Homosexual Marriage should not be legal

[yoda89]

I have nothing against homosexuals. Because I am also against heterosexual marriage. Which you will discover if you continue to read this OP. What I mean is that institutionalized marriage does not make sense in the United States. The government should have nothing to do with your love life. If you feel like going down to your local church and having a celebration that's great. People should be able to give each other rings and remain monogamous if they wish. However, no one should have to sign any contracts involving the government.

It all comes down to money. Homosexuals and heterosexual couples can get married and could for the last 30 years plus if they wanted to. Simply have a ceremony, give each other rings and promise to love each other forever. However the only thing that separated it was a tax break. That's what this huge battle is all about. Should be called the battle of same-tax breaks. It always comes back to money.

You have to ask yourself this. "If marriage would not have existed would you have created it? Would you run down to city hall demanding the government know about it?" Most people treat marriage like a tattoo. At the time you think it will be awesome forever. But as statistics show 50% of the time you get it removed. It's a large gamble. Marriage is like placing half of all of the things you own on being lucky for the rest of your life. Most of the time you bet wrong.

A relationship is what you make of it. Marriage is really just a word without the government saying it is. It does not cure ailments of a relationship and people should not treat it as it does. Nor will children heal a relationship. Dissolving a relationship is already emotional difficult and draining as it is. Why does the government have to be involved?

 

[Sunstone]

If the government doesn't get involved in marriage, who guarantees the rights of the children to support and care taking from their parents?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It all comes down to money. Homosexuals and heterosexual couples can get married and could for the last 30 years plus if they wanted to. Simply have a ceremony, give each other rings and promise to love each other forever. However the only thing that separated it was a tax break. That's what this huge battle is all about. Should be called the battle of same-tax breaks. It always comes back to money.

No, it doesn't:

In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage [ref]. In this section, we'll list some of those benefits.

Spouses have or are entitled to:

• visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will
• benefits for federal employees -- many of which are also offered by private employers -- such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans
• some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will
• the ability to create life insurance trusts
• tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns
• the ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran's benefits for a spouse
• discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance
• immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad
• visiting rights in jail

A relationship is what you make of it. Marriage is really just a word without the government saying it is. It does not cure ailments of a relationship and people should not treat it as it does. Nor will children heal a relationship. Dissolving a relationship is already emotional difficult and draining as it is. Why does the government have to be involved?

Because the government's already involved.

- If you want to sponsor your foreign spouse's immigration application so that you can live together, the government will be involved.

- If you want to give your spouse the legal right to make medical decisions on your behalf if you're incapacitated, the government will be involved.

- If you want custody rights over the children that you and your partner are raising, the government will be involved.

- If your landlord has applied to have you and your spouse evicted on the grounds that you violate a "no roommates" clause in your lease, the government will be involved.

- If you want your spouse to get survivor benefits on your military pension, the government will be involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One more thing:

I have nothing against homosexuals. Because I am also against heterosexual marriage.

Hypocritical, unthinking statements like this in the context of same-sex marriage really annoy me. Even if you've decided that you're personally against marriage, you can still be in favour of fair and equitable treatment of all citizens.

Your dislike of marriage in general is irrelevant when it's already a given that marriage will exist in some form.

 

[yoda89]

If the government doesn't get involved in marriage, who guarantees the rights of the children to support and care taking from their parents?

The government would already. The children would still be citizens of the United States. Just as they do already in cases when no one wants a child.

 

[freethinker44]

If the government doesn't get involved in marriage, who guarantees the rights of the children to support and care taking from their parents?

Children have that guarantee without marriage. There are plenty of unmarried parents who are legally bound to care for their children. Just because they're not married doesn't mean they don't have legal obligations to their parents. Heck, even you are just a sperm donor it isn't guaranteed that you will not be obliged to care for the children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The government would already. The children would still be citizens of the United States. Just as they do already in cases when no one wants a child.

The misunderstandings you expressed in the OP suggest to me that you've never been married. The fact that you now think it's a good idea to make children wards of the state suggests to me that you're also not a parent.

 

[Drolefille]

One more thing:



Hypocritical, unthinking statements like this in the context of same-sex marriage really annoy me. Even if you've decided that you're personally against marriage, you can still be in favour of fair and equitable treatment of all citizens.

