Gay Marriage is not "Progressive"

[SGOS]

One thing I'd do is make it so wills cannot be contested by relatives on any other basis other than fraud. That way people can decide fully what happens to their assets once they die.

But relatives do contest wills, and they do it on the basis of fraud.  This is true whether fraud exists or not.  They do this because they want the money for themselves, rather than the person designated in the will.  And sometimes they win.  In most states in the US the law says that inheritance automatically goes to the spouse, and I was told once that this is true even if a will specifies otherwise (depending on the laws in your state).

The reason marriage trumps a designated beneficiary in a will is because the state recognizes the partnership and the responsibilities of the partner.  The inheritance automatically goes to the spouse, unless a special circumstance is recognized by the court.  This is for the same reason the state recognizes that right in the case of divorce.  In other words, you don't have a right to a divorce and not share the partnership's assets with your spouse.  Society generally sees that as unfair.

If you deny this protection to gay partnerships, you have to justify why this should not apply when partners are of the same gender, and that's where the anti-gay marriage crowd is having problems getting courts to agree with them.  There is a fundamental unfairness based on no other apparent reason than a desire to discriminate against a minority group.

Now you may say, well then the laws should be changed, because you don't like the way they are, and we need to treat gay marriage as a special case so that they are not entitled to the same partnership rights as opposite gender marriages.  And that's your opinion.  But you have to come up with a reason that the court does not view as discriminating against a minority group.  You would have to come up with a reason why the rights of partnership should no longer be recognized in opposite sex marriage.

Of course in the legal world, things do tend to get complicated.  Exceptions exist, special considerations are acknowledged.  It's not an environment where a simplistic wave of the hand can change laws that have been in effect for years, just so one can exercise a personal bias against a minority.

That's why we see the anti gay marriage crowd scrambling to find some new argument that will stun the courts with their perceptive acumen.  That's why until now, we haven't heard, "Yeah but marriage is about children and nothing else."  Suddenly, love is simply not enough to justify marriage.  These attempts at finding new arguments have so far been hollow.  They are last ditch attempts to maintain the status quo, and the anti gay marriage crowd isn't thinking them through.  Their arguments appear to be generated by a kind of social panic, a panic that seems quite unjustified to most people.

[GSOgymrat]

Thanks Munch and Stromboli.

VladK, my partner has been employed for a corporation for over 30 years and has a pension that can only be assigned to a surviving legal spouse, it cannot be willed to anyone. There are also tax considerations: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/estate-tax-will-estate-have-29802.html

The marital deduction. All property left to a surviving spouse passes free of estate tax. (I.R.C. § 2056(a).) This deduction is available to validly married same-sex couples, but it wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor. The marital deduction is not allowed for property left to noncitizen spouses, but the personal estate tax exemption can be used for property left to noncitizen spouses.

Special rules for married couples. A surviving spouse gets a big tax break. If the deceased spouse didn't use up his or her individual tax exemption, the survivor can use what's left. That gives the couple a total exemption of twice the individual exemption amount, which can be split between them in any way that provides the greatest tax benefit.

"We are doing it for money and to protect our assets."

I'd also like to point out that any two non-romantically involved people can make this argument.

So what's next? Marriage extended to BFFs? Brothers living together? Polygamous groups? Communes?

Where does it end if you constantly redefine and expand it?

I never proposed expanding marriage, I proposed restricting it. I am using the laws as they are currently written to protect my interests and right now that means getting married.

[stromboli]

Seriously, this has gone beyond ridiculous. It starts with a false premise and went downhill form there. If the gay people on the forum showing specific reasons for it and every other point made isn't getting across, this widget is lost to reason. Forget this nonsense.

[Hydra009]

I already addressed why it is not comparable to interracial marriage.

And you were wrong about that, too.  And it is comparable because you anti-gay marriage people use identical arguments against gay marriage that previous generations used against mixed-race marriage.  It's even to the point that you apparently think barring two consenting adults from marriage isn't discriminatory, which is...wow, just wow.  Seriously though, that's some dangerously wrong-headed thinking right there.  And it's pretty sad that you seem to be doubling down rather than acknowledging your mistake.

And as I said, there is no basis in reason or natural law to limit marriage based on race.

Nor is there a rational basis to limit based on sexual orientation.  And natural law, seriously?  What is this, the 19th century?

Straight interracial couples can produce children and they can produce them healthy.

And gay couples can either produce them with a surrogate or adopt them.  Or not have any children at all, not unlike tons of straight couples.  Whether or not they ultimately have kids isn't a perquisite for marriage, like people here have been telling you over and over again.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

So basically this is just another homophobe who can't come up with a concrete reason why a man can't marry another man, or a woman marry another woman. At least, not one that doesn't involve, "Oh God, think of the children!" Somehow I'm not surprised.

[Munch]

VladK, you are making a very blanket assumption on GSO's relationship with his boyfriend, as well as making a very narrow minded view that the only reason to be married to someone is for love and nothing else.
Marriage is a system of state, it is considered a law by state legislation that all legal documentation is given over to your spouse in the event of your death or if your in an accident or insurgence needs or even living arrangements. This is law, fuck religion on any of its primitive values to what it thinks marriage is.

If two people, who are in love but don't give a shit about marriage, want to still get married to get the benefits marriage gives you, then anyone should be entitled to those rights. You think those rights should only be given over to a man and woman only makes you a bigot.

So basically this is just another homophobe who can't come up with a concrete reason why a man can't marry another man, or a woman marry another woman. At least, not one that doesn't involve, "Oh God, think of the children!" Somehow I'm not surprised.

pretty much what you said, yes.

[Munch]

Don't like to double post, but I really want Vladk's view of this.

Me and my brother are A.I.D children, as in some 35 years ago my mother went to a GU clinic and was artificially inseminated from a nameless donor. All we know from the clinic, is that the donor was the same man, so both me and my brother are biologically related from both our mother and this nameless donor.

My mum did this because she lost her son she had to her husband, he died at the age of 12 because of cancer his dad had that passed to him, so any hope of mum having children while married to him became zero. She almost killed herself after she lost her child, but got though it and wanted to be a mother again. This is when the clinic told her about artificially insemination.

I'd just like to know your take on this, whats your opinion on mothers having children though artificial means?

[stromboli]

Oh, lol a mighty. Simply put, if the courts have decided that gays have a legitimate argument for marriage, any argument made against it is void. Read that 3 times and see if you get it. The reasons for the legal state of marriage have been pointed out by me and others. It doesn't matter what your opinion is.

And reverse that. If a straight couple living together faces the same issues as gays and don't marry, they lose all the rights by law that married couples have. Many couples marry and don't have kids. There is still the other issues of inheritance, property ownership, insurance and so on. Marriage is a one step process that fulfills several legal requirements. How hard is that for you to understand?

It all comes back to one thing, Vlad. In the face of every good argument and the ongoing process of legalizing gay marriage you are against it, it is because you have a bias against it. They call those people bigots.

[VladK]

Of course in the legal world, things do tend to get complicated.  Exceptions exist, special considerations are acknowledged. It's not an environment where a simplistic wave of the hand can change laws that have been in effect for years,

That's a good point, but by the same logic, redefining marriage from male+female to person+person may also have unexpected legal and cultural ramifications upon society. And I can't think of anything more simplistic than "you disagree with this position, therefore you're a bigot and you hate gays and it's all about EQUALITY". It's the exact same bullshit with people who say you're either a feminist or you hate women. Utter nonsense.

I'm also going to be blunt and say that I dislike most gay marriage activists as people and seriously question their motives given the kind of tactics they use to bully others into submission. The kind who thought it was okay to bully someone out of his CEO position at Mozilla because he didn't agree with their view. That's unacceptable, sorry. And I haven't seen anyone stop to think that hey maybe this is going too far. Maybe we shouldn't try to destroy someone's ability to make a living just because they hold a different political opinion.

Don't like to double post, but I really want Vladk's view of this.

Me and my brother are A.I.D children, as in some 35 years ago my mother went to a GU clinic and was artificially inseminated from a nameless donor. All we know from the clinic, is that the donor was the same man, so both me and my brother are biologically related from both our mother and this nameless donor.

My mum did this because she lost her son she had to her husband, he died at the age of 12 because of cancer his dad had that passed to him, so any hope of mum having children while married to him became zero. She almost killed herself after she lost her child, but got though it and wanted to be a mother again. This is when the clinic told her about artificially insemination.

I'd just like to know your take on this, whats your opinion on mothers having children though artificial means?

Since we threw civility out of the window from second 1, I'm gonna be blunt and say that I disapprove of that. Period. It's a gamble. Given your emotional investment, I don't expect to be able to convince you otherwise. I will say though that I am currently single. I don't find it offensive at all if people tell me I should get married before even thinking of having children.

As far as the legality of it, I don't think we can talk about a right of reproduction without the responsibility of reproduction, since rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If you reject one you forfeit the other. As such donors should be liable to be sued for child support just as any other biological parent who wilfully participated in creating a child. It does not matter to me how the impregnation was done as long as the parties consented to it being done.

You think those rights should only be given over to a man and woman only makes you a bigot.

Okay, first of all, I take objection to the way you use the word "right".

Rights are unalienable and are not granted by the government, the government is there to protect rights that you already have, simply as a result of you being you and that goes back to the idea of natural rights, things that you can achieve in a state of nature, such as life, natural reproduction, association with other people, and property (typically acquired through labor, such as building a tiny model ship out of wood or taking an unoccupied plot of land and raising crops on it).

