Power isn't always something that can be controlled on an individual level. Here, I'm talking about power at a group level. White people--as a group--used to have power over black people on many levels. They still do on some.
Sorry, that won't work. Just because some white people are idiots doesn't make me an idiot. And just because some black people are stupid doesn't make the black guy next to me stupid. And just because some straight people are violent homophobes doesn't make me one.
Isn't the whole point of these kind of issues to stop grouping individuals into vague categories and assigning bullshit attributes to them?
In this discussion, married couples have legal and financial power over homosexuals due to the rights that are afforded to them.
No, they don't. Homosexuals, on average, earn more than straight couples. Regardless, I do not have power over you just because I likely have more money than you do. Power is not potential, power is active.
They also have power in numbers. This power is manifested in the laws that politicans propose and those on which the public votes. For example, if 90% of the population are heterosexual--or if 50% are married--and there is an issue related to homosexuals on the ballot, wouldn't you say that heterosexuals or married couples have some political power over homosexuals?
You can either have democracy or you cannot. You can't pick and choose. In a democracy, the majority always have a fundamental position of power over the minority. You cannot maintain democracy and assign minority groups additional powers than that of the majority.
Empathy is one step, a big one at that. The next step requires some action. Instead of just putting yourself into the shoes of someone who is gay or lesbian, you'd actually do something to make a change for the better. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone in the majority would do this, nor would I expect all of them to reach this level.
See, this is what I don't understand. I strive to have empathy for all people. Why should I only empathize with one side of this issue?
im ok with that. who the hell cares? it's their business not mine. personally, i think you'd be a damned fool to want to live with multiple women (let alone have multiple wives to order you around), but if they want to, i dont give a damn.
I don't care either. But I'd bet there are some people who support gay marriage that wouldn't support polygamy...even if the logic is essentially the same.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't see it as that black and white and I'm surprised you do. As has been discussed, the motivations for actions are endless. Do you really think everyone marries for the same motivation. The most black and white you can be is to agree that it's a choice (whether that's based on certain motivations or not is far too subjective)
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying all motivations for marriage are the same. I'm saying that they all stem from the will of the person getting married and, therefore, should be recognized as valid. What I'm saying accomodates for the different reasons.
Again, if we follow that logic then we have to allow anyone to marry anybody - no matter how many that is - who will agree to marry them.
Yes! Why in God's name would I ever want to prevent you from marrying anyone?
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
Not sure what you mean here. Those issues cannot all be addressed on an individual contract level. What about tax benefits provided to married couples by the government? Those aren't something that are available to gay couples, regardless of the contracts they make themselves.
Of course they are. Simply get into a sham marriage for tax purposes. There's nothing preventing two gay guys from marrying two gay girls for tax reasons.
Of course they are. Simply get into a sham marriage for tax purposes. There's nothing preventing two gay guys from marrying two gay girls for tax reasons.
Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable solution.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
I don't care either. But I'd bet there are some people who support gay marriage that wouldn't support polygamy...even if the logic is essentially the same.
really? i gues i've never asked, but i kinda feel the opposite.
Sorry, that won't work. Just because some white people are idiots doesn't make me an idiot. And just because some black people are stupid doesn't make the black guy next to me stupid. And just because some straight people are violent homophobes doesn't make me one.
Isn't the whole point of these kind of issues to stop grouping individuals into vague categories and assigning bullshit attributes to them?
Again, I'm talking about power on a group level. It can exist at a higher level even if all individuals don't use that power to their advantage.
No, they don't. Homosexuals, on average, earn more than straight couples. Regardless, I do not have power over you just because I likely have more money than you do. Power is not potential, power is active.
Not talking about earning potential or the amount of money people have. I don't think you're understanding the financial and legal benefits of being married, and the solutions that you're proposing homosexuals use to overcome them are silly.
You can either have democracy or you cannot. You can't pick and choose. In a democracy, the majority always have a fundamental position of power over the minority. You cannot maintain democracy and assign minority groups additional powers than that of the majority.
