In who's mind?Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:GreecePwns wrote:I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?
what else will a marriage certificate change?
Security. For some people, knowing they have more than just a whim to back up their relationship is important.
Medical choice The ability to make medical decisions automaticlaly for a loved one, without having to draw up a lot of complicated legal documents.. and without having to be sure those documents are available and recognized in all states.
Children.. the ability to make legal decisions for children you are raising, even if not biologically yours.
Morality...I believe you were among those claiming the moral priority of heterosexual marriage. Why should homosexuals be denied that as well.... except that it does not fit YOUR moral definition.
Inheritance.. Note this is NOT a "government benefit". It is, instead, something taken for granted by hetersexual married individuals -- the ability to pass on ownership of a house, small estate gains, money that the individual has EARNED without having to pay taxes and fees that no heterosexual couple has to pay.
OH, YEAH... and those "benefits". You really put your foot in your mouth there, because the truth is that most low income women actually LOSE money by marrying. Higher income women can gain, but that's not anything from the government.
Security - I already conceded that. A document of your special love, and you get to name a star for free and we'll send you a certificate for that too.
Medical - Changing the law is not the only way to deal with this exception, and certainly not the best way.
Its certainly the simplest.
Phatscotty wrote:
Children - We will get to young children being raised with 2 moms or 2 dads in the future I'm sure. Gay parents adopting is much more controversial than gay marriage, while gay marriage is a stepping stone to gay adoption, while people will admit that or not.
Ignore the point, why don't you? Without marriage, there is only 2 people who live together, legally. It does not matter if the children consider both parents mom/mother, or Dad/pop. They have no right legally to consider them such and the parents have not legal right.
This pertains to inheritance, basic decisions as wide-ranging as school and medical decisions, AND, incidentally, to support. Marriage insures that both parents are legally obligated to care for the children. Generally not a real issue for the parents, but as a tax-minded citizen, seems you would have a vested interest in ensuring that all kids have 2 parents to support them legally.
Phatscotty wrote: Morality - It has nothing to do with morals, or a moral definition. The definition is and only can be one man one woman. if it were no different, there would be no need to say "gay marraige".
In fact, the term is not defined in the constitution anywhere. If it were, there would be no such debate now. In fact, as many have already pointed out, marriage can mean many things to many people.
Phatscotty wrote: It's different
Inheritance - It's called a will
Not necessary if you are married. Why should homosexuals have to pay an attorney for what heterosexuals get defined essentially for free, except in specific cases. (and note.. I am actually an advocate of most everyone having a will, but its the principle.).
