[Yanick]

first I'm not gay, AND I have nothing against gay peoples.
two I just want to share what I learned this week-end.


right now there is big debate in Canada about legallizing gay wedding. Well it more like re-defining the word wedding which until now is an union between a man & a woman.

If I had to vote for gay wedding, my answer would have been NO. Mainly base on religious aqspect, for me wedding was a sacrament. Period I can justify myself a lot more and explain this and that and why and.... but I won't , it's not necesary anymore.

this week end I read an article saying that no where in the old or new testament there is a definition of mariage. It's was also explaining that mariage has been introduce by the church around year 1580 (After discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier!) And the purpose of that introduction was to force man to take care of theirs childs!!!

then I completly stop thinking the way I was... I don't care anymore... they can do whatever they want. It just make me realize that religion are simple not perfect, and made by man, like laws.

Now, when will we legalize polygamy?

 

[Serial Midget]

So, if two gay mountain bikers were to wed... would their cycle computers have to match?

 

[brock]

I say we just get rid of marriage.

 

[shocktower]

Let`s get rid of churches fricking bible beaters

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
So, if two gay mountain bikers were to wed... would their cycle computers have to match?

oh! I know this one!

According to SM, it's a trick question cuz mtbikers don't use 'em! Am I right? What'd I win?

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
oh! I know this one!

According to SM, it's a trick question cuz mtbikers don't use 'em! Am I right? What'd I win?

Ohhhh, you're clever...I never even thought of that!

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
Ohhhh, you're clever...I never even thought of that!

ha! I'm clever according to Silver... take that all y'all

However, I'm sure SM will just say, "But mtbikers who use cyclometers *are* gay, so it's really rhetorical."

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
ha! I'm clever according to Silver... take that all y'all

You can put that in your signature line if you want

 

[Zoso]

this week end I read an article saying that no where in the old or new testament there is a definition of mariage. It's was also explaining that mariage has been introduce by the church around year 1580 (After discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier!) And the purpose of that introduction was to force man to take care of theirs childs!!!
[/B]

I wasn't able to find a specific definition of marriage, but it is always discussed in terms of men and woman. More importantly, I bet the article failed to mention Leviticus chap. 20, vrs. 13, which states:

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Punishment for any sin is death. Only through the grace of God and his Son Jesus Christ are we spared. Makes lots of things in life seem a lot less important.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
its a legal and religious insitution

Exactly why we should get rid of it. Leave marriages to the churches and take the law out of it. Take it out of the tax code, take it out of all legal matters all together.

If people want to form a legal union between each other, they can form a corporation. Anyone can do that.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by Zoso

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

By whom? Would this not be murder? Is murder not a sin anymore?

 

[Zoso]

We as a society still kill people as punishment for crimes.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Zoso
I wasn't able to find a specific definition of marriage, but it is always discussed in terms of men and woman. More importantly, I bet the article failed to mention Leviticus chap. 20, vrs. 13, which states:

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Punishment for any sin is death. Only through the grace of God and his Son Jesus Christ are we spared. Makes lots of things in life seem a lot less important.

I'll one up you. I don't believe in your God. Keep him out of my civil matters, please.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by Zoso
We as a society still kill people as punishment for crimes.

Strange, I don't believe in your god (or any god for that matter), and I think the bible is nothing more than an old fantasy book but I don't agree with killing people for any reason.

Assuming you believe this stuff, does the fact that our society does it make it ok?

 

[Snacks]

I think marriage is a completly personal issue, gay or straight. It's not anyone's business who marries whom......How would it affect you, the church, the government, or my employer if I married someone of the same sex or the oppisite sex? I think the only people it would concern would be my friends and family.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by LordOpie
oh! I know this one!

According to SM, it's a trick question cuz mtbikers don't use 'em! Am I right? What'd I win?

Close! It's a trick question because there are no gay mountain bikers. We established this fact 'round about this time last year; we're smart monkeys.