I agree, but democracies aren't perfect. Majority groups should at least be aware of their influence and try to understand how it affects others.
See, this is what I don't understand. I strive to have empathy for all people. Why should I only empathize with one side of this issue?
I don't think it's possible truly to empathize with all people on an individual level. Sympathize, perhaps. Empathy requires much more effort. On a group basis, if you feel that one social group does not warrant more empathy than another after you empathize with both, then that's your decision.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
Why should gay couples have to resort to sham marriages in order to be afforded the same legal and financial protections as married couples? What if a gay person didn't have any gay friends of the opposite sex? Why would he/she have to go out of his/her way to earn these benefits?
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.
2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.
3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.
the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.
I agree with this completely, and I'd be happy to extend it to polygamists. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of it actually happening, but I'd certainly support it.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Of course they are. Simply get into a sham marriage for tax purposes. There's nothing preventing two gay guys from marrying two gay girls for tax reasons.
The problem with that is that under current laws, your sham wife would then have access to your money and the ability to make all your decisions for you if you become incapacitated.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Why should gay couples have to resort to sham marriages in order to be afforded the same legal and financial protections as married couples?
They shouldn't. But neither should single straight people.
If the government was actively denying a gay man's opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex for tax purposes while allowing me to go ahead, then I'd agree with you. But a gay person has the same opportunity available to me in regards to taxation.
What if a gay person didn't have any gay friends of the opposite sex?
What is a straight person didn't have any friends of the opposite sex? You're trying to find a difference where there isn't one.
Why would he/she have to go out of his/her way to earn these benefits?
Why should a straight person have to go out of his/her way to earn these benefits?
If you want to advocate removing different tax rules for married couples than single people, I'm completely on board with that. But if you want to pretend that those tax breaks are not available to gay people I won't share that fantasy.
The problem with that is that under current laws, your sham wife would then have access to your money and the ability to make all your decisions for you if you become incapacitated.
Not if you have a living will that forbids her from doing so.
I don't care either. But I'd bet there are some people who support gay marriage that wouldn't support polygamy...even if the logic is essentially the same.
Polygamy is a belief, like religion. I don't think it can be compared with homosexuality. I think you'd agree with this position if you read about the history of polygamy. I don't feel that homosexuality is a belief, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
In addition, marriage rights in the eyes of the law are centered fundamentally on the idea that there are two parties involved. That the two parties are of opposite sexes doesn't become an issue in the specifics of the law. For example, marriage gives one person power to make medical decisions. Polygamy, on the other hand, doesn't allow for the same clearness in the law. If one spouse is in the hospital, and the other spouses disagree over when to end his/her life, with whom should the doctor listen?
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
Again, I'm talking about power on a group level. It can exist at a higher level even if all individuals don't use that power to their advantage.
I know what you're talking about. The problem is that you're accusing me of being part of that group and using that power based on nothing more than my sexual preference, skin color, etc. In other words, you're judging me using bullshit attributes.
Not talking about earning potential or the amount of money people have. I don't think you're understanding the financial and legal benefits of being married, and the solutions that you're proposing homosexuals use to overcome them are silly.
No more silly than the solutions proposed to others.
I agree, but democracies aren't perfect. Majority groups should at least be aware of their influence and try to understand how it affects others.
Sure.
I don't think it's possible truly to empathize with all people on an individual level. Sympathize, perhaps. Empathy requires much more effort. On a group basis, if you feel that one social group does not warrant more empathy than another after you empathize with both, then that's your decision.
You either empathize or you do not. All people deserve empathy. No one in this fight deserves sympathy, IMO.
I support the right of homosexuals to enter into marriage contracts of their choice. I do not support the right of anyone, however, to tell me that I'm "part of the problem" and suggest I have fundamental obligations that I do not have.
Not if you have a living will that forbids her from doing so.
So we're back to unequal treatment, with gay people having to jump through additional hoops.
I'm with you on this one ... get out of the marriage business and eliminate the tax differences. It's not going to happen though, and that's a shame. It's far too radical an idea for anyone in government to even broach the topic. That something so reasonable would be seen as radical is a sad commentary on our political climate, but it's true.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
They shouldn't. But neither should single straight people.
