11,000 Benefits Not Given To Gay Couples

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I know this has been beatin into the ground around here but I have a few things that I heard last night to say.

I was watching something on tv about the gay marriage issue. Someone came out with a figure that married couples experience 11,000 priveleges (they did a study) that just one document and the two words "I do" give them. Now, my question is for you people who say "oh, but gays can get the documents to have the same benefits as straight married people do". What are we supposed to do? Get together 11,000 documents and have a lawyer go through all these documents to make sure that they can't be scrutinized in the courts? Boy, talk about an expense.

Also, they mentioned that when you are married, you automatically are considered related to that person. When you are in a contract, you are not considered related. So, that blows the seperate but equal defense down. Because it is NOT equal if one is related and the other is not.

I saw one privelege first hand. Recently, My sister and brother-in-law and myself rented a vehicle. It was rented in my brother-in-law's name. Well, my sister gets to drive the vehicle with no extra cost because they are married. If I were to rent a vehicle and wanted my partner to drive also....even if we have all the contracts, t's crossed and I's dotted, we would still have to pay the extra driver money. Equal....I don't think so.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by MacMerdin]

[edit on 15-10-2004 by MacMerdin]




posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I guess no-one wants to reply to this? When it's smacked in your face that it is not equal to deny same-sex partners the same benefits that married people have, I guess you have no rebuttal?



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
I guess no-one wants to reply to this? When it's smacked in your face that it is not equal to deny same-sex partners the same benefits that married people have, I guess you have no rebuttal?


Not really. It is that this has been beaten to death and no one is willing to change their mind on the issue. So why bother?



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
You do have a good point, but I was amazed when I heard that figure of 11,000 benefits that people are trying to deny to us. Also, notice that I have been using benefits and priveleges and not using rights.....because it really isn't a right to get married...just comes with many benefits.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Would you please name a few? I can't even think of 5 legal benefits that married couples get (Other than the wife getting half of the husbands property haha). Tax cuts sometimes? Couples night at bars and movies? What kind of benefits do you get by showing your marriage certificate?



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I dont know about 11,000 and am not up on legal-speak but right off the top of my head I can think of several mostly to do with property rights, like being able to automaticaly control the other persons property in case of death or coma. Having rights to visit and have a say in the others treatment in a hospital, being able to speak in the others behalf in most cases, etc.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Yes Amuk...those are just the tip of the iceburg. They didn't name many more than Amuk did and I wish I had a link for everyone to visit, but sadly I heard it on tv and not in the net. If you really think about it, you could come up with alot on your own. I named one in my original post that was not as severe as not being able to visit your dying loved one, but it did show that even the minor stuff gets overlooked and taken for granted by the straight crowd.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Also, they mentioned that when you are married, you automatically are considered related to that person. When you are in a contract, you are not considered related. So, that blows the seperate but equal defense down. Because it is NOT equal if one is related and the other is not.

And if they divorce, they are not "related" anymore? What a benefit. Sort of like being prom queen.


I saw one privelege first hand. Recently, My sister and brother-in-law and myself rented a vehicle. It was rented in my brother-in-law's name. Well, my sister gets to drive the vehicle with no extra cost because they are married. If I were to rent a vehicle and wanted my partner to drive also....even if we have all the contracts, t's crossed and I's dotted, we would still have to pay the extra driver money. Equal....I don't think so.

And if your spouse gets drunk and plows into a school bus, you are equally responsible for the expenses, whether or not you're on that rental contract. Some benefit, eh?

Count your blessings.



[edit on 15-10-2004 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Count your blessings.


[edit on 15-10-2004 by jsobecky]


Every time this comes up I say I am not gonna post because it does NO good.....

But here I go

How would like it if the person you love and had spent the last 30 years with was dying in the hospital and when you went to see them and hold their hand in their final moments the hospital staff told you that you were not allowed to see them because their "real" family, you know the ones that disowned him and havent talked to him since you moved in togather, said you couldnt?


Hows that for a right.

The right to hold and comfort the person you love in their final hour?

I guess they should count their blessing that they can stay home and watch TV, right?


[edit on 15-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Amuk

How would I feel? Like a second class citizen, is how.

You misinterpreted my statements.