Oh, and for the youngsters... summer camp doesn't count.

 

[llkoolkeg]

I'm just a little tired of hearing about gay-this and transgendered-that every freakin' day.

For such a small segment of the total population, they sure are noisy!

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
For such a small segment of the total population, they sure are noisy!

Perhaps they need a little more white lightening?

 

[Triphop]

Originally posted by Yanick


this week end I read an article saying that no where in the old or new testament there is a definition of mariage. It's was also explaining that mariage has been introduce by the church around year 1580 (After discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier!) And the purpose of that introduction was to force man to take care of theirs childs!!!

Whoever wrote the article you read should do a bit more research, as the New Testament discusses marriage a number of times...I don't know the verse off hand, I want to say it was one of the books by Paul, that when a man and women have sex, then they are, in the eyes of God, married...hence why Christians are against premarital sex.

More specifically I found this in the book of Mark...

Mar 10:6 From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.


As for the legal description of marriage, it makes perfect sense why it ascribes to male/female unifications only...the unification of 2 men, is pointless. In the legalistic view, it does little to further our species, our culture or our society. Generally, when people are married they become more stable, reproduce, become larger contributors to society (the system) than non married people, so the law reflects these contributions by ascribing certain benefits to marriage.

So what is it that the gay groups are fighting for? Is it simply that they want their union to be recognized by those that oppress them? Or, is it for gain, that they want the perceived financial/legal benefit of marriage?

 

[Zoso]

No, I don't think its right to kill for any reason. The passage was from the old testament, and punishments such as death were more common.

I really don't care whether or not gays can marry. If that's really what they want, then let them get married. I only responded because the original post was based on an article that contained misleading info.

Look, I'm comfortable with my beliefs. Those that disagree with me are obviously comfortable with their own. We're not going to solve anything or reach some kind of agreement, so I'm done here.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Perhaps they need a little more white lightening?

Do you refer to skin bleaching ala Michael Jackson, illicit "XXX" ceramic jug corn whiskey or the bicycle chain lube?

 

[Tweek]

Marriage is an institution.

Like NASCAR, Groundhog Day, and Superbowl halftime shows.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Tweek
Marriage is an institution.

Like NASCAR, Groundhog Day, and Superbowl halftime shows.

...ayand TWINS!

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Triphop

As for the legal description of marriage, it makes perfect sense why it ascribes to male/female unifications only...the unification of 2 men, is pointless. In the legalistic view, it does little to further our species, our culture or our society. Generally, when people are married they become more stable, reproduce, become larger contributors to society (the system) than non married people, so the law reflects these contributions by ascribing certain benefits to marriage.

So what is it that the gay groups are fighting for? Is it simply that they want their union to be recognized by those that oppress them? Or, is it for gain, that they want the perceived financial/legal benefit of marriage?

Birth control doesn't do much to further our society either. Neither do childless marriages. We still let infertile couples or couples who just plain don't want to kids marry.

I think the largest issue (keep in mind I'm not speaking from experience here, if someone else has more personal insights, please help me out) is the legal one. Assets, hospital visitation rights, insurance issues, etc.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by Triphop
Generally, when people are married they become more stable, reproduce, become larger contributors to society (the system) than non married people, so the law reflects these contributions by ascribing certain benefits to marriage.

That is total bull****. I am single and without children. I have never been a recipient of any sort of grant, wellfare or even unemployment compensation. I pay my property taxes, run my business and never complain. It really pisses me off when I hear parents say how "special" they are... blah, blah, blah. Anyone can make babies - it's not that special.

I have been a homeowner for 15 years and paid many thousands of $$$ in property taxes - the bulk of which goes to support the local school system. I guarantee you that I contribute just as much as my nighbors (with 6 kids!!!) and take far less in return.

It does not matter if you are gay or not - single working people in America pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes and use far less services.

