To all of those who think...

[Madcoil]

I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.

 

[Madcoil]

Double post? This is an outrage!

 

[cantata]

I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.

Do people really need encouraging? It's not like there's a shortage of babies.

And many same-sex couples provide (or at least, desire to provide) the valuable service of fostering or adopting children who have no families. Why not further encourage them to do so by extending them the same legal benefits?

 

[God-fearing Queer]

I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.

Um... if one spouse dies, the other spouse inherits all of his/ her assets without incuring inheritance tax. However, if his/ her assets are willed to any children he has, it IS subject to inheritance tax. Wait - how is that about the children again???!!!

I do agree that government marriage and church marriage should be seperated, however I'm not going to accept a 'civil union' because they are useless outside of the state they are performed in! Unless we receive legal support from the federal government, the union will be null and void anywhere where it wasn't performed.

There is also a certain amount of confusion that civil unions generate. Like, there have been many an occasion where someone, like a hospital worker, has asked a gay 'unioned' man whether he is married, single, widowed or divorced. He says, "I'm in a civil union". She gives him a confused look, and ticks, 'single'. I mean, what the hell is a civil union? Most people don't recognise it. You say, "I'm married" and everyone knows what you're talking about.

To the person who suggested leaving marriage to the church, and reverting all government marriages to civil unions, I think you may be onto something. For one thing, it would keep religious folk happy. For second, since the majority of people have government marriages, the majority of people would have civil unions... so they'd know what you mean when you say 'I'm in a civil union'. Confusion = dissapears!
Actually I like this idea. One thing though - in this proposal of yours, would 'church' marriage get all the rights and tax breaks that 'government civil union' gets? So the government would still be involved in church marriage?

 

[Madcoil]

Do people really need encouraging? It's not like there's a shortage of babies.

And many same-sex couples provide (or at least, desire to provide) the valuable service of fostering or adopting children who have no families. Why not further encourage them to do so by extending them the same legal benefits?

It's not just having the baby, it's also about building a home and other useful assets concerning a basic people-producing unit.

When you foster or adopt children, you're not creating them; just moving them around. If you adopt children, you will be raising them, however, and therefore you receive a children's welfare check.

 

[Madcoil]

Um... if one spouse dies, the other spouse inherits all of his/ her assets without incuring inheritance tax. However, if his/ her assets are willed to any children he has, it IS subject to inheritance tax. Wait - how is that about the children again???!!!

This is not relevant to people-production.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

This is not relevant to people-production.

Exactly. So marriage is not all about 'people production', is it?

 

[Madcoil]

Exactly. So marriage is not all about 'people production', is it?

You misunderstand. Inheritance has nothing to do with people-production.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

You misunderstand. Inheritance has nothing to do with people-production.

Marriage is not just about people production; God, when he created Man, had two choices. Make man asexually reproduce, or make him need a partner. When God made Eve, He said, "It is not good that man should be alone." Marriage was made for companionship and unity, children are an OUTCOME of marriage, not the PURPOSE of it.

 

[Madcoil]

From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.
It is the society that sets the law, and the society that pays the bill.
If your priests and churches and gods want to start giving out benefits to all religious or non-religious inter-personal associations regardless of their function then they are welcome to do so with their own resources.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.

No it's not... 0.o

Inheritance rights have nothing to do with people production, visitation rights have nothing to do with people production and tax breaks have nothing to do with people production. People just say that society views marriage as people production to cover up their own heterosexist prejudices.

 

[Madcoil]

No it's not... 0.o

Inheritance rights have nothing to do with people production, visitation rights have nothing to do with people production and tax breaks have nothing to do with people production. People just say that society views marriage as people production to cover up their own heterosexist prejudices.

Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.

You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.

You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.

...So why can't we get married for visitation rights and inheritance rights?

 

[Madcoil]

...So why can't we get married for visitation rights and inheritance rights?

Quoting my original opinion: 'I disagree with homosexual couples getting economic benefits from marriage.'

 

[Aerika]

Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.

You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.

You've taken the song, "What does Love have to do with it ", to new and unsettling levels.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Quoting my original opinion: 'I disagree with homosexual couples getting economic benefits from marriage.'

That doesn't make sense. I can understand you thinking marriages which 'produce people' should get economic benefits, but then if a homosexual couple adopts a near infant from somewhere else, they have in essence produced a person for America, while at the same time if a man/woman get married, but decide not to have kids, they have not produced a person for America. Also, what happens which said people who are produced are negatives (criminals, thieves, drug addicts, drains on welfare system), should the union which produced them get economic benefits? Would it not be best to say that any group (and no need to limit it to marriage, why not single or polygamous) which 'produces' contributing members of society get economic benefits?

 

[Maren]

I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.

Actually, this is easily proven false. Rather, pretty much any law involving economic benefits for children have no ties to marriage whatsoever. All the child benefits (and actually it could be argued more) are available to a single woman as to a married couple. A child born to a married woman is not automatically assigned to her husband but rather the father is recognized by the birth certificate. Marriage laws are all designed around the husband and wife. And children in divorce are only taken into account only if both husband and wife are the child's parent.

 

[HannahBanana]

From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.

By "people production," you mean "having children," correct? If so, then what about infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples that want to remain child-free? Are you saying that those couples should be denied marriage rights, too?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Unless he means for 'having children' to include those who adopt. The no problem for homosexual men. Also, homosexual women can have children anyways.

 

[Madcoil]

That doesn't make sense. I can understand you thinking marriages which 'produce people' should get economic benefits, but then if a homosexual couple adopts a near infant from somewhere else, they have in essence produced a person for America, while at the same time if a man/woman get married, but decide not to have kids, they have not produced a person for America. Also, what happens which said people who are produced are negatives (criminals, thieves, drug addicts, drains on welfare system), should the union which produced them get economic benefits? Would it not be best to say that any group (and no need to limit it to marriage, why not single or polygamous) which 'produces' contributing members of society get economic benefits?

Again, if you ADOPT a child, you do not PRODUCE a child. You WILL receive a child welfare check, which is incentive to raise the child efficiently.

For the society, a marriage is a contract that's intended to insure stable people-producing environment.