- Aug 24, 2006
- 17,263
- 97
- 0
traditional marriage is the only form of marriage that should be legal
:director: Here's what I want to know.... (You too, VAnurse).
Why should ANY married couple (however you define "marriage") get MORE rights or privileges than a single person?!?!?!! I'm not "married" (not gay, nor do I fuk animals either, which is beside the point), so why should I get "less" than anyone else? :shrug:
:SIB
:director: Here's what I want to know.... (You too, VAnurse).
Why should ANY married couple (however you define "marriage") get MORE rights or privileges than a single person?!?!?!!
I don't know of any rights or privileges that benefit a married couple more than a single person unless it's income taxes. If we're talking taxes, that isn't such a great difference anymore. In fact, if you own your home and want to itemize, being single could be seen as beneficial because the threshold for itemization will be lower and, therefore, easier to attain. If there are other benefits, please tell me what they are and I'll try to address them as well.
With respect to the civil union vs marriage argument, I had to do a little research myself because it seemed to me to be a matter of semantics. I found an excellent article at http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf that helped me to understand the difference. Basically, the concept of civil union was created by the state of Vermont to try to appease same-sex proponents with a semblance of equality. It is only a state recognition and holds no power Federally. In fact, it creates even more confusion when trying to complete forms and identify oneself with respect to legal status.
Civil unions still hold same-sex unions separate and apart from the legal benefits provided by marriage. As others have stated here, civil unions do not convey the right to establish legal residency or immigrant status. They are not "portable", that is to say that they are not recognized in other jurisdictions as a legal union. Conversely, they can only be overturned (divorce) in the state in which they were created. If a man and woman are married in, for instance, Las Vegas, their marriage is recognized as legal wherever they reside in the US and can be dissolved through divorce in one's local jurisdiction. In the case of civil union, the contract is only recognized as legal and binding in the state in which it is performed and can only be dissolved by that same state.
Marriage affords Federal protection for many other benefits, i.e. Social Security survivor benefits, leave from work for spousal illness, the right to make legal decisions for one's spouse when they can't and inheritance rights. It also represents true equality in the public perception and recognization of two people who love and have committed to one another.
There is a difference in civil union and marriage. Who am I to deny the right to marry (and even subsequently divorce) from any adult, just because they are different from me? Another couple's business doesn't directly affect me either way. Why can't we live and let live?
Disclaimer: It is assumed that we are speaking of adult humans, so don't start again with the bestiality, NAMBLA argument. As far as polygamy, I don't really care.
:mj07:
That's a big step, do you understand that people are gay ?
They are all around you, every where.
Actors, musicians, politicians, law enforcement, bankers, teachers, mothers, fathers......
Deal with it !
I think marriage should only be one man and one woman. I may be old fashioned but at least I have principles. I understand gay's are people too, I really dont give a shit, I just have a problem with it being recognized as a legal marriage. :shrug:
Always hated this bullshit. Being punished because i didn't want to get married.Agreed. I've always wondered about this, even when I was a kid. An example -- as a single homeowner, my income tax return is substantially less than if I was married. Ummmm, why? And a married couple gets less than a married couple who has kids. Again, why?
I guess the argument for the kids scenario is that a family with kids needs the money more than people who don't have kids (although I'm not sure I agree with people getting more money because they made the decision to have kids). As far as the other scenario though, I don't see why a married couple should get more money than a single person. If anything, you would think the single person would need more of a break since it's only one income. :shrug:
so you and your buddy get married even though you both are straight for the tax benefit:mj07:
People are born gay. I always liked women, never had a choice.. I never woke up one day and thought, "I think I will choose to be gay today."
I always liked women, never had a choice.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.