I pay the same amount for water/sewer/garbage with a household of 1 than my neighbors (with 8 in their home) pay. They were pissed off when they found out that we were finally going to be metered and their bill would go up while mine would go down. Why should I subsidize their usage?

 

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Like religion

Religious bull**** has no place in government. The reason that government recognizes a marriage is becuase it can then afford special privileges to that couple mainly for the purpose of creating a new generation that is well prepared to lead the nation in the future. Taxes are different when you are married, and many legal documents can be signed as one, or you can have things like joint bank accounts easier. It also grants government protection against the breaking of that bond in the hope that families will stay together when they have some sort of higher connection.

Gay people can't have families. It doesnt work that way. Marriage throughout history has always been between a man and a woman. You cant marry a plant, or a dog, or a bike, or another man. Thats just weird. (Just like you cant form a corporation with plant or dog..there are certain legal boundaries here)

People have t realize that discrimaination in government proceedings is till allowed. It just has to be reasonable. (eg it is reasonable to have male and female bathrooms) I think it is pretty reasonable to state that marriage is a male/female insitution and by changing that we devalue the insitution itself.

Its not about love, its about protection.

Are you f'ing serious? Your argument against gay marriage is that "it doesn't work that way." ".....That's just weird" What is weird is that you compare the relationship between 2 people who love each other to a relationship to a plant.

For those who argue using the Bible; let's remember that whether or not you consider the Bible to be the word of God, a history lesson, or a load of crap, it has been written, translated, reworded, and generally bastardized more than a Ridemonkey thread. Come on, the Bible is at best a loose representation of some so called scholar's interpretation of Judeo-Christian doctrine.

Marriage doesn't have to have any religious attachment, otherwise ship captains and judges wouldn't be able to provide marriage services to Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.... Marriage is a legal contract as a representation of two people's commitment to a relationship. Male-male, female-female, or male -female, it doesn't, or shouldn't matter. Unfortunately AIDS is still spread the most by homosexual contact in North America. Anything that promotes a reduction in promiscuity in the gay community is something good.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Serial Midget

Why should I subsidize their usage?

Because children are our future, dude....

 

[Triphop]

Originally posted by Silver
Birth control doesn't do much to further our society either. Neither do childless marriages. We still let infertile couples or couples who just plain don't want to kids marry.

I think the largest issue (keep in mind I'm not speaking from experience here, if someone else has more personal insights, please help me out) is the legal one. Assets, hospital visitation rights, insurance issues, etc.

You are referring to a very small percentage of marriages there...one can confidently say that the majority of married couples do reproduce.

I agree that the major issue is the legal as well...more specifically that there are financial benefits which the gay community wants access to.

Originally posted by Serial Midget
That is total bull****. I am single and without children. I have never been a recipient of any sort of grant, wellfare or even unemployment compensation. I pay my property taxes, run my business and never complain. It really pisses me off when I hear parents say how "special" they are... blah, blah, blah. Anyone can make babies - it's not that special.

No Serial, it is not BS.

First off I said "generally".

Second, don't change the scope of the argument from my statement. We are not arguing whether individuals *can* be stable and large contributors to the system, my point was "generally" married couples tend to reproduce, therefor they contribute more, and are more stable, i.e engage in less risky behavior, be it investments, job changes, what have you...than people who are not married/parents. I agree completely that for the most part, unmarried professionals pay much more into the system and take less.

Families do contribute more to the society than do individuals...it is simple economics. You pay for one person's worth of food, toothpaste, toilet paper, bike parts or what have you...your married neighbor couple with 6 children pays/contributes into the economy 6X what you do. Having to pay for a family will generally make a person more financially responsible, and be more concerned about running up debt, or putting their family in financial trouble. A married individual and even more so a parent is less likely to engage in risk taking, simple example is getting hammered at he bar and driving home. Ofcourse it does happen, but it happens less frequently with married/parents. This is why marriages are seen as beneficial in the eyes of the government and legal system.