[EDIT to emphasize misinterpretation]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The real question is, Why should society benefit relationships which do not benefit society? Equal protection is not the issue because a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are not equal in their contribution to society.

Two homosexual men living together are no different than two heterosexual men who live together in terms of the benefit to society and the fact that one dyad has sexual relations is of no consequence.

The marriage institution exists to foster the family which is the foundation of society and society in microcosm. Homosexuality cannot contribute to this cause and therefore deserves no social subsidy. Sleep with whom you like, but don't ask me to subsidize your proclivities.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Again I say every time this comes up I wont post because some people will deny others basic rights and no amount of reason will open their eyes, but I keep trying....LOL



Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Homosexuality cannot contribute to this cause and therefore deserves no social subsidy. Sleep with whom you like, but don't ask me to subsidize your proclivities.


How is this subsidizing them? Does it cost you one red cent? Should a childless couple also not be "subsidized"?

There are many ways to add to society is breeding more kids the only one that counts? If so I know an unmarried drug addicted woman with seven kids from different fathers that you would love, after all she is adding to society in the only way that counts, right?

I also know a Gay Man that is also a Buddist that helps with homes for the homeless, works at a homeless shelter and several other charitable causes but I guess he is just a drain on society because he wont breed right?

How about my aunt and uncle that have lived togather childless for over forty years should they not be allowed any rights of Marriage? After all they only ran two bussinesses and hired dozens of people but since they didnt breed they dont count, right?

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   


How would like it if the person you love and had spent the last 30 years with was dying in the hospital and when you went to see them and hold their hand in their final moments the hospital staff told you that you were not allowed to see them because their "real" family, you know the ones that disowned him and havent talked to him since you moved in togather, said you couldnt?


Does that really happen? My Father was in an ICU for a very long time just barely hanging on to his life and at no point were any of his visitors turned away. I would go to the hospital and discover my fathers close friends in there with him and I know for a fact that nobody was on the "list" other than immediate family. This was at three different hospitals, always in the ICU where you would have to be buzzed in to gain entry. Also, I know that family CAN put anyone on the "list" to visit someone in the ICU, so as long as you are 'in' with the family you should not be turned away.

Second of all, if you had legal documents written up that gave you power of attorney you would be able to have visitation rights and that sort of thing, wouldn't you? I would think that an hour at an attorneys office would give you many of the 'rights' that you feel you are not getting without being married.

Our society has become one in which there is very little tradition left. Political Correctedness has gotten completely out of hand. Old fashioned values are no longer taught and everyone cares more about themselves than their neighbor. Parents are forced to teach their children about sexuality much earlier than they should have to because of activists like Rosie O'Donnell (who has done a lot of childrens shows) holding press conferences to announce to the world that she is a 'dyke'. That is something that is better left in the bedroom and does not need to be broadcast to the world. That is the type of thing that also hurts your cause because nobody wants to hear details about someone's sex life (gay OR straight) on the news.

I understand that people want to feel that they are 'equal', but they need to understand that some things NEED to be left traditional, sacred and untouched. Not allowing homosexuals to get married does not mean they are not "equal". A blind person can't drive a car but that doesn't make THEM less equal as a human being. Find another name for your union and push to get the same benefits, but please, don't change the traditional marriage.

Jemison



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
I would think that an hour at an attorneys office would give you many of the 'rights' that you feel you are not getting without being married.
Jemison


To be honest I am not really hung up on "Marriage" myself.

I just dont like to see ANYONE discriminated against. If you could come up with a contract that bestows ALL the priviliges of marriage I would be OK with it.

I would also be willing to let the states decide, because as we evolve as a nation sooner or later they would get equal rights.

They might not want to wait that long though.....LOL

And its not "MY" cause I am married to a woman for life with four beautiful children and 1 and a half grandchildren.

I just believe in equal rights

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   


And its not "MY" cause I am married to a woman for life with four beautiful children and 1 and a half grandchildren.


Sorry if I was seeming to be directing that at you. I was directing it toward those in general who are in support of gay marriage. I'm assuming by the "half" grandchild that means you are expecting one? If my assumption is correct, Congratulations!


Jemison



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
[ If my assumption is correct, Congratulations!

