This statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
For a lot of couples, it's a tax penalty. They would pay lower taxes filing separately.
|
is contradicted by this later statement:
Quote:
|
If you look at the over 1,000 rights and privileges associated with marriage
|
If in your own words there are over 1,000 rights and priveleges, I don't see how a tax penalty exists. Besides, married couples have every right to file their federal taxes separately.
Quote:
For "multiples", there is a problem in diminishing ownership without consent.
Say John marries Jane. Both have essentially agreed to a "joint" property ownership.
Say John now marries Mary. Jane's property ownership just dropped, without any consent from Jane.
Suppose Mary decides to divorce John, and Jane is the major bread-winner in the family. Does Mary now have a "right" to get alimony from Jane's contribution to the family?
There are numerous legal problems with "multiples", creating a "legitimate state interest" in protecting Jane's rights.
|
That argument really bores me. If John, Jane and Mary consent there is no legitimate state interest. They all consented which should be a requirement for multiples.
Quote:
Marry your mother or your daughter? Incest produces off-spring with mental and physical handicaps. Preventing incest marriages is in the interest of protecting the offspring.
Plus, since incest is typically illegal, it's a pretty big barrier to recognizing an illegal relationship.
|
So in your mind it's in the state's interest to promote fucking? I said nothing about a sexual relationship, however the bond I share with my family members is stronger than most fornication arrangements.
Quote:
Wrong.
Show me ANY proof of that claim, cause I just can't see it.
|
That's what marriage used to be all about. Marriage laws were all written when the best way to get ahead was to procreate as much as possible. Until recently that's always been the point of marriage.
Quote:
If you look at the over 1,000 rights and privileges associated with marriage, NONE of them are enhanced by the presence of children.
NONE of them are detracted from by the absence of children.
Married couples get the benefits WITH or WITHOUT children.
|
Until recently procreation has always been the implied point of marriage.
Quote:
|
It makes NO sense to penalize gay couples for not having children, when straight married couples with no interest in children have no such penalty.
|
There's nothing, in most states, that prevents homosexuals from having children. I know plenty of them that do.
Quote:
|
And furthermore, gay couples who DO have kids, or use other means to procreate, are STILL forbidden to marry. Providing a double-whammy proof that the barrier is a false one.
|
How can it be a double-whammy if none of the benefits that marriage conveys are intended to ease the burden of child rearing?
Pardon me, but you logic fails.
Quote:
And to put out a side-comment, it can also be argued that we do not have enough.
There are some pretty serious estimates regarding bankrupting of Social Security and Medi-government assistance because we have too many old people and not enough young people.
|
Indeed. I'd rather not measure whether or not there are too many people on our planet or in our country based on our inability to realize we have a fatally flawed entitlement / redistribution scheme at the federal level.
I think there's quite enough of us. Aren't we killing the planet as it is?
Quote:
|
Your children can obviously collect regardless of your marital status.
|
My daughter is 16 and once she's of age she can't collect, except I believe for burial costs and such.
Quote:
|
And I see no reason why some random person at your choosing should get social security benefits upon your death.
|
Because it was my money they were stealing from me all these years?
Quote:
|
Even your parents can get the SS benefits, given the right circumstances.
|
Proof?
Quote:
|
But if you aren't willing to make the committment, I don't see why anybody should pay out benefits WHICH ARE BASED on the existence of a committment you refused to make.
|
I am willing to make that committment, but you discriminate against me with your conditions regarding who is a suitable marriage partner. How is that any different than your claims that we're currently doing that to homosexuals?