So, if you want to argue that you are a super stable contributor to society and pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than your neighbor, and its unfair...well, that's life. Nothing more to say about it.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Triphop
You are referring to a very small percentage of marriages there...one can confidently say that the majority of married couples do reproduce.

I am speaking from experience here (Finally, it happens! ) because I'm in one of those non-reproducing marriages.

My point simply was that since we don't prohibit the type of marriage I'm in, we shouldn't use that as a basis to discriminate against homosexual couples who wish to have the same rights my wife and I have.

 

[Serial Midget]

My point is that single people shouldn't be any less 'valuable' to society than married people - they should have the exact same rights and responsibilities as those who are married. It is not to guv'ments business to determine who contributes more to society and therefore deserves lower taxes, higher services and equal proctection 'under the law'. A man and women should not have to conform to preconceived ideas about marriage and religion in order to receive the full benefits of law. In my eyes it has nothing to do with being gay. It has everything to do being an equal citizen in the eyes of the govornment.

Now if you think my neighbor's are spending 6X what do I you are just plain silly, our incomes, mortgage payments, property taxes and city services are within a few $$$ as a whole. As far as taxes go - they get the earned income tax credit and end up paying ZERO $$$ in Federal income taxes, last year I think he said he got a refund of close to $10,000.00 but didn't have any witholdings due to his large family.

Originally posted by Triphop
Families do contribute more to the society than do individuals...it is simple economics. You pay for one person's worth of food, toothpaste, toilet paper, bike parts or what have you...your married neighbor couple with 6 children pays/contributes into the economy 6X what you do. Having to pay for a family will generally make a person more financially responsible, and be more concerned about running up debt, or putting their family in financial trouble. A married individual and even more so a parent is less likely to engage in risk taking, simple example is getting hammered at he bar and driving home. Ofcourse it does happen, but it happens less frequently with married/parents. This is why marriages are seen as beneficial in the eyes of the government and legal system.

So, if you want to argue that you are a super stable contributor to society and pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than your neighbor, and its unfair...well, that's life. Nothing more to say about it.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
As far as taxes go - they get the earned income tax credit and end up paying ZERO $$$ in Federal income taxes, last year I think he said he got a refund of close to $10,000.00 but didn't have any witholdings due to his large family.

Errrrr I would question those numbers.....other than a few select credits you only get back money you give to the government. No witholdings = much less than $10,000 in their refund. I know nothing about there family but thats sounds a little (no a lot) off. but that is just my thought on that statement.

I haven't done tax work for 2 seasons but that just sounds a little inflated.

.......sorry SM

I have a 2002 US Master tax Guide at my desk:

The 2001 EIC table maxes out at $4,008 of credit for 2 or more children with amounts from the EIC worksheet of (wich I don't have so someone would have to find it and figure out what income level this translates to) $10,000- 10,750. I don't imagine them making a lot of money to still be able to make this threshold. Make more and the EIC drops the more you make...etc.

 

[Triphop]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
My point is that single people shouldn't be any less 'valuable' to society than married people - they should have the exact same rights and responsibilities as those who are married. It is not to guv'ments business to determine who contributes more to society and therefore deserves lower taxes, higher services and equal proctection 'under the law'. A man and women should not have to conform to preconceived ideas about marriage and religion in order to receive the full benefits of law. In my eyes it has nothing to do with being gay. It has everything to do being an equal citizen in the eyes of the govornment.

Now if you think my neighbor's are spending 6X what do I you are just plain silly, our incomes, mortgage payments, property taxes and city services are within a few $$$ as a whole. As far as taxes go - they get the earned income tax credit and end up paying ZERO $$$ in Federal income taxes, last year I think he said he got a refund of close to $10,000.00 but didn't have any witholdings due to his large family.

