Moai Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Thanks for making my point. How so? It is true that any will can be contested, but in the case of homosexual courts theirs last wishes are much EASIER to overturn than even a "marriage" like Smith's. Doesn't it seem irrational to give heterosexual these rights easily==even when they get married three, four, even five times, and deny them to gays once? Even if there are other legal ways around certain issues, why should gays have to take an extra ste when hetero people for whom marriage means little or nothing get a free pass? Not only that, the fact that swingers, people into BDSM, furries--all sorts of fetishistic behavior are allowed to get married and don't disrupt "the sanctity of marriage" I fail to see why we should deny the same protections to gay people. I see nothing reasonable that can't (1) already be solved and (2) can't be simply solved with a Civil Union. Why insist on marriage? Any reason for that? Because there is no such thing as "separate but equal." Here are a couple more: Same sex couples cannot sponsor their foreign spouses for green cards--let alone citizenship. When filing tax returns, they cannot select "married filing jointly", they must file singly. I am not aware of any law that gets around this. Same sex couple do not get Social Security, Medicaid, or Veteran's benefits. Heterosexual spouses receive Social Security benefits upon the death of a spouse, for example. Gay couples are not allowed the 12-week emergency medical leave--which is unpaid but protects their job--in order to care for a seriously ill partner. They cannot transfer property to the other spouse without paying taxes. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 How so? Every case given is either extremely minor, solvable by Civil Union, or some broken historical artifact of the ****ed up thing that is the marriage contract. All this is why the correct solution is to get the government out of the relationship regulation business altogether, not extend the reach of the current fiasco by creating homosexual marriage. Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Every case given is either extremely minor, solvable by Civil Union, or some broken historical artifact of the ****ed up thing that is the marriage contract. All this is why the correct solution is to get the government out of the relationship regulation business altogether, not extend the reach of the current fiasco by creating homosexual marriage. They may seem minor to you because you are not denied them. What's the big deal with riding on the back of the bus? Why are separate drinking fountains a big deal? Even though they have to enter through the back, they still get the same food. What is the big deal? They may not be able to buy a house in my neighborhood, but they can still buy a house, right? What's the big deal? Not being able to sponsor the person you love for a green card--let alone citizenship--is not minor. Having to pay taxes that others get to avoid is not minor. I have benefitted from the tax loophole myself, and I would've been shafted had it not been available. I think the fact that it is currently denied gays is not minor. These are not solvable by civil union, by the way. The LGBT community was actually ASKING for a civil union that would give the same rights but would not be called "marriage" and not only was that denied, but the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, so now they are petitioning for marriage. Link to post Share on other sites
39388 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think it's incumbent on those wishing to effect change to state what precisely they want, what issues it addresses and how. I've not seen that stated and agreed upon yet. This thread is well over 600 messages long and you can't see what has been stated so clearly by so many people? You would probably miss a skyscraper in the middle of a desert too. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 This thread is well over 600 messages long and you can't see what has been stated so clearly by so many people? You would probably miss a skyscraper in the middle of a desert too. I think we might have just started a club! Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 They may seem minor to you because you are not denied them. No, they are minor to me because I realize the current state of marriage as legal contract is contributing to destroying our civilization one family unit at a time and anything that further intertwines the most personal of relationships with law is counter what I would want. I think marriage as a legal contract should be abolished, not extended. That position seems pretty fair and promotes equality for all. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts