On the subject of gay marriage

Classified, Top Secret, Burn After Reading

Moderators: pablo banquo, Gobo, Bag of Ass, SporkAndrew

User avatar
shorty
Floydian Hate
Posts: 3576
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:24 pm
Location: Mill Creek, WA

Postby shorty » Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:30 pm

Gay marriage doesn't bother me, not being gay and all. Should it be allowed? Sure. Will it bother me if not? A little, but more because of snowball legislation (first that, then what?) than anything else.
A paranoid is merely someone who is in posession of all the facts.

Ludovico
Mad Zealot
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 9:28 am
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Postby Ludovico » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:27 am

. wrote:And Square, if you breathe through your colon, I would probably have to smother you just out of principle.
Or pity.

To play devil's advocate for all the people against tax breaks for married couples, the initial argument was that married couples have a greater chance of staying together, because they've made the sacred vows and whatnot. Therefor, if kids are involved, there's a greater chance that the family will remain nuclear if the parents are married. So, in addition to protection from eternal damnation and hellfire, they get a little tax break to help protect the union. Honestly, however, I fail to see how tax breaks help at all. While I will admit a tax-law-savvy couple on the verge of an amicable split might decide to maintain their legal union while dissolving their literal one in favor of a sweet tax break, a woman leaving her physically abusive husband probably isn't thinking about next year's I-9 as she scoops her bruised infant into her arms and flees to the nearest shelter. Either way, the relationship ends, in the eyes of god and the neighbors, even if the government refuses to accept it. Fact of the matter is, relationships will end or they won't and, not only is the government incapable of affecting such things, they really have no place trying.

Aww, I'm a shitty devil's advocate.
-'Vico

User avatar
Square721BT
Doom Cock
Posts: 6765
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:23 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby Square721BT » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:52 am

That may be, but I agree very strongly with what you are saying.
Actually, I'd think it was really cool if I saw Jesus in my icecream too. A tyrannosaur in an F14 would be even cooler.
-Bunyip, a man for all seasonings.

User avatar
Bag of Ass
Ninth Horrid Scar
Posts: 17607
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: New House

Postby Bag of Ass » Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:59 pm

Ludovico wrote:To play devil's advocate for all the people against tax breaks for married couples, the initial argument was that married couples have a greater chance of staying together, because they've made the sacred vows and whatnot.

In that case, why don't they just outlaw divorce? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T

User avatar
Bunyip
I AM ERROR
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:42 pm
Location: Baconham

Postby Bunyip » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:32 pm

Thinking more about this lately...

What benefits do married couples have now that gay couples are not entitled to? Besides the tax breaks I mean. Visitation rights springs to mind, but I'm sure there are others. I'm thinking that your average couple getting married doesn't particularly care about the tax incentives, whether they're straight or not.

The current incentives for marriage seem to be based on the viewpoint that only men and women get married, and that they generally do it to form a family unit. Marriage was once socially and legally a kind of license for having children. I think there's some merit in that, if only because children need to be raised in a stable and safe environment, and some formal commitment on the part of their carers makes that more likely. Marriage between two people of the same sex does nothing to spoil that view. There's certainly enough children around that need a more stable environment, and enough childless gay couples that would welcome the chance.

However, if we decide that marriage is first and foremost a commitment (that's the way I prefer to see it), can we maybe remove the financial incentives, or at least amend them so that you can't make extra money by getting married? I recognise that it's practically impossible to bring something like that about, as there's enough self-righteous married people about who won't want their rights (i.e. money) reduced, but it seems to make sense to me. I think marriage should be a considered decision, not one that's entered into for financial reasons. That seems one way to avoid "degrading marriage" despite changing its nature.

If financial incentives remain, I think there probably does need to be a limit on what a marriage is. Can an entire commune of people enter into one marriage? Can a commune be allowed to have group guardianship of children born to the group? I recognise there's not much legal limit now on how a child should be raised, but I'm definitely very unhappy with the idea of more than two parents.

I guess I'm looking at:
Whether healthy environments for children should be encouraged
Whether that should be done financially/legally, or just socially
If socially, how?

