Gay marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2008 10:06 PM GMT
    This is one of those stating-the-obvious rants, but I just read a piece of editorial that incensed me. The journalist feels that the fight for gay marriage is a foolish one because it reflects a desire to imitate the heterosexual norm. I keep seeing this as a condemnation of gay marriage by gay journalists, and it really irks me, because they're failing to recognise the crux of the issue. Whether you choose to marry your partner or not has no bearing. Whether you feel the institution of marriage is hollow is meaningless. You cannot choose if the law does not afford you a choice, and as long as your government fails to allow you the right to marry, you are a second class citizen.

    Rant over. Carry on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2008 10:16 PM GMT
    Word.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2008 11:02 PM GMT
    colmdublin saidThis is one of those stating-the-obvious rants, but I just read a piece of editorial that incensed me. The journalist feels that the fight for gay marriage is a foolish one because it reflects a desire to imitate the heterosexual norm. I keep seeing this as a condemnation of gay marriage by gay journalists, and it really irks me, because they're failing to recognise the crux of the issue. Whether you choose to marry your partner or not has no bearing. Whether you feel the institution of marriage is hollow is meaningless. You cannot choose if the law does not afford you a choice, and as long as your government fails to allow you the right to marry, you are a second class citizen.

    Rant over. Carry on.


    Could not agree more. Some gays in the early days of the movement thought that by being monogamous gays were trying to imitate straights, and therefore we should all have open relationships. So much for individual choice.

    I am not rushing to get to the altar, but I am glad in Canada we have the choice. We pay taxes, work hard and obey the law. Why should we be treated differently?

    No reason whatsoever.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Mar 22, 2008 12:27 AM GMT
    I think that a lot of the political and activist types think that it will make it harder for them to achieve their goals if gays have options other than what they want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 1:20 AM GMT
    Gays should not be denied the legal status of marriage or the legal benefits of marriage that are available to straights. But I feel the legal benefits of marriage need some work.

    Marriage, and its legal benefits, originally existed to protect the woman in the relationship so she could stay home and raise kids while the husband worked. Gay couples typically don't raise kids, so there isn't the same need for legal protection. I believe it's worthwhile giving extra benefits (such as tax advantages, health coverage, etc) to anyone of any gender who sacrifices their earning power in order to raise children. But these days many straight married couples are either not having children at all, or working full time jobs while paying someone else to raise their kids. Why should I foot the bill for that?

    With insurance costs skyrocketing and an increasing proportion of tax dollars going to support aging baby boomers and unpopular wars, I believe it's time the legal benefits of marriage had a serious overhaul. Some benefits - inheritance rights, for example - should apply equally to everyone. Others, that are intended to protect caregivers, should apply only to those who are actually raising children in lieu of employment - no matter what their gender or sexuality.

    I realize that all of this will happen no time soon and probably never, but I think it would be a more fair and just system than the one we have now. Till then, I'll support gay marriage with equal rights to straight married couples on principle. The gay couples who would choose to be legally married represent such a miniscule percentage of the total American population, there is no credibly significant financial downside to giving them the respectability they deserve.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 1:27 AM GMT
    Why can't I be just as miserable as a married couple icon_razz.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 2:19 AM GMT
    hehe,getting married with man is so far far away thing for me,let me find my guy first and then talk about this topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 2:26 AM GMT

    Here's my two cents plain and simple:

    No one should be defined differently than anyone else.


    B787
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 2:46 AM GMT
    If I'm less than 100% a citizen, can I pay less than 100% of my taxes?

    I suppose if I took that approach, in a few years I'd come home and find a tank running over my house.

    Oh well, that's America, and at least I can get a bacon cheeseburger for $0.99!
  • art_smass

    Posts: 960

    Mar 22, 2008 2:54 AM GMT
    I'd get married for the presents.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 2:55 AM GMT
    Gays can't get married in 49 states and polyamorous groups can't in any. Gay Marriage would be a step in the right direction, but there will always be a group on the fringe.

    Ban Marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 2:57 AM GMT
    Love it. Haha. Great idea.

