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.
As someone who has actually dissolved a few marriages in my lifetime (for other people), may I humbly suggest that self righteous ingrates actually go study how the law works, and spend some time speaking with lawyers who actually DO family law to understand the factors that go into determining alimony awards.
It has nothing to do with the sex of the individuals seeking it, these days. In the future we should see more awards to men, when warranted.
Not having had any direct experience with Divorce, I might have to take your word for that... (or maybe agree to disagree.)
Having said this, the stats look very suspicious, and I cannot believe that ANYONE would be allowed or able to do a thorough and unbiased study that could produce the results confirming what my intuition SHOUTS is true.
Procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. Women over 35 get married all the time as do infertile couples and couples that have no plans to have kids. Gay men and women DO have kids. If you look at civil union/gay marriage laws you will see that the vast majority of states banned those partnerships post 2000.
Alas, it is a bit late now to offer civil unions after the radical right has been campaigning against them for so long. The Democrats have a bill ready to overturn DOMA; do the Republicans?
Moral of the story... The federal government cannot discriminate against the citizens.
Fine.
Would you say that it is JUST FINE if two close friends (of the same sex, or different - but with no sexual relationship) sexes get married, so that one can pass their pension on to the other one?
And if two can marry for this reason, then why not three, four, or more ?
In other words, when you drift away from Traditional Marriage of one man with one woman, then where do you draw the line?
Maybe someday someone will suggest taxing wealthy childless gay couples, so they can pass a government pension on to their cat.
Fine.
Would you say that it is JUST FINE if two close friends (of the same sex, or different - but with no sexual relationship) sexes get married, so that one can pass their pension on to the other one?
Sure, there are plenty of loveless marriages out there that get married just for money.
Fine.
Would you say that it is JUST FINE if two close friends (of the same sex, or different) sexes get married, so that one can pass their pension on to the other one?
So you are worried about marital financial fraud? That happens with hetero couples and I would imagine gays are no more or less likely to engage in the same behavior. Pensions are rather obsolete though and typically require you to be married for a certain period of time.
Nope.
It is the "Bedrock" of our civilisation.
Haven't you worked that out yet?
Not only can we afford the costs of hetero marriage, we risk losing the balance in our society when it is threatened.
Gays should forgoe the extra benefits, if the want true respect...
I see weak people with their hands out, in the current campaign.
Let's get the forks out (it that's what Gay Marriage is really about), rather than getting our wallets out (yet again).
And while we are at it, we need some changes in the divorce law, which the way it is written now, encourages "predatory behavior" by those who stand to benefit financially from marriage. Let's put a fork into that sort of behavior by Heteros too.
Religious marriage isn't the same as legal marriage. You're confusing the two. Religious marriage is a public affirmation ceremony between two people and God that they're going to spend their lives together. If you don't believe that gay people can have a religious marriage according to your personal faith, that's fine, but lots of Christian denominations DO perform and support those marriages. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex, but you don't have the right to tell others that they can't. Legal marriage is a contract that bestows countless rights and financial incentives. Your personal religious beliefs shouldn't interfere in the rights of individuals to form those legal contracts with their partner. They're not all financial either--it involves things like care for a sick spouse, child custody, etc. etc. Even if they ARE financial, why should one group of married Americans have those rights and benefits while others don't, based solely on their sexual orientation. Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com
Fine.
Would you say that it is JUST FINE if two close friends (of the same sex, or different - but with no sexual relationship) sexes get married, so that one can pass their pension on to the other one?
And if two can marry for this reason, then why not three, four, or more ?
In other words, when you drift away from Traditional Marriage of one man with one woman, then where do you draw the line?
Maybe someday someone will suggest taxing wealthy childless gay couples, so they can pass a pension on to their cat.
I am for equality. Polygamy is fine with me, as is polyandry. You aren't going to try and start arguing gay marriage will cause people to turn to beastiality and incest are you?
At least in the UK, they are discussing it - and THAT Is why I started this thread - not just to irritate the gay posters here, although that has been an interesting (but not very surprising) side effect.
Don't worry, your bigoted, idiotic, uninformed posts have also managed to irritate plenty of straight posters.
Fine.
Would you say that it is JUST FINE if two close friends (of the same sex, or different - but with no sexual relationship) sexes get married, so that one can pass their pension on to the other one?
If they're heterosexual they can do so now. And probably do.
Did you know that a married couple who both worked and paid into SS get 3/4 of the monthly payments they would get as 2 singles? I know older couples who have decided to live together instead of marry due to this penalty. In a case like this (and with 2 earner couples being the majority these days they are the norm) there is a savings to SS for each married couple. You pointed out the so-called costs. Must have missed this savings.
The bottom line is, treating everyone the same is the right thing to do.
Gay marriage is like training wheels for fish.
You can do it, but why?
A contract for marriage is to merge property rights for the benefit of progeny.
It's been that way for millennia.
Of course, socialism offers other benefits (bribes) to married couples, but that's a different issue entirely.
And, no, there is no "right" to marriage, if one needs a license (permission). Only common law marriages don't need government permission. You might investigate why there's no "gay common law marriage."
No, you are wrong. If it was for the progeny, then only couples with children would get the benefits and rights. That is a big fat lie you are stating and have stated before. And there is a right to marriage that was affirmed with Loving verses the state of Virginia. Why should gay couples also not merge their property and you ignore that gay couples often do have children, so why are they being denied full equal benefits, if they are for the progeny. YOU FAIL, so do all the other nay sayers on ssm that use the bible or say it is for the kids. Baloney, baloney baloney. Why do senior citizens get the benefits when they marry, can you answer that on logically?
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.