I understand where you are coming from...simple fact is that our society (agree or not) values family more so than the individual, and is willing to provide concessions/assistance so that a family can live at a comfortable level. But I don't see why it bothers you so much, that this is the case. You sound like the old people who do not want to contribute into the local education system because they have no kids and fail to see how their contributions are for the education of those who will be paying their social security or other social services and generally contributing to continue the way of life that everyone enjoys or is accustomed to.

I am not a tax accountant, but I don't see how it is possible that this guy had nothing withheld and then received a refund. If that is true...I agree that just isn't right...he is pretty much getting a hand out from the government to support his family. I won't argue that the tax system needs reforming.

Still, chances are his expenditures to support his family are significantly greater than yours, and that money he is receiving, is being invested, which is a boost to the economy. So, in effect, his family generates more revenue than just you alone. I don't want to argue economics, as I am not qualified, but it seems to me to be the case.

Well, now that we have addressed your concerns of individuals vs. family shall we get back to gay vs. straight marriages?

 

[Serial Midget]

Well that could be right - a lot of people brag about their tax refund checks... I'm guessing he makes about $30.000 a year and his wife does not work - they don't have a lot so it's not like I begrudge them anything...

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Errrrr I would question those numbers.....other than a few select credits you only get back money you give to the government. No witholdings = much less than $10,000 in their refund. I know nothing about there family but thats sounds a little (no a lot) off. but that is just my thought on that statement.

I haven't done tax work for 2 seasons but that just sounds a little inflated.

.......sorry SM

I have a 2002 US Master tax Guide at my desk:

The 2001 EIC table maxes out at $4,008 of credit for 2 or more children with amounts from the EIC worksheet of (wich I don't have so someone would have to find it and figure out what income level this translates to) $10,000- 10,750. I don't imagine them making a lot of money to still be able to make this threshold. Make more and the EIC drops the more you make...etc.

 

[Serial Midget]

I am not complaining - just reponding to a quote that said married people with children contribute more to society than those who don't. My point is that single people, and those in childless marriages, often pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes in order to subsidize the credits given to families. If we all paid based on actual services used then it might be argued that singles and childless couples contribute less.

My idea is that all productive citizens are of equal value and should been seen as such under the law. It has ZERO to do with gay or straight marriage - it's simply about equal treatment for everyone without hoops or preconditions based on religious traditions.

Originally posted by Triphop
I understand where you are coming from...simple fact is that our society (agree or not) values family more so than the individual, and is willing to provide concessions/assistance so that a family can live at a comfortable level. But I don't see why it bothers you so much, that this is the case. You sound like the old people who do not want to contribute into the local education system because they have no kids and fail to see how their contributions are for the education of those who will be paying their social security or other social services and generally contributing to continue the way of life that everyone enjoys or is accustomed to.

I am not a tax accountant, but I don't see how it is possible that this guy had nothing withheld and then received a refund. If that is true...I agree that just isn't right...he is pretty much getting a hand out from the government to support his family. I won't argue that the tax system needs reforming.

Still, chances are his expenditures to support his family are significantly greater than yours, and that money he is receiving, is being invested, which is a boost to the economy. So, in effect, his family generates more revenue than just you alone. I don't want to argue economics, as I am not qualified, but it seems to me to be the case.

Well, now that we have addressed your concerns of individuals vs. family shall we get back to gay vs. straight marriages?

 

[LordOpie]

we should pay people to NOT have kids... just like we pay farmers to not grow corn or whatever.

 

[Triphop]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I am not complaining - just reponding to a quote that said married people with children contribute more to society than those who don't. My point is that single people, and those in childless marriages, often pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes in order to subsidize the credits given to families. If we all paid based on actual services used then it might be argued that singles and childless couples contribute less.

My idea is that all productive citizens are of equal value and should been seen as such under the law. It has ZERO to do with gay or straight marriage - it's simply about equal treatment for everyone without hoops or preconditions based on religious traditions.

I agree with you, that everyone's contributions have an equal value...but that is not what I said. I said families contribute more (quantity not quality) to society than do individuals...

