In response to:

Marriage Best Left to Churches

ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 6:46 PM
I couldn't disagree with Ms. Cushman's analysis more. First of all, she doesn't seem to understand why heterosexual married couples get the meager benefits from federal and state governments that they do that homosexual couples don't. This is astounding to me, as the reason should be obvious: raising children to become the next generation of society is both physically and mentally arduous and financially challenging compared to living single or living together outside of marriage, either as a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. To open up this theory of a societal compensation for a benefit society receives to those who, as a group, are physically incapable of producing children, and largely disinterested in raising them is to...
David3036 Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 7:37 PM
So, Chuck, if it's raising of children that should qualify a couple for the legal benefits of marriage, shouldn't we prevent senior citizens from marrying and require a fertility test for younger folks?
ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 6:52 PM
miss what is fundamental to the discussion. As individuals homosexual couples may very well benefit society in many different ways, and as individuals homosexual couples are privey to all of the compensations society reserves for individuals who are beneficial to it. There is no bar on homosexuals entering the marketplace and being successful. All the tax deductions open to any heterosexual individual living in a monogamous relationship with another heterosexual individual outside of marriage are open to any homosexual living in a monogamous relationship with another homosexual. No heterosexual living in a long term monogamous relationship may, under current law, pass their estate on to their partner tax free, or...
canetoad Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 7:03 PM
Plenty of my gay friends have happy healthy children. Chuck you need to pull your head out every once in a while.
ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 7:16 PM
Canetoad, this is a debate about whether or not to expand the present societal institution to include gay couples, right? Therefore, if, as I've argued above, this institution exists at all, on the secular level, because of the societal benefit to raising responsible citizens for the next generation of society, then that is the issue for the heterosexual community as well as for the heterosexual community. The assumption is that when heterosexual couples have sex often enough and long enough, children will generally be the result, and the state assumes the couple having children will be responsible for raising them...thus the compensation in the tax code, along with a few other "perks"...
ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 7:19 PM
That's not the assumption with homosexuals couples having sex in a long term monogamous relationship.

So if you want to argue for gay marriage in those instances where gay couples are already in long term monogamous relationships, AND have adopted children, then I'll accept that as "fair", but until that becomes your argument I'm going to continue to claim you're comparing apples to oranges and missing the fundamental issue here, just like Ms. Cushman has.
David3036 Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 7:34 PM
Still another person totally misunderstands the issues, as if it all boils down to tax deductions and inheritance, which are easily solved without marriage. The reality is that more than a thousand federal laws place a value on marriage, and many are pocketbook issues -- that is, they penalize gay couples even if they have been together for 50 years and reward people like Britney Spears and her husband who were married for barely 50 HOURS.

They include Social Security regulations, immigration laws, veterans benefits, military benefits for spouses of soldiers, free healthcare for military families, taxing of employer-provided insurance benefits, inabilty to bequeath a 401K without taxes, and on and on. These are ONLY available if married
AmyDB Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 7:38 PM
Chuck I'm in a long term, monogamous, lesbian relationship that has been sanctioned by my Faith.
My partner & myself have custody of my grandsons due to their mother, my daughter, having serious PTSD as well as other issues from serving her time in the Corps.
If something were to happen to me my partner would have no rights to continuing care of my grandsons.
Since my daughter is disabled then my boys would likely end up in foster care.
How just is this?
BTW there is no legal remedy to this short of my lady adopting my daughter as her daughter or my daughter giving up full & total custody of her sons..
I know because I have checked into it.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 8:56 PM
Your homosexual friends shouldn't be allowed near innocent children.

They aren't often worthy of any trust. Why can't you admit it? One look at that kid's genitals and all bets are off.

Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 9:01 PM

Here's the problem, canetoad: You yourself know. That makes you a homosexual, albeit with no kids. Naturally you whitewash the beaux.

Homosexuals are SICK, it's no mystery. Giving them custody of innocent kids is criminal!

The current conundrum regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage is what happens when church and state are mixed -- the topics become confusing and confused.

When I married my husband almost 15 years ago, I did so out of love and out of a desire to witness before God my commitment to him and his to me. The legal and tax ramifications did not enter into my head.

But for couples of the same sex, the legal and tax ramifications can be very important because their legal rights differ from those of heterosexual couples in a number of ways,...