    But then what do we do to acknowledge two people's love? Some kind of "We Fucked!" ceremony and reception?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 3:20 AM GMT
    My exwife was always very open minded about the gay issue. She knew about me before we even tried to date...

    she came to pick up our son the other day and she asked me what I thought of gay marriage. She has gone back to college to be a teacher and is writing a paper on gay marriage and asked me what I thought of it. Which she knows and was asking to be funny.

    I told her I think we should atleast have a choice if we want to. That doesnt mean we would have to, just like some straight couples choose not to, but we should atleast have the same choice.

    She said her teacher asked her why she decided to write about that topic. She told the teacher about me being her exhusband and that I had a partner now and she felt that we should be able to get married and have the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

    I think there are some people that are for it wether they be straight, gay or whatever. Unfortunately its not enough right now to make a difference.

    I feel with the younger generation coming up though that will soon change one day.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 3:29 AM GMT
    riptjock saidBut these days many straight married couples are either not having children at all, or working full time jobs while paying someone else to raise their kids. Why should I foot the bill for that?


    In what way are you "footing the bill"?

    I believe it's time the legal benefits of marriage had a serious overhaul. Some benefits - inheritance rights, for example - should apply equally to everyone. Others, that are intended to protect caregivers, should apply only to those who are actually raising children in lieu of employment - no matter what their gender or sexuality.

    Exactly what tax expenditures are you talking about? Child care credits? The deduction for dependents?

    I realize that all of this will happen no time soon and probably never, but I think it would be a more fair and just system than the one we have now. Till then, I'll support gay marriage with equal rights to straight married couples on principle. The gay couples who would choose to be legally married represent such a miniscule percentage of the total American population, there is no credibly significant financial downside to giving them the respectability they deserve.

    This is a non-specific rant about "gummint giveaways". So far you haven't given ONE example of how couples raising children are favored by the tax code, that is to say, your tax dollars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 3:31 AM GMT
    My exwife and I were also talking of how stupid the Virginia laws are for these types of situations. She said someone told her of a story of a gay couple in virginia and something happened to one of them.

    They rushed him to the hospital and would not let his partner in the room. By the time the other guys family got there, which was 4 hours later, the guy had slipped into a coma and died shortley after.

    He never got to say "I love You", "good bye" or anything. All because of a stupid piece of paper not joining them legally. Its just so wrong.


    Its amazing to me how the govt wants to keep church and govt separate when its convenient for them but an issue comes up like this and its "well the bible says"....whatever..
  • art_smass

    Posts: 960

    Mar 22, 2008 3:33 AM GMT
    Even though I'm living in what is supposed to be the redneck capital of Canada, I could marry a guy up here.

    That's a hint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 7:29 PM GMT
    jprichva said[quote]This is a non-specific rant about "gummint giveaways". So far you haven't given ONE example of how couples raising children are favored by the tax code, that is to say, your tax dollars.


    OK, let's assume my taxable income is $100,000 and my partner's taxable income is $20,000. By the 2007 IRS Tax Tables and Tax Rate Schedule, if we were to file as singles I would pay $22,110.75 and my partner would pay $2,613, for a total of $24,719.50. If we were married and filed jointly, we would pay a total of $22847.50, which is smaller than the above amount by $1,876.25.

    I call that a tax advantage for being married. Not enough money to retire on, but nothing to sneeze at either. And as I stated above, I see no reason why such an advantage should be given to a childless married couple, whether gay or straight. What I said, by the way, is that childless married couples are improperly favored, not couples with children.

    If I'm missing something, let me know. Your post sounded a bit like you were calling me stupid.

    I rarely just make shit up. And I almost never mispronounce the word "government".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 7:45 PM GMT
    riptjock said
    If I'm missing something, let me know. Your post sounded a bit like you were calling me stupid.


    I don't think you're stupid. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

    However, the fact that there is a penalty under the tax code for single people living together has nothing to do with whether or not they have children, or their sexual orientation. The tax advantages bestowed on married people are unrelated to the fact of their having children, and should not be. The gov-ern-ment has decided to promote stability in society via cutting married folks a break. This isn't a child care credit.

    This is an argument for gay marriage. It is wrong for them to decide to subsidize (however slightly) marriage but at the same time restrict its benefits to straight people.

    I also get impatient with people who say that their tax money is to be used only in some ways and not others. That is not how our republic works. I don't like the war, or farm subsidies, but I'm not refusing to pay taxes because of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2008 8:51 PM GMT
    art_smass saidEven though I'm living in what is supposed to be the redneck capital of Canada, I could marry a guy up here.

    That's a hint.


    I'll call you if McCain gets voted in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2008 3:33 AM GMT
    jprichva saidThe tax advantages bestowed on married people are unrelated to the fact of their having children, and should not be.


    Well see, that's my point. I feel they should be. I don't see any benefit to society of giving tax advantages to married people, unless they are raising children.

    I'm all for monogamy and I'm all for marriage, both gay and straight. But I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidizing it. Not when it seems our nation will shortly be hurting for tax dollars.

    And for the record, I did not make any comment whatsoever on what our government should or should not spend tax money on. I only pointed out that they're underwriting some very expensive concerns, and they shouldn't be giving tax advantages where there seems to be no benefit to society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2008 10:01 AM GMT
    colmdublin saidThis is one of those stating-the-obvious rants, but I just read a piece of editorial that incensed me. The journalist feels that the fight for gay marriage is a foolish one because it reflects a desire to imitate the heterosexual norm. I keep seeing this as a condemnation of gay marriage by gay journalists, and it really irks me, because they're failing to recognise the crux of the issue. Whether you choose to marry your partner or not has no bearing. Whether you feel the institution of marriage is hollow is meaningless. You cannot choose if the law does not afford you a choice, and as long as your government fails to allow you the right to marry, you are a second class citizen.

    Rant over. Carry on.
    that's right. why should the str8s and bi's get all the fights, and divorce issues. Why should the gay community, be so privileged to be free of such a burden as marriage?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2008 10:09 AM GMT
    One has no interest in the institution of marriage. This is a religious ceremony. Anyway, if guys got marriage. would I be able to, also marry, my two BF's? I don't need to walk dawn an isle, to say I love you, and want anymore....icon_biggrin.gif

    But as a White indigenous Aussie. 6 generations born to Oz. it pissers me off to no end, that new comers to Oz, get rights, I don't, yet one gets ALL the same responsibilities. icon_mad.gif

    All we need is de facto status, to cover the legal issuesicon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2008 10:35 AM GMT
    Pesonally, I don't care what it's called as long as I have the right to create a legally recognized union with my partner and we recieve the same rights and benefits as married people in all 50 states.

    My take on the current situation is two-fold. First, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry (by any name) is tantamount to government sponsored selective discrimination... especially since we're bound by all the other laws of the country, like everyone else, and have to pay taxes, like everyone else. If that's not illegal, it should be.

    Secondly... "marriage" is being denied us based on DOMA, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and futher defines it as an institution of God. That brings religion into the lawmaking procedure, which implies government endorsement of religion and therefore violates separation of church and state.

    So, either grant the right to marriage OR create an equal option with equal benefits, rights and recognition nationally under another name, OR continue to deny this right to me and free me of the legal responsibility of paying taxes and being bound by the other laws of this country... because if I'm not an equal, I have no desire to pay taxes to support the goverment that discriminates against me.

    Just my 2 cents... icon_wink.gif

  • Mar 23, 2008 11:46 AM GMT
    As a married guy (who enjoys rj, enough said :winkicon_smile.gif I just wanted to let you know I support the idea of marriage (or more specifically equal rights) for all. Whether it's called marriage or whatever all people should have the same rights and benefits in our society. Personally, I can understand separating any legal status from the religious aspects if that is what a 'church' wants to do. The government, of the people, should set the same rules for everyone but if some bigoted church doesn't believe in a particular marriage whether gay or with someone out of the faith then so be it. I wouldn't have much use for them anyway.

    So, any gay coupled that wants to get married and move into my neighborhood, I'd be the first one over welcoming you. Anything is better than the white trash with their 2 teenage dropouts who live there now, icon_lol.gif . Besides, why shouldn't you suffer like the rest of us. Just joking.

    Hopefully this didn't offend anyone. If it did I apologize in advance. I'm off to the gym.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2008 12:08 PM GMT
    Having been married (and now divorced) I still support the right to marry.

    There is another tact though. If we fought to remove all of the over 1000 rights and privileges (such as taxes) associated with marraige and made it a 'religious only' institution, they'd [US society] see that the separation of church and state isn't all it's put up to be.