreate. When these laws were passed giving bonuses to marriage, they had the intent of helping and protecting children by keeping their parents together. They weren't passed trying to make two classes of people.

 

Another thing that is irksome is the fact that pretty much everywhere in the U.S. recognizes civil unions, which is the same thing as marriage without the heterosexual part. There are still benefits civil unions don't receive that marriages do, but that's because marriage is meant for procreation and raising families, and civil unions are meant for people that are devoted to one another.

 

Homosexuals are fighting for the definition of marriage to change because they feel it's easier to change one word to get all benefits immediately instead of having to explain why they need the same incentives for marriage meant to keep children safe.

 

EDIT:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i-oppose-gay-marriage

In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.

By the way, I am gay.

 

...

 

Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.

Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.

This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.

Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.

Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.

Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?

The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.

For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.

[Seismos]

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

You know marriage is one of the seven sacraments in the church right? Why do gays want to associate themselves with us bigots?

Because God loves, (most) churches hate.

 

Deny me all you want, but the reason why homosexuality is uncomfortable is because of our religious uprising. Christianity founded more of Western civilization than the ancient Greeks ever did.

 

Denying gays to wed makes you look like a medieval serf: bigoted and uneducated. So very sorry the church was built for such ideals, but I cannot change historical fact.

I don't see how following what we believe makes us bigots... Christians, for the most part, just are against it. But then everybody who is for it attacks Christians because they're all so evil just because they don't have the same opinion as them. It doesn't make any sense to me.

[Omar]

Were you just keeping your opinion to yourself, this wouldn't be a problem. When you ask a government to make use of force in order to stop gays that would like to marry, it's not a matter of opinion anymore; what you do and vote for affects me.

[Kaphias]

The point is that there are civil unions which grant homosexual couples many of the same protection as marriage, but not all of them. Homosexuals want "marriage" because they want all the benefits of marriage; I'm arguing that these benefits of marriage aren't really applicable to homosexual couples because they can't procreate. When these laws were passed giving bonuses to marriage, they had the intent of helping and protecting children by keeping their parents together. They weren't passed trying to make two classes of people.

If the issue is whether two people can get money from the government to help and protect their children by keeping the parents together, does it really matter what gender the parents are, or if the child was adopted or not? (or born from a surrogate, sperm bank donor...)

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh, well... if he's gay and doesn't support same-sex marriage himself, then there must be something wrong. Quick everyone, find a black man who wouldn't mind working a cotton farm while shackled in chains!

I don't see how following what we believe makes us bigots... Christians, for the most part, just are against it. But then everybody who is for it attacks Christians because they're all so evil just because they don't have the same opinion as them. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't think that Christians are evil. Firstly, not all Christians are as against homosexuality as implied in the first instance. Secondly, even if you are, you have just as much right to that opinion as an atheists or followers of any other faith who also happen to disapprove of homosexuality. Your right to hold and express those opinions however, end when they start to infringe on the rights of other people.

 

From a British perspective, and I acknowledge that the issue is debated along different lines here than it is in the US, my frustration with the Church and gay marriage comes from the sense of entitlement. They claim that marriage is this great social institution (and even as an atheist, I agree with that), but then they draw up their own rules which prevent everyone in that society from enjoying the benefits of that institution. Furthermore, their beliefs are completely out of sync with public opinion; attitude to same-sex marriage has been becoming consistently more liberal over the past twenty years, and we're now at the point where those who believe homosexuality is fundamentally wrong are in a minority. Quite apart from that, western societies are generally much more secular now than ever before... if a religious organisation doesn't want to carry out same-sex marriages in their own churches, then we can all understand that, but why then try to impose those beliefs, and deny marriage as an institution, to people who do not share your beliefs?

[sees_all1]

The point is that there are civil unions which grant homosexual couples many of the same protection as marriage, but not all of them. Homosexuals want "marriage" because they want all the benefits of marriage; I'm arguing that these benefits of marriage aren't really applicable to homosexual couples because they can't procreate. When these laws were passed giving bonuses to marriage, they had the intent of helping and protecting children by keeping their parents together. They weren't passed trying to make two classes of people.