Look, you can argue that you pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes then does a married couple...no one will dispute that, but a family, in general, will have higher expenditures in a wider variety of the economy than an individual, and the potential for future contributions is greater. Therefor, they are larger contributors to society than an individual, and thus receive tax breaks from the government as a reward.

So, if we take from our above discussion, wouldn't you oppose the institution of marriage (especially as it pertains to the tax system) in general, gay or straight, because it unfairly values couples more than individuals? Marriage then, it could be argued, its primary function is a financial institution. And this financial element, is more important than the religious or social aspect. If that is true, then the gay community wanting equal recognition of marriage, could very well be primarily motivated by $$$ rather than the "feel good", we want to be represented and valued equally motive. Yes, no, maybe?

 

[Serial Midget]

No... what I am saying is that all citizen's should have the same rights and responsibilities under the law... if we all contribute 'equally' then we should all benefit equally. Marriage is a religeously based institution that I am greatly in favor of - but it is not for everyone. If two people want to live together in a non traditional way that does not harm society they should be able to do so. I realize many people think homosexuality will destroy society but I just don't see it. So far it seems that national wealth leads to lower birthrates.

Originally posted by Triphop
So, if we take from our above discussion, wouldn't you oppose the institution of marriage (especially as it pertains to the tax system) in general, gay or straight, because it unfairly values couples more than individuals? Marriage then, it could be argued, its primary function is a financial institution. And this financial element, is more important than the religious or social aspect. If that is true, then the gay community wanting equal recognition of marriage, could very well be primarily motivated by $$$ rather than the "feel good", we want to be represented and valued equally motive. Yes, no, maybe?

 

[Triphop]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
No... what I am saying is that all citizen's should have the same rights and responsibilities under the law... if we all contribute 'equally' then we should all benefit equally. Marriage is a religeously based institution that I am greatly in favor of - but it is not for everyone. If two people want to live together in a non traditional way that does not harm society they should be able to do so. I realize many people think homosexuality will destroy society but I just don't see it. So far it seems that national wealth leads to lower birthrates.

I for the most part agree with everything you just said.

What do you think of this....what if marriage was renamed in the legal system, "partnership" so that if you enter into this legally binding agreement with another, and receive the "partnership" benefits it would function the same as current marriage statutes. However, there would have to be some financial penalty if the couple dissolved this union...perhaps payback a percentage of the benefits they received during the time of the union. There has to be a penalty for dissolving the relationship, otherwise everyone would be "partners" and take advantage of the benefits as they pleased, then dissolving the union if they feel like it. This behavior would reak havoc on the system.

Then those who want the religious aspect could be "married" and the notification would be given to the state and be filed as a partnership.

This financial penalty for dissolving the union sounds pretty crappy eh?

Under the current definition of marriage it's religious institutional aspect, helps to prevent the dissolve of the union on a whim, it at least creates the notion of commitment, honor, etc...and there is a negative stigma to divorce. I think the sacredness of marriage transcends religion...to society as a whole.

So, if we eliminated the religious aspect, allowed anyone to "partner" up and get tax, insurance, etc. benefits...then what? Financial penalties for divorce? I'm cool with this idea. There must be some consequence to dissolving a union, currently it is religious, mental, (fianancial between partners), emotional...what would be the penalty for divorce if the only reason for it was financial gains? Moreso, what would be the point of "partnership" if it was only for financial gains?

 

[Serial Midget]

Ummm... it's not about financial gain, I only used that as an example of how productive singles and unmarried couples are contributing an equal amount to society - no amount of tax credit will lead me into another marriage. My current lady friend and I are both on the same page and may eventually move in with each other, at some point we might even grow old together but at no point will we ever get married.

As for your finacial penalty deal... I think the the divorce laws are just fine and should still apply - but as far as a penalty extracted by the govorment... why? Too big brother for me.

