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.
To be accurate - I think the Media is now very heavy promoting the idea of Gay Marriage,
and it is being sold as "just another human right".
If we strip away the usual media fog around it, to show that the issue is really just about money, I wonder how many would actually support it ?
In other words, the Majority is being sold a fantasy - not the real goods, with the price tag showing. (It's a bit like Obamacare in that way.)
As I have said, I am in favor of Gay Marriage, so long as it is not shifting costs to tax payers. Show me that is true, and you have my support. I see no reason why Gay people should not be treated with dignity, but don't ask me for my checkbook.
Ending slavery shifted a great cost to the tax payers. Perhaps we should reinstate slavery.
Sorry, but I really do not understand your point - except that I get you did not like my post.
Why must limiting financial crossover in any way, "marginalize" gay couples, unless I am right and the whole gay marriage issue is : "about the money, honey." ("You want to have sex, you're gonna pay" -as the $10 wh@r3 said.)
Because by denying marriage you are denying all of the rights and perks that go along with it, including:
- Heterosexual couples get tax benefits annually because they file together (children or not).
- " " get de facto beneficiary claims.
- " " get admittance to hospitals in cases of emergency.
- " " children are immediately given over to the surviving spouse in the case of death.
- " " can file social security for the partner whom contributed the most in the case of death.
- In the case of death, a child of an LGBT partnership may be denied benefits of one of the parents if that dead parent wasn't the adoptee, since marriage was never allowed, i.e., the child's unofficial parent was nothing more than a "family friend."
Basically, the LGBT community only receives the same rights that a high school "boyfriend/girlfriend" couple gets. Yeah, I'd say that by between refusing life/tax benefits to gay couples and their children you are certainly marginalizing them and their children.
*Edit- I forgot perhaps the worst con of denying marriage rights to the LGBT community. In the case of death, because no marriage has been allowed, a child may end up not being allowed to stay with the surviving parent after a death because marriage was never made official, and will likely end up in an adoption process that may not go a single-gay-person's way.
Opposition to gay marriage is not a minority opinion. It's just tiring arguing with you people. You're not worth the aggravation. Go on an wallow in your perversions. God will deal with it all at the appointed time.
I'm tired of you bigots spreading your toxic propaganda.....Opposition to gay marriage definitely is a minority position in the US, as 58% of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage, and this number is increasing every year....
Oh. Given the context of your OP (gay marriage is costly), I took "financial predators" to mean those entering into a gay marriage so that collectively they take advantage of the financial marriage benefits offered by the state.
As to your meaning, sure, some gay marriages are/will be like that. However, I can't imagine why it would be any more often than similar straight marriages. Ever heard of a trophy wife or a golddigger? It's pretty much a female archetype.
I understand your confusion.
I think both issues should be discussed more openly than they have been.
I am against trophy wives, and gold diggers too. I think that women who stop working, do not have children, and are in a relationship for a short time, should not get "windfalls" in a divorce, maybe no more than half of their partner's average annual income for the years they were together. Big divorce settlements after brief marraiges seem like a financial crime to me.
How do gays feel about this part (call it part-2) of my argument?
I'm tired of you bigots spreading your toxic propaganda.....Opposition to gay marriage definitely is a minority position in the US, as 58% of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage, and this number is increasing every year....
I am trying to have an open and intelligent discussion here - and part of that means I want to listen to the arguments that others make against my stated positions.
You are off-base in describing this as bigotry. Why not try to advance a counter-argument, if you please?
I do wonder if a majority would support Gay Marriage, if it was presented fully, including with a price tag.
Because by denying marriage you are denying all of the rights and perks that go along with it, including:
- Heterosexual couples get tax benefits annually because they file together (children or not).
- " " get de facto beneficiary claims.
- " " get admittance to hospitals in cases of emergency.
- " " children are immediately given over to the surviving spouse in the case of death.
- " " can file social security for the partner whom contributed the most in the case of death.