If the issue is whether two people can get money from the government to help and protect their children by keeping the parents together, does it really matter what gender the parents are, or if the child was adopted or not? (or born from a surrogate, sperm bank donor...)

I'd rather have homosexuals make that argument and partly agree with them on those points than to disagree on what marriage is and have them jump down my throat for being a bigot for not allowing them to "marry" or have their relationship be equal in the eyes of the law.

The other thing that hasn't been explored is how children develop when growing up with same sex parents. Dads and Moms are very different people, and lacking one could be detrimental to child developement. Unfortunately this issue is too touchy for any legitimate research to be done.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Unfortunately this issue is too touchy for any legitimate research to be done.

Wrong.

 

A very quick database search of my university library's subscribed sources for the terms "homosexuality* AND parenting*" found several hundred studies specific to the subject of psychology. To conduct a more useful search, you would have to define what specific detriment you're looking for. Increased levels of anxiety, for example.

 

Edit: Limiting the constraints to journal articles published in the past five years still produced 74 results.[1] That's only for the journals my university is subscribed to; there are many more out there. Does this qualify as 'legitimate research'?

[nine naked men]

The point is that there are civil unions which grant homosexual couples many of the same protection as marriage, but not all of them. Homosexuals want "marriage" because they want all the benefits of marriage; I'm arguing that these benefits of marriage aren't really applicable to homosexual couples because they can't procreate. When these laws were passed giving bonuses to marriage, they had the intent of helping and protecting children by keeping their parents together. They weren't passed trying to make two classes of people.

If the issue is whether two people can get money from the government to help and protect their children by keeping the parents together, does it really matter what gender the parents are, or if the child was adopted or not? (or born from a surrogate, sperm bank donor...)

I'd rather have homosexuals make that argument and partly agree with them on those points than to disagree on what marriage is and have them jump down my throat for being a bigot for not allowing them to "marry" or have their relationship be equal in the eyes of the law.

The other thing that hasn't been explored is how children develop when growing up with same sex parents. Dads and Moms are very different people, and lacking one could be detrimental to child developement. Unfortunately this issue is too touchy for any legitimate research to be done.

 

The literal reason the American Academy of Paediatricians endorsed gay marriage was because they came to the conclusion that it the gender of parents doesn't matter much when compared to pretty much every other aspect of parenting.

 

I found this out by literally googling it, c'mon.

[sees_all1]

And there is absolutely zero chance for their position to be politically motivated, right?

[Giordano]

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

You know marriage is one of the seven sacraments in the church right? Why do gays want to associate themselves with us bigots?

Because God loves, (most) churches hate.

 

Deny me all you want, but the reason why homosexuality is uncomfortable is because of our religious uprising. Christianity founded more of Western civilization than the ancient Greeks ever did.

 

Denying gays to wed makes you look like a medieval serf: bigoted and uneducated. So very sorry the church was built for such ideals, but I cannot change historical fact.

I don't see how following what we believe makes us bigots... Christians, for the most part, just are against it. But then everybody who is for it attacks Christians because they're all so evil just because they don't have the same opinion as them. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

I said medieval folk.

 

You can be a 21st century Christian: let people live, love (spiritually) everyone, and follow Christ.

 

Or you can be 10th century Christian: ban gay marriage, hate on strangers, and radicalize for Christ.

 

Am I wrong to see the latter being displayed in mainstream American conservatives? Am I wrong to see mainstream American conservatives against gay marriage?

[Ginger_Warrior]

And there is absolutely zero chance for their position to be politically motivated, right?

Is a purely speculative argument which holds zero weight in a logical discussion.

[sees_all1]

And there is absolutely zero chance for their position to be politically motivated, right?

Is a purely speculative argument which holds zero weight in a logical discussion.

Actually, it's a very good concern to have in a logical discussion. But I wouldn't call this a logical discussion. It's more of an emotional discussion, and it has been for the past 50 years.

[Giordano]

And there is absolutely zero chance for their position to be politically motivated, right?

Is a purely speculative argument which holds zero weight in a logical discussion.

Actually, it's a very good concern to have in a logical discussion. But I wouldn't call this a logical discussion. It's more of an emotional discussion, and it has been for the past 50 years.

It's a social discussion.