A lot (not all) of aspects of marriage are not based on unalienable rights but are in fact benefits that society grants you, for example more favorable tax arrangements or "tax breaks". Some people call them positive rights in contrast to negative rights. Benefits can vary greatly from country to country. So why shouldn't people get to have a say in this?

You might have a point if marriage was based entirely on negative rights and therefore didn't require any active government support, but it's not. It is a mix of positive and negative rights. It's also a cultural issue since it's a statement about the ideal family structure, which is why it would be better to have civil parternships distinct from marriage EVEN if in practice they would be similar or even identical.

Let me give you an example. A legally married gay couple could claim they have a RIGHT to get surrogate so they can "have" children. But who would pay for that? The taxpayer? Why?

Also why should we create legal loopholes for SOME biological parents to avoid having to take care of their children?

[stromboli]

Let me give you an example. A legally married gay couple could claim they have a RIGHT to get surrogate so they can "have" children. But who would pay for that? The taxpayer? Why?

Also why should we create legal loopholes for SOME biological parents to avoid having to take care of their children?

All you are doing now is manufacturing possibilities to bolster your argument. No government has made any such arrangement for any couple. You are inventing nonexistent circumstances to try to make gay marriage a different proposition than what they have asked for, which is equality.

And indeed, why should we create a legal loophole for ANY biological parents to avoid taking care of their children? Surrogacy has been happening for some time now, in case  you haven't noticed. To date, I am unaware of any government involvement.

How many times does this have to be said? Learned men, judges and lawyers, see sufficient merit in the equal right of gay couples to be married and have the same marital rights as straight couples. That is it, QED. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage. Yet the courts deem the rights sufficient to grant them, nonetheless. Dude, you are thicker than a brick if you can't get that point.

[Munch]

It does not matter to me how the impregnation was done as long as the parties consented to it being done.

And there in is your own fallacy to most of what your saying. You don't care as long as there is consent. And yet the idea of two consenting people of the same sex is something your against, or against the idea of a consenting woman giving up her child for adoption, or consenting adult party system for a baby between them all like the example of my old friends.

You can't argue against the consenting actions of adults in their pursuits in life one minute and claim it doesn't matter for another.

[Mermaid]

So what's next? Marriage extended to BFFs? Brothers living together? Polygamous groups? Communes?

Where does it end if you constantly redefine and expand it?

any opposite sex couple can get married any time, they don't have to prove they are in love.
As for brothers, if you think incest and homosexuality are equivalent, I don't know what else to tell you.

I am surprised that you didn't use a man marrying a goat as an example.

[stromboli]

I don't like calling people bigots on here unless they either avoid the obvious evidence to the contrary or invent reasons to support their argument. Mr. Vlad has done both, so he qualifies.

[VladK]

any opposite sex couple can get married any time, they don't have to prove they are in love.

Unless they're foreigners LOL. Ever heard of sham marriages to get a green card?

As for brothers, if you think incest and homosexuality are equivalent, I don't know what else to tell you.

I never equated incest with homosexuality. The issue is not sex, the issue is redefining marriage. Nice try with that bait and switch but it didn't work.

Again, the issue is not sex, the issue is redefining marriage.

Secondly, I was not referring to incestous brothers. I was referring to brothers who simply live together and feel they're entitled to all those government benefits. I even included BFFs (best friends forever) as an example.

Hell, why not just expand marriage to include entire cities? Where does it end? Is polygamy wrong in your view? Why?

I am surprised that you didn't use a man marrying a goat as an example.

Goats can't sign papers or agree to anything.

And there in is your own fallacy to most of what your saying. You don't care as long as there is consent. And yet the idea of two consenting people of the same sex is something your against,

I literally don't know how to respond because it doesn't make fucking sense. What do you mean against the "idea of two consenting people of the same sex". Consenting to what exactly? I'm not against gay sex if that's what you mean. Then again I am in fact against certain forms of sex, even if there is consent, for example acts involving adults and children or very young teens. I also don't believe it's possible to consent to being killed and eaten by a cannibal no matter what age we're talking about.

I don't think you understood my point which is that biological parents should be legally obligated to take care of their children. My rationale for this is that rights involve responsibilities and responsibilities involve rights. The only exception to this would be if you are NOT in fact excercising your right to reproduce, but are being coerced, such as rape or some form of forcible impregnation.

or against the idea of a consenting woman giving up her child for adoption,

I'm not against a woman giving up her child for adoption, if she's not a competent parent then maybe that's the only solution left. However since she brought that child into the world, it's only fair that a certain percentage of her income (assuming she has an income) be deducted every month to take care of that child until the 18th birthday.

or consenting adult party system for a baby between them all like the example of my old friends.

I consent to leaving a woman pregnant and not paying child support or having anything to do with raising that child, even though I helped bring it in this world. See how dumb that sounds?

Why do you hate personal responsibility for your actions?

[Mermaid]

Oh do shut up already.