makes as much sense as saying allowing women to vote will destroy our political system, or allowing blacks to be free will destroy our economy.... It is time for us to move on as a country and realizing that giving other people rights does not diminish our own....
Ideally though I think there is a very simple solution, one that (in theory) both sides should approve of. Take marriage out of the hand of the government, the government should ONLY recognize civil unions between people and use ONLY that for law/taxes/etc. Marriage can be left up to individual churches, so if a baptist church refuses to recognize a "gay marriage" then to them they are not married, however if a another churches wishes too, then that is fine. Thus the "sanctity" of marriage is preserved and people have rights.
makes as much sense as saying allowing women to vote will destroy our political system, or allowing blacks to be free will destroy our economy.... It is time for us to move on as a country and realizing that giving other people rights does not diminish our own....
Ideally though I think there is a very simple solution, one that (in theory) both sides should approve of. Take marriage out of the hand of the government, the government should ONLY recognize civil unions between people and use ONLY that for law/taxes/etc. Marriage can be left up to individual churches, so if a baptist church refuses to recognize a "gay marriage" then to them they are not married, however if a another churches wishes too, then that is fine. Thus the "sanctity" of marriage is preserved and people have rights.
Exactly this. Legally speaking, all of the gender roles of marriage have been eliminated. From the government's point of view, a spouse's identity is no longer subsumed by the other spouse; property rights are no longer determined by the gender of the spouse; marital roles are no longer determined by the gender of the spouse, etc. The "institution" of marriage is no longer defined by society; by government. It is now defined by the spouses; the "members" of that marriage.
I support government recognition of "marriage" as a type of civil union for legal purposes. I think there are a variety of circumstances where two (or more) people would enter into a similar union that wouldn't generally be considered a marriage. Consider an adult brother and sister who become guardians of their minor siblings. They should have some means of having the government recognize them as a joint family unit, and should enjoy the legal rights and privileges (tax benefits, access to benefits, etc) afforded to traditional "married" couples. As should two adult sisters or two adult brothers in the same circumstances. Or an adult child and his (or her) single parent, especially if raising that adult child's minor siblings.
The way I look at it, from the government's standpoint, a contemporary marriage or civil union is just a way of considering a group of people as a single unit for tax and benefit purposes. I think the greatest tax and benefit advantage should be for a civil union comprised of two adults with dependent children, but really, I don't see any reason why a civil union should be limited to only two people, let alone a man and a woman.
Marriage should be a religious institution. AT MOST the government should recognize it only as one type of evidence supporting a license to enter into a civil union, a license akin to the current marriage license.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Talking about gay or marriage to the same sex? Ah, what a bunch of BS. I am religious, I am married, have been to the same woman over 40 yrs., making marriage legal between two people of the same sex will not ZAP me out of my marriage and into a gay one. This does not concern me, I am not gay, I do not believe the gay way is the right way, but I don't need to go setting my standards and morals on someone else. Plural marriages too, who gives a rat's behind, alcohol's legal and you'll never see me drinking any, nor does it's legality force me to drink. Who cares, Obama's just trying to grab a few gay votes and the Republicans are just trying to make everybody live by THEIR standards. The economy is the problem they need to be worried about, not who's screwing who legaly or not. BS it is, BS!!
Maybe I'm just an ignorant a$$, but I worry if they federalize this same sex marriage BS that it will further put a terrible strain on Social Security and pension systems. I mean if a couple of guys or women are married (same sex) and one of them dies the survivor could get a good amount of $$$ in social security or pension benifits.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant a$$, but I worry if they federalize this same sex marriage BS that it will further put a terrible strain on Social Security and pension systems. I mean if a couple of guys or women are married (same sex) and one of them dies the survivor could get a good amount of $$$ in social security or pension benifits.
Are you suggesting that a spouse should not be able to collect social security or pension benefits?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Are you suggesting that a spouse should not be able to collect social security or pension benefits?
Well in my world a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman and for one of them to die it would be like if my brother died and I got his survivor benifits or if one of my sisters died and one of my surviving sisters got her survival benifits. Just seems very, very wrong. But what the hell do I know. Guess I'm just a tad too old. Don't care if same sex gets married, just think the system in place will be abused further if this is federalized.
Well in my world a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman and for one of them to die it would be like if my brother died and I got his survivor benifits or if one of my sisters died and one of my surviving sisters got her survival benifits. Just seems very, very wrong. But what the hell do I know. Guess I'm just a tad too old. Don't care if same sex gets married, just think the system in place will be abused further if this is federalized.
Suppose that you established a household with your wife. You and she agreed to support eachother. You sent her to school, forgoing your own education in the process. She got her degree, got a good paying job, etc, while you chose a different path. You share your lives. You make sacrifices for eachother. You give up opportunities that would make her life more difficult. You divide labor and responsibilities. You love her. Suppose she was a widow, and brought two kids from her previous marriage into your household. You have no biological kids together. (Note that I did not mention anything about sex - marriage does not require sex)
One of you dies. You seem to be suggesting that the surviving spouse should receive any survivor benefits. OK.
Now, go back up and repeat the same story, substituting "wife" with "husband"; "sister"; "brother"; "friend"; "3 partners"; etc. Are any of these scenarios "abuse"? I wouldn't classify them as such. In each case, a household was established by consenting adults; those adults chose to live with eachother, rely on eachother, make sacrifices for eachother; raise kids together... Should we really be asking people to pull down their pants before determining whether they qualify for survivor benefits? Or should we look at the household? If you, your widowed sister, and her kids live together and you claim all of them as dependents on your taxes, and you die, should she and the kids not be eligible to receive your survivor benefits?
Now, you mentioned it would be abuse if you received your brother's survivor benefits. Do you live with your brother? Have you and he established a household with eachother? Do you do any of the things I mentioned in the scenarios above? If not, I would probably agree with your assessment that receiving his survivor benefits would be abuse.
I agree that there is an additional mathematical possibility of abuse. Suppose there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that a cow will develop BSE. A rancher with 10,000 cows would reduce his risk of BSE contamination by killing off half his herd. With only 5000 head of cattle, he's got half the risk he would have with 10,000 head. Hell, he can cut that risk down even further - kill off another 2500, and he's only got a quarter the risk he started out with!
Today, if I wanted to game the system, I'd have to choose a partner-in-crime who had an "F" next to "Sex" on her driver's license, limiting my options to "only" about 3.5 billion possible candidates on the planet. If/when same-sex marriage is legal, I'd be able to choose from a pool of about 7 billion possible candidates. Yeah, theoretically I have twice as many options, but it's not like I was lacking to begin with.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