I'm trying to take the European approach - recognise there's a problem (gay couples aren't entitled to the same benefits as straight married couples), discuss solutions, and examine the consequences of the solutions. I'm going to listen to any discussion, so no lecturing please.

User avatar
Lobstrosity
Scientific American
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:38 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Postby Lobstrosity » Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:24 pm

I'm not going to address all this right now, but I want to make one point.

1) We know what the consequence of marriage is. Lots of heterosexuals do it. What exactly would the consequences be of allowing homosexuals to get married? How, exactly, would it not just be more of the same? What "consequences" are being examined? In my mind, that would be like examining the consequences of allowing interracial marriages or allowing atheists to wed.

I guess what I'd just like to hear is what potential/hypothetical consequences you envision need be examined.

Also, here is a list of rights conferred by marriage. These are a few I see as key:
  • Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
  • Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
  • Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
  • Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
  • Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
  • Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
  • Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness or bereavment leave if your spouse or spouse's close relative dies.
  • Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
  • Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
  • Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
  • Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
  • Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
  • Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
  • Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
  • Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
  • Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
  • Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
  • Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

So what is the downside of granting these rights to homosexual couples? Why are their relationships not worthy of such rights and protections?

User avatar
toaster
Füture Kïng of Liechtënsteïn
Posts: 3049
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 9:12 pm
Location: Berlin, baby

Postby toaster » Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:32 pm

The european approach usually takes 3 years, includes at least 3 different parlaments and/or commisions and get's rejected by the upper house.

My approach would be to completely cut all finacial benefits and use the money on child benefits, include a stepping that benefits lower incomes/ single parents and increase the lump sum per child with the overall number of children.

Seperate marriage from the juristic aspect, maybe except for the surname thing, turn the juristic aspect into another institution that is usually bundled to marriage, but also available alone. Of course, if people want to get married without the legal commitment, that's fine as well.

Now the problem in Germany would be wether the civil registry office would be allowed to perform the "spiritual" marriages for gays as well, but since that'd be discussed on state level anyway, it would probably go through in the north and east, and wouldn't in the west and south so easily , but then, they'd have to recognize it as well.
Get immortal, or die trying.

hobokenbob
Uncle Bob
Posts: 4802
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:29 pm
Location: Boston MA
Contact:

Postby hobokenbob » Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:19 pm

the gay marriage thing was a pretty hot issue here in mass. one of the funnier arguements against by retarded conservative friend, paraphrased:

the gays will flood massachusetts, and then healthcare and medical insurance costs will rise for all of us because we'll have to be paying for their AIDS treatments.

...

i really wish i made that up, but this is actually what someone said to me.
In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.

Jason Mustian

User avatar
Lobstrosity
Scientific American
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:38 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Postby Lobstrosity » Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:26 pm

I don't know why this issue bothers me so much. It's not like it directly affects me in any way. I think it's just that I'm so shocked and disappointed to see so many people be perfectly fine with something so obviously bigoted (even if the bigotry is unintentional/subconsious). In the future people will look back on this time and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone, just as now we look back and wonder the same thing about those who ardently fought to maintain segregation or who strongly opposed women's suffrage.

hobokenbob
Uncle Bob
Posts: 4802
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:29 pm
Location: Boston MA
Contact:

Postby hobokenbob » Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:35 pm

i agree totally, it's even kinda embarrassing.

I guess i had this small hope that what with the clock turning past 2000 and all and that now we're living in the "Future!(tm)" that crap like this would'ce resolved itself. so not only are we jipped on the flying cars, but we're also not even remotely utopian.

or distopian for that matter... the movies told me that in the "Future!(tm)" we'd be either a perfect society living in paradises created inside huge enclosed domes on the surface of mars or we'd be post-apocolyptic mutants killing each other for sport and precious bottlecaps, battling against robots of our own creation intent on destroying us. and dammit i want one or the other.
In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.

Jason Mustian

.
I HAVE CHORTLES!
Posts: 10842
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: The Vietnamese Ghetto

Postby . » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:13 pm

Lobstrosity wrote:I think it's just that I'm so shocked and disappointed to see so many people be perfectly fine with something so obviously bigoted (even if the bigotry is unintentional/subconsious).