Anyhow - I have am a divorcee and have not suffered any penalty or social stigma... in fact I find myself in good company.

Originally posted by Triphop
I for the most part agree with everything you just said.

What do you think of this....what if marriage was renamed in the legal system, "partnership" so that if you enter into this legally binding agreement with another, and receive the "partnership" benefits it would function the same as current marriage statutes. However, there would have to be some financial penalty if the couple dissolved this union...perhaps payback a percentage of the benefits they received during the time of the union. There has to be a penalty for dissolving the relationship, otherwise everyone would be "partners" and take advantage of the benefits as they pleased, then dissolving the union if they feel like it. This behavior would reak havoc on the system.

Then those who want the religious aspect could be "married" and the notification would be given to the state and be filed as a partnership.

This financial penalty for dissolving the union sounds pretty crappy eh?

Under the current definition of marriage it's religious institutional aspect, helps to prevent the dissolve of the union on a whim, it at least creates the notion of commitment, honor, etc...and there is a negative stigma to divorce. I think the sacredness of marriage transcends religion...to society as a whole.

So, if we eliminated the religious aspect, allowed anyone to "partner" up and get tax, insurance, etc. benefits...then what? Financial penalties for divorce? I'm cool with this idea. There must be some consequence to dissolving a union, currently it is religious, mental, (fianancial between partners), emotional...what would be the penalty for divorce if the only reason for it was financial gains? Moreso, what would be the point of "partnership" if it was only for financial gains?

 

[Triphop]

This is what I had all typed out before I read your response....

Lets explore this type of idea further....lets remove the financial benefits from "unions"...there is no benefit to being married in the tax code, insurance system or any financial related institutions...we are all treated as individuals regardless of whom we reside or partner up with. So, the only recognition that two people are united in some form of partnership is through religion. So to be "married" only carries a religious significance...otherwise you are just two individuals cohabitating. Do you think gays would want to be "married"? Why would a person who is considered a "sinner" by a religious group want to be a part of that group if that individuals way of life ran contrary to the teaching/morals of said group? There is no logic, other than people for some reason, want to have or be apart of something which they are told they can't...sounds like a very inherent trait in humans, childish at that.

Under the current system...there are costs included in setting up a "union" namely time and money. But the benefits must outweigh these costs, and to get a divorce, other than settlement between partners, is relatively inexpensive. So why is it that people do not just get hitched all the time, just to get the financial benefits? I mean all this arguing over marriage, must mean that the financial gains are quite significant right? Otherwise what would be the point? We know this has nothing to do with a desire to have a religious union. So is it all about the dollar? Maybe we should remove any tax benefit married couples receive, that way individuals are equal to couples (i was under the impression that there is a marrriage tax penalty) then what would be left as an incentive for anyone to get married? Other than religious people wanting a union under God, there would really be no point, correct? (Insurance can't be argued here, as those comapnies are private and have the right to charge customers whatever they so choose. They currently use age and gender discrimination anyway.) I will be curious to see what benefit, if any, I receive from the gov't this spring being married...all I know is my union to my wife is rooted not in the gov't, but in something greater...

>>>>>>>>>>>>

But it is about financial gain...otherwise why would gays want the recognition of "marriage" as it is currently described?

You are a perfect example as to why all this debate is simply over money, you have no desire to get married under the gov't system, and are completely content with what your "union" means to you and your lady...which is all that is important. I know I could careless what tax breaks I receive due to being married, the meaning transcends gov't crap..although the car insurance break was nice

As for the penalty of financial gain in my previous post, I think it necessary to prevent people from exploiting the system. You say that you did not receive any social stigma or what not, but I am sure the pain involved with divorce makes it not worth just getting married on a whim. Maybe I am not explaining my point clearly, but do you get my drift? As for the financial penalty being too "big brother" for you, isn't tax breaks to those with a 'union' too big brother in the first place? I get the feeling that marriage, in your view, should be stricken from all gov't business. (see my point above)