If the government was actively denying a gay man's opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex for tax purposes while allowing me to go ahead, then I'd agree with you. But a gay person has the same opportunity available to me in regards to taxation.
Basically, your position is that homosexuals should marry people they wouldn't normally marry just to get the tax benefits. Doing so would keep them equal in the eyes of the law with heterosexual couples.
Not sure why you consider this to be a fair option for homosexuals. Heterosexuals can enter into legitimate marriages with people whom they love and want to marry and receive the accompanying benefits. With your solution, homosexuals would need to marry someone of the opposite sex just for the tax benefits. And if their homosexual relationship ended, the opposite-sex spouse would be in a position of power on many issues even if a living will existed.
Finally, under those rules, why would there be any single people in society? Everyone would find someone else to marry just for the tax benefits. What would the tax impact be on the economy?
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
Approximately 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to...
- Joint parenting;
- Joint adoption;
- Joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- Status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- Dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- Immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- Inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- Joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- Inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- Benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- Spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- Veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- Joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- Decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- Crime victims' recovery benefits;
- Loss of consortium tort benefits;
- Domestic violence protection orders;
- Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
Most of these legal and economic benefits are those that cannot be privately arranged or contracted. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, and tax law.
In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
So we're back to unequal treatment, with gay people having to jump through additional hoops.
Not at all. If I marry someone and don't want them to have the things you mentioned, I'd have to jump through the same hoops.
I'm with you on this one ... get out of the marriage business and eliminate the tax differences. It's not going to happen though, and that's a shame. It's far too radical an idea for anyone in government to even broach the topic. That something so reasonable would be seen as radical is a sad commentary on our political climate, but it's true.
Basically, your position is that homosexuals should marry people they wouldn't normally marry just to get the tax benefits. Doing so would keep them equal in the eyes of the law with heterosexual couples.
Replace the "should" with a "can", and yes.
Not sure why you consider this to be a fair option for homosexuals. Heterosexuals can enter into legitimate marriages with people whom they love and want to marry and receive the accompanying benefits. With your solution, homosexuals would need to marry someone of the opposite sex just for the tax benefits. And if their homosexual relationship ended, the opposite-sex spouse would be in a position of power on many issues even if a living will existed.
But "love" has nothing to do with tax benefits.
Look, the situation you describe above applies to anyone who desires such tax benefits. For example, I'm a single straight man who has never been with a woman that I thought I would marry. Am I being persecuted against because, if I wanted those tax breaks, I would have to get into a similar sham marriage? Perhaps, but it just goes to show that this is a failure of the tax code, not a marriage issue.
Finally, under those rules, why would there be any single people in society? Everyone would find someone else to marry just for the tax benefits.
Obviously not. Few people consider the tax benefits a good reason to get married....sham marriage or otherwise.
What would the tax impact be on the economy?
As a person who despises taxation I'm not really concerned about the impact. If every person got into a sham marriage in order to save a few bucks, I wouldn't really care.
If you are concerned about the tax impact, then perhaps you should stop giving tax breaks to married couples of all stripes.
This is honestly a case of activist liberal judges trying to impose their view on the majority of the people of new jersey, most of whom are against gay unions.
Not trying to be condescending, but you should probably take a Macroeconomics class to understand the role taxes and tax law play in an economy.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
Not trying to be condescending, but you should probably take a Macroeconomics class to understand the role taxes and tax law play in an economy.
If you don't want to be condescending, why don't you back up your statement with an actual point? What you've done here is try to give the impression that you know something I don't, but you haven't backed it up in any way.
If you don't want to be condescending, why don't you back up your statement with an actual point? What you've done here is try to give the impression that you know something I don't, but you haven't backed it up in any way.
If I could explain the impact in a paragraph or two, I would. But I can't, so I won't. Maybe someone else can. You can also Google macroeconomics and taxes if you're truly interested in learning more.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
If I could explain the impact in a paragraph or two, I would. But I can't, so I won't. Maybe someone else can. You can also Google macroeconomics and taxes if you're truly interested in learning more.