It's even worse when you are part of that group "everyone" seems so against, although I have to admit, I'm not really all that shocked by it. Disappointed, hell yes.
And by group, I meant homosexuals in general, not really marriage-seeking homosexuals. I'm indifferent on my actually getting married.

User avatar
pablo banquo
Banjo Froggo
Posts: 6012
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 7:17 am
Location: Nantuckett

Postby pablo banquo » Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:01 am

Texans?
Intolerant?
Never!
i before e except after a few beers

Kauser
Son of Perdition
Posts: 9565
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 8:05 pm

Postby Kauser » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:01 am

hobokenbob wrote:the gay marriage thing was a pretty hot issue here in mass. one of the funnier arguements against by retarded conservative friend, paraphrased:

the gays will flood massachusetts, and then healthcare and medical insurance costs will rise for all of us because we'll have to be paying for their AIDS treatments.

...

i really wish i made that up, but this is actually what someone said to me.



Yeah, your friend got it wrong there, Hob. It's: "All them gays will move here then they'll be wanting rights like humans and animals do."
Do not call up what you cannot put down.

User avatar
Bunyip
I AM ERROR
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:42 pm
Location: Baconham

Postby Bunyip » Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:43 pm

Lobstrosity wrote:1) We know what the consequence of marriage is. Lots of heterosexuals do it. What exactly would the consequences be of allowing homosexuals to get married? How, exactly, would it not just be more of the same? What "consequences" are being examined? In my mind, that would be like examining the consequences of allowing interracial marriages or allowing atheists to wed.

I guess what I'd just like to hear is what potential/hypothetical consequences you envision need be examined.


I'm not worried about the consequences of allowing homosexuals to marry. It's more the approach I hear occasionally that there should be no limit to what a marriage is. If marriage is still limited to "one person marrying one other person", then I don't have a problem. If it's not, that's where the other consequences come into play. I may have done the wrong thing by placing this in the gay marriage thread, as gay marriage itself isn't an issue, as far as I'm concerned.

User avatar
shorty
Floydian Hate
Posts: 3576
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:24 pm
Location: Mill Creek, WA

Postby shorty » Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:51 am

Lobstrosity wrote:I don't know why this issue bothers me so much. It's not like it directly affects me in any way. I think it's just that I'm so shocked and disappointed to see so many people be perfectly fine with something so obviously bigoted (even if the bigotry is unintentional/subconsious). In the future people will look back on this time and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone, just as now we look back and wonder the same thing about those who ardently fought to maintain segregation or who strongly opposed women's suffrage.


Honestly, I don't think America is going to last that long as a country.
A paranoid is merely someone who is in posession of all the facts.

hobokenbob
Uncle Bob
Posts: 4802
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:29 pm
Location: Boston MA
Contact:

Postby hobokenbob » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:24 pm

Bag of Ass wrote:
Gobo wrote:I'm indifferent to marriage myself... I don't see much of a point, if you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them then why do you need to go through a major ceremony for it? Just spend your damned lives together.

Tax breaks.


good job!


So very recently 2 more states legalized gay marriage.. up to 4 now (MA,CT,IA,VT). are we seeing a tipping point?

grats vermont and iowa.
In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.

Jason Mustian

Eolh
Serious Business
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 4:01 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Eolh » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:42 pm

Vermont's is significantly more impressive to me considering it was an act of elected representatives overriding a gubernatorial veto.
Your mind has been transported back in time...and to Mars.

hobokenbob
Uncle Bob
Posts: 4802
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:29 pm
Location: Boston MA
Contact:

Postby hobokenbob » Tue May 05, 2009 8:38 pm

both Maine and NH has legislation in the works. damn yankees will have to be changed to fabulous yankees.
In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.

Jason Mustian

User avatar
Too-Much-Coffee Mistress
Old Maid
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:52 am

Postby Too-Much-Coffee Mistress » Wed May 06, 2009 4:04 am

New Jersey has had civil unions since 2006. A commission put together at the end of last year to examine the fairness of the civil union law concluded that NJ should become the next state to legalize gay marriage, so hopefully something will happen there soon.
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Bunyip
I AM ERROR
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:42 pm
Location: Baconham

Postby Bunyip » Wed May 06, 2009 5:31 am

Any long bets on which state will be the last?


Return to “Deep Throats”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest