Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The discrimination is against those who are not married (whether they are gay or not frankly). The government uses these tax incentives as a form of social engineering in order to incentivize and encourage certain behavior on the part of the population. The fact that they do that in and of itself is unfair.
What kind of logic do you need to see that the 1049 beneifits and rights that you receive with a secular marriage license is being denied us by the action of DOMA. Those rights and benefits are not contingent on reproducing offspring, nor on having a religion. Primarily, marriage is secular to be considered legal A church wedding without the marriage license does not stand in court, nor does it recieve the federal benefits. This gay man is answering your question, wether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. But try and explain why those rights and benefits should only be granted to tax paying straight couples and not to tax paying gay couples. This is coming from common sense and logic, not using reproduction of offspring or religion as a requirement of marriage as a deciding factor, because it is not.
Don't even try and engage Harrier about DOMA. He thinks it's a law that forbids US states from legalizing gay marriage.
If we did away with civil marriage and its rights (or "perks"), what would you want done first:
deport all the foreign spouses of American citizens, or throw all the military wives (and a husband or two) out of base housing and bar them from shopping at base commissaries?
He was intentionally vague - the phrasing made it seem as if at one time California had legislated and placed into statue the validity of gay marriage. We have not.
Instead we have striven to defend marriage - even by amending our own state constitution - which was struck down by a gay judge who should have recused himself for conflict of interest - thereby circumventing the clear voice of the people.
I am opposed to one man having that kind of power.
There was a man in Germany during the 1930's and 1940's who had such dictatorial power...
Then any judge should have recused him or herself if they were straight. Why should a straight person decide rights for gay people. It was not the majority of California that voted for prop 8, only just more than 2 million voted yes on it, that is not a majority of California and besides, no majority has the right to vote on the rights of any minority. Marriage equality will prevail because it is legally right for all people.
They may marry a member of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals.
That's such an awful legal argument it's not even used by attorney's who argue against gay marriage. Apparently you people never learn.
Guess we can also conclude you care not a lick about the "sanctity" of marriage, since a gay man marrying a woman will end in adultery and divorce.
The definition of marriage is changing all over the world. You have no say in the matter. Either enter the 21st Century or deal with being stuck in the stone age.
No they're not, actually, they're immigration guidelines and subject to review rather than guarantees. Anyway, what I was speaking of in particular was the multitude of tax incentives.
Then again, your response is a conditioned one, society is trained to think that of course the government should incentivize marriage, and of course they deserve their fiscal reward for doing so, so they have a reason to marry. Which, when you think about it, is really REALLY stupid.
I realize you were focusing on the marriage rights that deal with taxes. The main point of my post was to point out that many, many other types of legal rights are conferred by civil marriage law.
My two examples are most certainly two rights of civil marriage. Here's another one. If civil marriage were done away with, spouses could not file wrongful death lawsuits should their spouse be murdered or die due to another person's negligence. That's another right that is conferred when two people avail themselves to civil marriage law.
What happens in other countries is their business.
And it's not a matter of winning.
I don't get a prize if the word marriage retains its true meaning except that the institution is preserved.
The word marriage defines the relationship one man has with one woman and joins their biological offspring to them in this unique and natural union.
If marrying a member of the opposite sex isn't your cup of tea, so be it, but come up with your own word.
Marriage is already taken.
Marriage is a word not owned by the church or anyone. It is simantics. Your unigue and natural union of a man and a woman is not unique at all, it is what has been going on for millions of years. Marriage is a legal construct for protections and benefits, but is not required for reproduction of biological offspring. What do you do about the over 55% divorce rate, those kids are not being raised by their biological parents, how about adopted kids. I am married to my spouse of 34 years and will still call it marriage because we are married. Gay couples getting married does not hinder straight marriages one bit and no proof of such has been proven. It has not stopped heterosexuals from getting hitched or getting divorced. It does not take any rights away from them either, it only gives us the same rights we pay for.
For one, necrophilia is not a sexual orientation. Two, dead bodies can't consent, and three, I don't see constant notices in the news of necrophiliacs being demonized or discriminated against. Not a valid comparison.
1. yes it is
2. What if the person gave consent before they died
3. there is no movement (yet) to accept necrophiliacism
They may marry a member of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals.
Marriage is defined in most states as a union between one unrelated man and one unrelated woman.
There is no provision in that definition for same-sex couples to wed.
Since marriage defines the union between one man and one woman and further joins their biological offspring to them, the unique institution of marriage should not be altered in a way that allows anyone with a particular sexual inclination to redefine marriage to also include that, whatever that might be.
Explain to me why people as creative and clever as homosexuals tend to be haven't simply invented their own defined permanent sexual unions along with a name for these unions.
Do that and I just don't see any sort of opposition to equal benefits and requirements becoming part of these unions.
The fight has been and still is over the word marriage because that word potentially uses the power of the state to crush dissenting opinion on homosexuality.
Why should I marry someone of the opposite sex and live a lie? That is a bunch of religious bull do. Ones bioligical offspring are legally bound to their parents even if the parents do not marry. That is why a man cannot just go around and get any woman he pleases pregnant and abandon the offspring. Marriage is not required for reproduction or the legal binds. There is plenty of opposition to us gay people receiving the benefits even with civil unions and domestic partnerships. Marriage is already a term for the joining of two, it is not contingent on the union being male and female. In botany the term can mean the joining of two branches on a tree even. Why invent another word that means the same? Civil unions are banned too in all the states that ban gay marriage.
Last edited by TheDragonslayer; 01-06-2013 at 02:26 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