- In the case of death, a child of an LGBT partnership may be denied benefits of one of the parents if that dead parent wasn't the adoptee, since marriage was never allowed, i.e., the child's unofficial parent was nothing more than a "family friend."
Basically, the LGBT community only receives the same rights that a high school "boyfriend/girlfriend" couple gets. Yeah, I'd say that by between refusing life/tax benefits to gay couples and their children you are certainly marginalizing them and their children.
Well put. Thanks for laying out the case so clearly.
I want to think some more before responding.
Have you any idea how much the financial part of these benefist will cost the taxpayers - or will they all get hidden in corporate wages and benefits?
I am trying to have an open and intelligent discussion here - and part of that means I want to listen to the arguments that others make against my stated positions.
You are off-base in describing this as bigotry. Why not try to advance a counter-argument, if you please?
I do wonder if a majority would support Gay Marriage, if it was presented fully, including with a price tag.
OK, how does gay marriage cost taxpayers any more than straight marriage?
I think both issues should be discussed more openly than they have been.
I am against trophy wives, and gold diggers too. I think that women who stop working, do not have children, and are in a relationship for a short time, should not get "windfalls" in a divorce, maybe no more than half of their partner's average annual income for the years they were together. Big divorce settlements after brief marraiges seem like a financial crime to me.
How do gays feel about this part (call it part-2) of my argument?
Here's my personal opinion on marriage and divorce. I think marriage is the joining of two people in pretty much every aspect. That includes financial. I'm of the mind that any and all income a married couple obtains during the course of a marriage belongs equally to each partner, and if divorced it should be split evenly. And I agree, in general, with spousal support. Sometimes people sacrifice their career and earning potential (not to mention actual earnings) when forming a marriage.
For instance, my best friend's cousin is getting divorced right now. She married while in residency (dermatology). She got pregnant, and instead of practicing medicine, she stayed at home to raise the kids (her husband works as a lawyer). She's now not worked for 12 years, and has no hireability in her trained profession. I think she is very much entitled to spousal support. I'd give her 12 years of spousal support (as in half of his income) - one year for each year they were married.
Well put. Thanks for laying out the case so clearly.
I want to think some more before responding. Have you any idea how much the financial part of these benefist will cost the taxpayers - or will they all get hidden in corporate wages and benefits?
My answer to that is "who cares." Our Constitution requires that all people be treated equally under the law. If straight people are able to benefit financially from the legal rights of civil marriage law, then gay people should equally be able to benefit financially from the legal rights of civil marriage law. If such legal rights are deemed too costly, then they should be scaled back equally for all - gay or straight.
(And there are many, many other legal rights of marriage gay couples are denied. Here are a few more: The right for gay spouse of military members to live in base housing and shop at the base commissary. In states that don't allow gay marriage gay people are not allowed to sue for wrongful death if their "spouse" is killed as a result of somebody's negligence or malfeasance)
Well put. Thanks for laying out the case so clearly.
I want to think some more before responding.
Have you any idea how much the financial part of these benefist will cost the taxpayers - or will they all get hidden in corporate wages and benefits?
I'm not sure, to be honest. But, since I don't view homosexual relationships as any less valid than heterosexual relationships, it's of little importance to me. When the LGBT community is finally allowed to marry, they will be just as interested in procreating and raising good children as straight couples are now. Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they are somehow inherently averse to raising children... actually, of the gay couples I know with children (most of them in committed relationships), they are incredibly in-tune to creating intelligent, well-adjusted, and aware kids... something I can't always say for my straight friends, unfortunately.
Honesty, if there weren't any perks to marriage, then I wouldn't really care. But, there are... marriage isn't simply a religious ceremony, it comes with benefits that are intertwined with our government that aren't given to those who aren't married. It's inconsiderate and allowing bigotry to deny households (including innocent children) these perks because certain people "disapprove."
Last edited by CDJD; 05-20-2013 at 11:58 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.
