It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay marriage... a correlation

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
It is my observation that a reason for the push by the gay community and others for government to recognize their marriage is the benefits conferred upon couples with married status. I understand there are other reasons as well, but for the purpose of this post I recognize this factor alone.

I draw this correlation:

When I served in the military, I knew several married couples who were married solely for the benefits they receive having married status. Benefits such as separation pay, basic allowances for sustenance and quarters, and of course, a good reason to move out of the barracks. These couples dated who they wanted, usually didn't live together, shared no financial responsiblity other than dividing their booty evenly... all in all, what they had was a mutually beneficial situation exploited through the legality of marriage.

Rights I believe would be most important to recognize for gay couples are hospital visitation and shared caretaking, shared ownership of private property and credit, and possibly the receipt of social security survivor benefits (I'm afraid that may over-extend an already broken system). But there are other benefits such as lowered car and home insurance and tax deductions that are also awarded married couples.

One question is, does anyone think there would be instances of men and women, who may, for instance, be declared singles and use the right for homosexual marriage to receive benefits fraudulently, and would there require legislation to prevent or punish this? Could anyone actually be found guilty of this?

Another question, does anyone think that the push for a Constitutional amendment have anything to do with the loss in revenue that the IRS and insurance companies, among others, stand to endure?

Note: This is not the MUD PIT. No fighting. If you want to fight, I could maybe meet you in the MUD PIT after school. Or better yet, the debate forum...


Thanks
Ike



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I never thought of that.

I personally do not wish to be around a Homosexual male.(Lesbians are ok) However it has always been my belief that what they do behind closed doors is their business. So if they can get married what do I care?


Now that the issue of Social security fraud has been brought up I may change my opinion. This is a very good point.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Then the system surrounding marriage and its benefits should be reexamined.

I don't see how discrimination against a set of people is the answer.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Just one example -

Set up the (monetary) benefits of marriage on some sort of incentive basis.

IOW - the longer you are married, the more benefits you would be entitled to.

It would lessen the losses of government revenue, while including everyone equally, and at the same time not rewarding irresponsible/immature people who marry the wrong person at a young age.


***EDIT***
Or make divorced couples pay back all previous benefits they had received.


[edit on 15-10-2004 by quango]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
This has caught my interest as I am Lesbian. I can understand the concerns regarding different issues such as Social Security Fraud but, if it did occur it would not be the first time it has ever happened...I am aware of people who have lied about a parent of their child so that they could get death inheritance benefits for their child. So already it is not a foolproof system. To be honest....I don't think "marriage" is the right solution. This country was founded to keep church and state separate. Marriage has traditionally been a religious ceremony. So let marriages stay in the churches - those that want to allow gay marriages can perform them, those that don't don't have to.

However, as a governmental issue - allow all citizens who have decided to co-habitate to have a civil union - homo or hetero-sexual. A man and woman who live together for a certain amount of time whether they have a ceremony or not are considered common law married - would this not make a more reasonable solution. Still allowing for fair and equal treatment of all citizens and preserving those very precious beliefs that we all hold dear - even when they differ from each other - I would not tell anyone what to believe...but I would ask that they allow others the same freedom of beliefs. Since we claim not to discriminate based on religion how can we legislate on something like the definition of marriage?? Is that not a contradiction in terms?



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join