Jemison


Your assumption is correct


Its gonna be a boy, my daughter already has a girl


Thank you



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Uh, didn't we go through the same seperate but equal thing in the 50-70? And guess what? It doesn't work. Though I do like GP's definition of humans that should be allowed to live and have rights. "If they have kids, then they should have all the rights they want. Oh? She is infertile? He shoots blanks? Well, throw them in a gas chamber and gas them, they can't contribute to society and so are worthless." Wow, glad you aren't running for President. Or what about teens? They can have kids, but not all of them do? Should we gas them to? They are able to have kids, but don't, maybe because they are in college, or want to have fun before they start having kids, or just aren't able to. So according to GP they should not be allowed. Damn teens! Wait, am a teen, an adult, according to the state, but a teen. So I guess I should go kill myself for I am not knocking up women left and right contributing to society.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The real question is, Why should society benefit relationships which do not benefit society?


Grady, don't you find it even the slightest bit hypocritical of you to say the above statement. You call myself Marxist, others on this board Marxist, and equate Kerry with Communism, and then you consistently state things like this. It implies that "if it does not benefit the whole of society then why allow it" attitude, which to speak frankly, is a short definition of Communism...working together for the greater good of society. Or, to define what you say better, socialism.

Oh the hypocracy that you think runs so eloquently from your fingertips....


[edit on 16-10-2004 by Jazzerman]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The real question is, Why should society benefit relationships which do not benefit society?


This statement is made from social functionalist perspective only. It is based on reason without regard to emotion or morality. The marriage institution is for the purposes I described. There are other legal arrangement for those who associate themselve for other reasons. Marriage, in its intended state, formalizes the commitment of a man and woman to society, which society rewards. Homosexual couples, by definition, cannot fulfill this social function and therefore should not reap the benefits.

Those men and women who cannot or do not choose to have children are still keeping with the tradition of the commitment of social duty of the family and you'd be surprised how many of these couples wind up conceiving anyway.

There is no logical argument to allow marriage between same-sex couples.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The marriage institution is for the purposes I described. There are other legal arrangement for those who associate themselve for other reasons. Marriage, in its intended state, formalizes the commitment of a man and woman to society, which society rewards. Homosexual couples, by definition, cannot fulfill this social function and therefore should not reap the benefits.

There is no logical argument to allow marriage between same-sex couples.


Now, with marriage, you bring up this issue of what exactly is "marraige"? There are many variations like polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, common law, and finally monogamy. You are obviously only defending the stance of monogamy in which two people are committed to only each other and no one else. Modern Christianity, and to an extent, all Christianity has only identified itself with Polygamy. Essentially, your arguement becomes one of Christian origin, and excludes the beliefs and defintions of marriage of other cultures. America is a "Melting Pot", or a "Salad Bowl" depending on which ideological view you take, but in essence we are a people made up of different social, economic, and religious cultures. No one religious authority is supposed to dominate the landscape of America, otherwise America would be like Islam in that respect.

Some marriages have been defined as either proxy or dowry throughout the ages as well. The ancient Egyptians (royality) used to partake in the custom of marrying their own Brother/sister, and thus the definition of marriage is a constantly changing one. Because of the evolution of the defintion of marriage, there is no reason to assume that marriage will always be defined as between "man and woman". Just as many cultures and countries that once defined their laws by religious doctrine, no longer do so because of the ever changing face of "marriage".

The perpetuation of the species is irrelevant when it comes to marriage. Marriage is, as you stated, a formal institution which is for the time being governed by the rules of humanity, not natural order and evolution. So, a scientific claim that Homosexuals cannot reproduce, and therefore cannot benefit social structure are completely irrelevant to the discussion of a human created "institution".

You say, "Marriage, in its intended state...". As I have already described marriage has no "intended state" because it consists of many states that constantly evolve from one another. A non-changing definition of marriage simply is not historically accurate...nice for people to formulate opinions on? Yes. Inaccurate in historical study nonetheless.

Homosexuality has always been a part of humanity, and to an even bigger extent...nature itself. To deny those that are homosexual their rights in a formal society is to in effect loose control of the very defintion of "marriage". The defintion of marriage has always changed along with law and doctrine that state who/who can't get married. To strangle the fabric of marriage is to let its structure to remain the same, and not allow it "breathing room" in a free and independent society as it has naturally done for thousands of years. Accordingly, Homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join