Your dislike of marriage in general is irrelevant when it's already a given that marriage will exist in some form.

Also the it makes the title of this thread incredibly trolly. Very "Look how edgy I am." :sarcastic

 

[Mycroft]

I have nothing against homosexuals. Because I am also against heterosexual marriage. Which you will discover if you continue to read this OP. What I mean is that institutionalized marriage does not make sense in the United States. The government should have nothing to do with your love life. If you feel like going down to your local church and having a celebration that's great. People should be able to give each other rings and remain monogamous if they wish. However, no one should have to sign any contracts involving the government.

It all comes down to money. Homosexuals and heterosexual couples can get married and could for the last 30 years plus if they wanted to. Simply have a ceremony, give each other rings and promise to love each other forever. However the only thing that separated it was a tax break. That's what this huge battle is all about. Should be called the battle of same-tax breaks. It always comes back to money.

You have to ask yourself this. "If marriage would not have existed would you have created it? Would you run down to city hall demanding the government know about it?" Most people treat marriage like a tattoo. At the time you think it will be awesome forever. But as statistics show 50% of the time you get it removed. It's a large gamble. Marriage is like placing half of all of the things you own on being lucky for the rest of your life. Most of the time you bet wrong.

A relationship is what you make of it. Marriage is really just a word without the government saying it is. It does not cure ailments of a relationship and people should not treat it as it does. Nor will children heal a relationship. Dissolving a relationship is already emotional difficult and draining as it is. Why does the government have to be involved?

We've already had this conversation in 1960. You don't get to decide who sits at the lunch counter. Homosexuals getting married is no threat to you, is it? Are you sat there thinking 'Two men getting married. Hmmm. That's ruining my marriage.' It's not like they're going to tramp up the stairs in the middle of the night, tear you from the arms of your pleading wife and give you a right-good-rodering from the tradesman's entrance is it?

You need to stop now. Because, honestly, this whole issue is starting to make America look like a nation stuck in the past and a bit of a joke to the wider world.

 

[yoda89]

Pretty sure I'm thinking. That or I would not question something already established. I could careless what 2 people wish to do with each other willingly. Its their bodies and their lives. The government already restricts enough of what we do.

I'm not against 2 people living monogamously. But I see the marriage system is breaking down. Something breaks down something new needs to be built. As our culture evolves so must we.

In all of your responses it has been about the benefits. Which as what I said was the main reason people do it. There has to be another way to determine such factors. I would go to say you should be able to give such benefits to people you care for. Such as an uncle or now disabled best friend.

Don't call me a hypocrite because I see the reason behind why this is happening and it is not politically correct. There were many homosexual couples who wanted the same benefits. Many same sex couples did not want to share the pie. That's perfectly fine. I just see as an outdated system which should have already allowed it to be done so.

Because the government's already involved.

If I go to buy food at a grocery store I get taxed and the government is involved. This is no reason not to question things the government does. Unfortunately the vast majority do not. The government was involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. I would not put a thing past them.

- If you want to sponsor your foreign spouse's immigration application so that you can live together, the government will be involved.

Why does it have to be a spouse? Why can't it be about a person you care about? Them simply passing a test?

- If you want to give your spouse the legal right to make medical decisions on your behalf if you're incapacitated, the government will be involved.

Pretty sure that's power of attorney and can be given to people other than your spouse.

- If you want custody rights over the children that you and your partner are raising, the government will be involved.

What do you think people who have children outside of marriage are thrown off cliffs? The government is already involved in such disputes with unwed parents seeking custody.

- If your landlord has applied to have you and your spouse evicted on the grounds that you violate a "no roommates" clause in your lease, the government will be involved.

Why would you go live somewhere with someone when they tell you no roommates? If you have a roommate?

- If you want your spouse to get survivor benefits on your military pension, the government will be involved.

How about being able to give a loved one your pension? If you were not married and want your younger brother you were taking care of go to college?

 

[yoda89]

We've already had this conversation in 1960. You don't get to decide who sits at the lunch counter. Homosexuals getting married is no threat to you, is it? Are you sat there thinking 'Two men getting married. Hmmm. That's ruining my marriage.' It's not like they're going to tramp up the stairs in the middle of the night, tear you from the arms of your pleading wife and give you a right-good-rodering from the tradesman's entrance is it?

You need to stop now. Because, honestly, this whole issue is starting to make America look like a nation stuck in the past and a bit of a joke to the wider world.

You didn't read my whole post. So perhaps next time you do. I'm not against gay marriage. I am against the system of marriage we have structured today.

I'm against our current system. It's outdated and falling apart. A new system needs to be developed. One in which a wide variety of loved ones may receive benefits.

 

[yoda89]

Also the it makes the title of this thread incredibly trolly. Very "Look how edgy I am." :sarcastic

I just see a big problem and question why others do not. The divorce rates are sky high.

 

[Mycroft]

You didn't read my whole post. So perhaps next time you do. I'm not against gay marriage. I am against the system of marriage we have structured today.

I'm against our current system. It's outdated and falling apart. A new system needs to be developed. One in which a wide variety of loved ones may receive benefits.

Do you have an alternative to suggest?

 

[Drolefille]

I just see a big problem and question why others do not. The divorce rates are sky high.

"I have a problem with marriage" not "I don't think gays should get married" would have been a non-trolling/EDGY title.

Also divorce rates are falling:

And the spike has more to do with allowing "no-fault" divorce than a lack of morals. That just means people wanted to get divorced but legally couldn't. So they lived together miserably, or stayed in abusive relationships, etc. And if you don't agree with marriage, why do you care about divorce?

Penguin pretty clearly listed the benefits of marriage (you ignored most of them in your response.) You don't have to get married, but society sees a benefit in marriage.

 

[columbus]

Do you have an alternative to suggest?

This^^^^
Cut to the chase. People like getting married and they tend to get all traditional about it.

Let's hear about the alternatives.

Tom

 

[beenie]

You didn't read my whole post. So perhaps next time you do. I'm not against gay marriage. I am against the system of marriage we have structured today.

I'm against our current system. It's outdated and falling apart. A new system needs to be developed. One in which a wide variety of loved ones may receive benefits.

If you're not against homosexual marriage, why did you exclusively put "homosexual" in the title of this thread? If you're against the entire system of marriage, then your title should read:

"Marriage Should Not Be Legal"

Curious.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No government making it official, no tax breaks

I personally don't think it's outdated nor do I have a problem with the government interference (to a limit of course, I do agree there is quite a bit of government hands in the system we have today.) It's a traditional commitment that has its benefits when done right.

 

[Watchmen]

If the government doesn't get involved in marriage, who guarantees property rights?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If the government doesn't get involved in marriage, who guarantees property rights?

The owners of the property

 

[McBell]

I have nothing against homosexuals. Because I am also against heterosexual marriage. Which you will discover if you continue to read this OP. What I mean is that institutionalized marriage does not make sense in the United States. The government should have nothing to do with your love life. If you feel like going down to your local church and having a celebration that's great. People should be able to give each other rings and remain monogamous if they wish. However, no one should have to sign any contracts involving the government.

It all comes down to money. Homosexuals and heterosexual couples can get married and could for the last 30 years plus if they wanted to. Simply have a ceremony, give each other rings and promise to love each other forever. However the only thing that separated it was a tax break. That's what this huge battle is all about. Should be called the battle of same-tax breaks. It always comes back to money.

You have to ask yourself this. "If marriage would not have existed would you have created it? Would you run down to city hall demanding the government know about it?" Most people treat marriage like a tattoo. At the time you think it will be awesome forever. But as statistics show 50% of the time you get it removed. It's a large gamble. Marriage is like placing half of all of the things you own on being lucky for the rest of your life. Most of the time you bet wrong.

A relationship is what you make of it. Marriage is really just a word without the government saying it is. It does not cure ailments of a relationship and people should not treat it as it does. Nor will children heal a relationship. Dissolving a relationship is already emotional difficult and draining as it is. Why does the government have to be involved?

I am trying to figure out what it is you are actually complaining about?

From your OP it appears you are merely complaining about the government.

You false statements about marriage being all about the money aside, you seem to be extremely ignorant of what marriage does and does not do for married couples.

Then you completely forgot to include your alternative to marriage with a list of fixes for all the benefits you are ignorant of.

Perhaps you should take this idea back to drawing board and rethink it a bit more thoroughly?