Thanks, but I'll just rely on basic morality: you have no right to hold me at gunpoint, steal the products of my labor and then tell me you're doing me a favor. Slavery may be your bag, but it's not mine.
Approximately 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to...
- Joint parenting;
- Joint adoption;
- Joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- Status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- Dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- Immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- Inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- Joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- Inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- Benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- Spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- Veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- Joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- Decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- Crime victims' recovery benefits;
- Loss of consortium tort benefits;
- Domestic violence protection orders;
- Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
Most of these legal and economic benefits are those that cannot be privately arranged or contracted. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, and tax law.
In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
So single people are being discriminated against as well...
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Single heterosexual people are able to receive these benefits by marrying a heterosexual partner. Homosexuals don't have this option, except in some warped world where they marry someone of the opposite sex just for the tax benefits.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
Honestly, I don't see the big deal if gays can marry. I mean take religion out of the equation and I don't see a reason to keep them from marrying. And don't give that sanctity of marriage bs.. divorce rates are, what, 40% or more, so heterosexuals sure don't care about sanctity.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Comments
Sorry, that won't work. Just because some white people are idiots doesn't make me an idiot. And just because some black people are stupid doesn't make the black guy next to me stupid. And just because some straight people are violent homophobes doesn't make me one.
Isn't the whole point of these kind of issues to stop grouping individuals into vague categories and assigning bullshit attributes to them?
No, they don't. Homosexuals, on average, earn more than straight couples. Regardless, I do not have power over you just because I likely have more money than you do. Power is not potential, power is active.
You can either have democracy or you cannot. You can't pick and choose. In a democracy, the majority always have a fundamental position of power over the minority. You cannot maintain democracy and assign minority groups additional powers than that of the majority.
See, this is what I don't understand. I strive to have empathy for all people. Why should I only empathize with one side of this issue?
I don't care either. But I'd bet there are some people who support gay marriage that wouldn't support polygamy...even if the logic is essentially the same.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying all motivations for marriage are the same. I'm saying that they all stem from the will of the person getting married and, therefore, should be recognized as valid. What I'm saying accomodates for the different reasons.
Yes! Why in God's name would I ever want to prevent you from marrying anyone?
This article does a pretty good job at explaining them...
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2515389
Of course they are. Simply get into a sham marriage for tax purposes. There's nothing preventing two gay guys from marrying two gay girls for tax reasons.
Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable solution.
Why not?
really? i gues i've never asked, but i kinda feel the opposite.
Again, I'm talking about power on a group level. It can exist at a higher level even if all individuals don't use that power to their advantage.
Not talking about earning potential or the amount of money people have. I don't think you're understanding the financial and legal benefits of being married, and the solutions that you're proposing homosexuals use to overcome them are silly.
I agree, but democracies aren't perfect. Majority groups should at least be aware of their influence and try to understand how it affects others.
I don't think it's possible truly to empathize with all people on an individual level. Sympathize, perhaps. Empathy requires much more effort. On a group basis, if you feel that one social group does not warrant more empathy than another after you empathize with both, then that's your decision.
Why should gay couples have to resort to sham marriages in order to be afforded the same legal and financial protections as married couples? What if a gay person didn't have any gay friends of the opposite sex? Why would he/she have to go out of his/her way to earn these benefits?
They shouldn't. But neither should single straight people.
If the government was actively denying a gay man's opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex for tax purposes while allowing me to go ahead, then I'd agree with you. But a gay person has the same opportunity available to me in regards to taxation.
What is a straight person didn't have any friends of the opposite sex? You're trying to find a difference where there isn't one.
Why should a straight person have to go out of his/her way to earn these benefits?
If you want to advocate removing different tax rules for married couples than single people, I'm completely on board with that. But if you want to pretend that those tax breaks are not available to gay people I won't share that fantasy.
Not if you have a living will that forbids her from doing so.
Polygamy is a belief, like religion. I don't think it can be compared with homosexuality. I think you'd agree with this position if you read about the history of polygamy. I don't feel that homosexuality is a belief, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
In addition, marriage rights in the eyes of the law are centered fundamentally on the idea that there are two parties involved. That the two parties are of opposite sexes doesn't become an issue in the specifics of the law. For example, marriage gives one person power to make medical decisions. Polygamy, on the other hand, doesn't allow for the same clearness in the law. If one spouse is in the hospital, and the other spouses disagree over when to end his/her life, with whom should the doctor listen?
I know what you're talking about. The problem is that you're accusing me of being part of that group and using that power based on nothing more than my sexual preference, skin color, etc. In other words, you're judging me using bullshit attributes.
No more silly than the solutions proposed to others.
Sure.
You either empathize or you do not. All people deserve empathy. No one in this fight deserves sympathy, IMO.
I support the right of homosexuals to enter into marriage contracts of their choice. I do not support the right of anyone, however, to tell me that I'm "part of the problem" and suggest I have fundamental obligations that I do not have.
I'm with you on this one ... get out of the marriage business and eliminate the tax differences. It's not going to happen though, and that's a shame. It's far too radical an idea for anyone in government to even broach the topic. That something so reasonable would be seen as radical is a sad commentary on our political climate, but it's true.
Basically, your position is that homosexuals should marry people they wouldn't normally marry just to get the tax benefits. Doing so would keep them equal in the eyes of the law with heterosexual couples.
Not sure why you consider this to be a fair option for homosexuals. Heterosexuals can enter into legitimate marriages with people whom they love and want to marry and receive the accompanying benefits. With your solution, homosexuals would need to marry someone of the opposite sex just for the tax benefits. And if their homosexual relationship ended, the opposite-sex spouse would be in a position of power on many issues even if a living will existed.
Finally, under those rules, why would there be any single people in society? Everyone would find someone else to marry just for the tax benefits. What would the tax impact be on the economy?
- Joint parenting;
- Joint adoption;
- Joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- Status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- Dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- Immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- Inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- Joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- Inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- Benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- Spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- Veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- Joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- Decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- Crime victims' recovery benefits;
- Loss of consortium tort benefits;
- Domestic violence protection orders;
- Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
Most of these legal and economic benefits are those that cannot be privately arranged or contracted. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, and tax law.
In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
Not at all. If I marry someone and don't want them to have the things you mentioned, I'd have to jump through the same hoops.
Totally agree with you.
Replace the "should" with a "can", and yes.
But "love" has nothing to do with tax benefits.
Look, the situation you describe above applies to anyone who desires such tax benefits. For example, I'm a single straight man who has never been with a woman that I thought I would marry. Am I being persecuted against because, if I wanted those tax breaks, I would have to get into a similar sham marriage? Perhaps, but it just goes to show that this is a failure of the tax code, not a marriage issue.
Obviously not. Few people consider the tax benefits a good reason to get married....sham marriage or otherwise.
As a person who despises taxation I'm not really concerned about the impact. If every person got into a sham marriage in order to save a few bucks, I wouldn't really care.
If you are concerned about the tax impact, then perhaps you should stop giving tax breaks to married couples of all stripes.
If you don't want to be condescending, why don't you back up your statement with an actual point? What you've done here is try to give the impression that you know something I don't, but you haven't backed it up in any way.
If I could explain the impact in a paragraph or two, I would. But I can't, so I won't. Maybe someone else can. You can also Google macroeconomics and taxes if you're truly interested in learning more.
Thanks, but I'll just rely on basic morality: you have no right to hold me at gunpoint, steal the products of my labor and then tell me you're doing me a favor. Slavery may be your bag, but it's not mine.
So single people are being discriminated against as well...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Ummm....two heterosexual dudes cannot get married.
Try this:
"Single people are able to receive these benefits by marrying a partner of the opposite sex."
That applies equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
That "warped world" is this world. Nothing prevents homosexuals or heterosexuals from marrying for tax benefits.