Not in the least bit. Legal marriage conveys benefits to two people that single folks don't get. The tax breaks alone are just the tip of the iceberg.

If homosexuals are to be legally married, why stop there. Why not multiples? Why should I not be allowed to marry my mother or my daughter? There are plenty of sexless marriages so what gives everyone the right to deny me the same financial and legal benefits any couple get?

Marriage laws were traditionally constructed to encourage children. It could be argued that we have enough of them already, but still if you want to subsidize children do so with tax credits for dependents, not by taking more from single people but by taking more from everyone, equally, to help the village raise kids.

I'm a single father. Why should I have to get married to ensure that someone can collect social security benefits upon my death. Once my daughter turns 18 (2 years) there's no one to get jack.

How are any of the benefits of marriage anything but discrimination against those who are not married? Why am I a second class citizen compared to those who theoretically pledge just to screw just one other person for as long as it suits them?

__________________

Funny how you phrase that "don't get".
Cause we both know "can't get" would be an inaccurate claim.

It is "don't get" in the same way that a person who chooses not to vote "doesn't get" a say in who is elected.
It is "don't get" in the same way that a person who never buys a gun "doesn't get" to own one.
It is "don't get" in the same way that a person who doesn't exercise religion "doesn't get" to exercise religion.

And as for "tax breaks", that varies based on the dual income of the couple.
For a lot of couples, it's a tax penalty. They would pay lower taxes filing separately.


This argument really bores me.
It has the same mentality as "If different race couples are to be legally married, why stop there. Why not a dog and a cat?"

To give you a quick run-down on constitutional law, you can't prevent a right, like legal marriage status, unless you have a legitimate state interest.
In Loving v Virginia, the courts ruled there was no legitimate state interest to preventing interracial couples from marrying.
In Massachusetts and California, the courts have accurately recognized there is no legitimate state interest in preventing gay couples from marrying.

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.

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.


Wrong.
Show me ANY proof of that claim, cause I just can't see it.

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.

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.
That's akin to saying "Blacks who can't read can't vote, but it doesn't matter for whites".
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.

What you just gave is a common excuse which is destroyed by common sense.


Tax credits exist REGARDLESS of whether the couple is married.
Can you name me any benefit the parents get for being married, that they wouldn't get for being single?

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.


I find your complaint ridiculously trivial.
It's like saying "Why should I have to take this test in order to get a driver's license?"

Your children can obviously collect regardless of your marital status.
And I see no reason why some random person at your choosing should get social security benefits upon your death.
The SPOUSE gets it because the two have built a "home" (not necessarily literally) together, and thus the benefits help the person who has been dependent upon you to get the benefits to maintain living.
Even your parents can get the SS benefits, given the right circumstances.

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.

This statement:
is contradicted by this later statement:
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.

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.

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.

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.

Until recently procreation has always been the implied point of marriage.

There's nothing, in most states, that prevents homosexuals from having children. I know plenty of them that do.

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.

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?

My daughter is 16 and once she's of age she can't collect, except I believe for burial costs and such.

Because it was my money they were stealing from me all these years?

Proof?

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?

__________________

you have never heard of the marriage tax penalty?????????

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

1) The marriage tax penalty (for some situations) is discussed here.
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It exists.

2) Nothing I said was contradictory.
You can have both "rights and privileges" for a situation wherein there also exists a potential "penalty".


But that's not how "marriage" works.
In modern marriages, if John marries Mary, it doesn't require that you get Jane's permission first.
What you describe is a potential work-around that would have to be implemented independently of the current status of marriage.

On the flip side, there is no necessary legal modification necessary to allow gays to marry.


I didn't say anything like that.
But, I think we all should acknowledge that sexual interaction IS a part of marriage.

And on another level, YOU create a contradiction here in proclaiming that marriage is about "children", yet you balk at the idea of you marrying your mother involves implications of sexual relationships.
Come on. You can't have it both ways.


I'm still waiting on you to show any semblance of proof in the legal history of your claim.
You talking more is not proof.


Ignoring the "until recently" claim, the fact that it is NOT CURRENTLY helps further my point.
So unless we are about to require it for everybody, it is unconstitutional to require it JUST for a targetted discrimination class.


You're not thinking along the "double-whammy" lines I was talking about.
It would be like enacting a law that prevents blacks from voting if they can't read.
But then along comes a black man who CAN read, and the powers that be STILL forbid him from reading.

It points to the fact that "reading" wasn't a real point of preventing him voting in the first place.
Likewise, "procreation" isn't a real point of preventing gays from marrying when gays DO procreate and it doesn't matter.


Barring changing the Social Security / Medi-government aid situation, it's a legitimate one.
What's the alternative? Callously cutting off health care for the elderly?

I would think there would be a flaw in requiring John to help pay for the over-65 crowd for the time he was under 65, but then some time after he reaches 65, John isn't cut the same favor.


The cursory glance I took at the appropriate web-sites said it was 18. Must be more to it than you describe.
Benefits For Children


You're moving the conversation so far away the actual issue of the thread it isn't funny.
But regardless, whether you like it or not, there is a system that is in place, with rules and guidelines.
I can talk about the PURPOSE of the rules and guidelines, and how your intended action does not meet the existing purpose.
And if you want to change the purpose, you should get enough people together to change the system...

But as for the existing PURPOSE, your argument is like saying "This portion of my tax money is used for college financial aid. And while I don't want to go to college, I want my money back!"

The PURPOSE of the money involves the situation I previously explained.
You want it to be something else, then work within the legislative process to get it changed.

Your dependent parents can receive benefits if they are age 62 or older. (For your parents to qualify as dependents, you would have had to *provide at least one-half of their support.)

Survivors Benefits


Quit asking questions that have already been answered.
There is a clear difference inbetween John and Jim being forbidden to marry, and not getting the benefits...
... and Jack being ALLOWED to marry, but not getting the benefits because he refuses to marry.

It would be like comparing forbidding a black person to vote...
... to a white person who is too lazy to go to the damn polls to vote.