patrick.net

chanakya4773 says

You got to be kidding ? So you think all these people who are rallying for gay marriage rights are fools ?

Yes. They are rallying for higher taxes on themselves along with potentially hefty divorce settlements. IMO, the main reason the liberal establishment is in favor of gay marriage is because they are partially owned by trial lawyers who stand to greatly enrich themselves in the potentially lucrative gay divorce market. As per the usual, common sense tells you to follow the money.

chanakya4773 says

why not just remove benefits for marriage itself?

problem solved.

It's unclear to me what these supposed "benefits" are????

first of all, this whole "you are not "normal" unless you are married" is a female propaganda. and men put up with it because of social pressure and the promise of endless sex, something that gets typically reduced dramatically right after the honeymoon.

even for famous athletes, you don't get as many sponsorship unless you have a wife kids. ask Tiger Woods.

i don't believe the gov intends to discriminate against single people but they do encourage people to produce kids so they can keep with with their 3% "growth" projections. every gov loves a young work force. it's a model doomed to end in disaster if you look at the exponential graphs. so the gov certainly favors marriages since married people tend to have kids.

there are tax brakes for having kids. as for health benefits for spouses, it's up to the employer.

this is one of the reasons why the south border has been loosely patrolled for the most part. more and more Americans are avoiding childbirth as a result of higher standards of living and feminism. the "growth" in childbirth has to come from somewhere.

this is a short sighted solution that will end in bigger disaster however.

the Germans have made it. The Italians have made it. The Irish have made it. hell even the manual labor Chinese railroad workers and the Japanese plantation workers have made it. but some have not made it and chances are will never make it.

not all new-comers are created equally. some have the potentials and some are doomed to fail right from the beginning. all parties will come to an end eventually, regardless of what calendars you use.

chanakya4773 says

IDDQD says

Once again, what benefits are you talking about?

All the benefits that gay marriage rights activists are talking about. how many times

should i repeat myself.

are you reading the news....there is lot of noise at the supreme court.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/26/supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-california-gay-marriage-ban

I don't see any benefits in the article you linked.

Here are some benefits of marriage:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

I am still not sure which of those benefits that "someone [who] was WIRED to be single" would want.

I still don't see any benefits to being married, unless you or your partner are about to die.

chanakya4773 says

Many people choose to be single and not marry.

Why is the GOVT discriminating against single people by giving benefits to only married people ?

One can certainly make the case that the government punishes people who are single and that is wrong, perhaps even Unconstitutional. However, such an argument is an argument against marriage being a legal institution altogether; it is not an argument against same-sex marriages because two wrongs don't make a right.

I've said way back that the problem with "gay marriage" is that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution at all. The government should not have the right or the responsibility to decide which relationships are valid or preferred and that's why the government is in such a sticky situation to begin with. Marriage should be only a social and religious institution and there should be no laws, whatsoever, regarding marriage. Instead, there should be laws regarding joint banks accounts, power of attorney, guardianship, etc.

That said, if marriage does exist as a legal institution, then it would clearly be wrong to allow heterosexuals to participate in it, but not homosexuals. And we should not compound one error with another.

leo707 says

I am still not sure which of those benefits that "someone [who] was WIRED to be single" would want.

Upon my death, I would like my social security survivor benefits to go to my siblings if I was not married. Why should I lose the benefits that I paid for against my will, especially when I was billed based on the longer life expectancy of women (half the people in most marriages)?

Don't forget the benefits of being dragged through court by predatory divorce lawyers whose only intention is plundering the marital estate through endless procedure while making sure the couples hate each other to the max.

A busy LA private detective (paraphrase) said that "if you want to lose 90 percent of what you have, hire a divorce lawyer. If you want to lose the other 10 percent, get them to hire me, too!"

Gay marriage would be a boon to the divorce bar, who would be up to their elbows in gay marriage disputes.

Ceffer says

Gay marriage would be a boon to the divorce bar, who would be up to their elbows in gay marriage disputes.

Would potentially make for some rather entertaining episodes of Divorce Court TV show.

The tax benefits that married people receive is only there if one spouse makes significantly more money than the other. If both people make in the same ballpark, more likely than not you will end up in a marriage penalty.

Well, technically the government does have a right to bestow preferential treatment upon activities that it considers to be of benefit to society (mortgage interest tax deduction; survivorship tax benefits/social security tax benefits to married couples). The government wants people to have children to perpetuate society and on average it is more preferrable for children to be raised in a married household due to stability issues. Now we can argue that DINKs (dual income no kids couple) get to have a best of both worlds (marriage benefits without budrens of childrearing) but there's no way for the government to address that issue nor should there be as married DINKs are still more likely to provide stability for society compared to serial monogamists or casual daters.

donjumpsuit says

Now that women earn an income, it throws a wrench into the system. It should revert back to true dependency. If the women in a marriage makes an income, and they have no dependents, they should be treated as double singles.

Married couples should be taxed as a unit with twice the standard deduction, personal exemption, tax bracket boundaries, deduction/exemption phase-out, credit elligibility cut-off, etc. versus single people.

They're teams working together, enabling each other to reach their personal goals, and making personal sacrifices to facilitate that.

An increase in pay should be taxed the same whether their wages both increased or one went down while the other increased. Decreases should be handled the same whether it's a recession or one taking a few years off work to pursue a graduate degree.

chanakya4773 says

How does a spouse in gay marriage differ from a friend a single person would like to choose for giving all benefits ? or maybe a single person is so charitable that he want to choose a poor person to give all these benefits.

A single person would also benefit if two friends can mutually agree to give these benefits to each other...

Can we have a new Non sexual friendship category to get marriage benefits ? How about Friends for benefits ACT.

No, need for a Friends for benefits ACT. It sounds like you should be applauding the progress being made in the name of gay marriage.

Let's not get too hung up on labels. There is nothing that says that two married people are required to have sex. Currently you are more than welcome to get "married" to an opposite sex friend so that you may receive all the wondrous benefits that a state sanctioned marriage allows.

If same sex "marriage" is allowed then you--as a "single" person--are free to "marry" any friend you choose, and wha-la! you no longer need to worry about "single" people not getting the same benefits as married people. In case you are wondering if I am being sarcastic, I assure you that I am not.

dublin hillz says

The tax benefits that married people receive is only there if one spouse makes significantly more money than the other. If both people make in the same ballpark, more likely than not you will end up in a marriage penalty.

Yes, people often vastly overestimate tax benefits of marriage.

I'm surprised no one in this thread has mentioned the commitments involved in marriage. There is a government interest in keeping people off government assistance, e.g. Medicaid and welfare. When two people get married, they commit "for richer or poorer, in sickness and health," etc. That commitment reduces the risk either will end up on government relief.

Regarding immigration, long ago, sponsoring someone for immigration involved commitment as well, for example if they couldn't support themselves in the new world or if they ran up debts and fled.

Regarding Social Security, there is no inherent reason why it couldn't be changed to allow a friend or relative to be named as beneficiary in place of a spouse, but the actuarial tables might need to be updated to reflect a very significant increase in survivor benefits, so it might require increasing the Social Security tax.

Perhaps because people tend to rely on commercial news (even Google News), which is consumer-oriented and in a cycle of driving consumption, the focus seems to be on financial benefits that may enable more consumption. The public interest in exchange for these benefits is reducing the number of people who may become wards of the state.

BTW, zzyzzx, while divorce lawyers may see more business in the long run, the immediate commercial interest is in the wedding business. The opponents of Prop H8 in California included coastal mayors, hotel owners and hotel workers, etc. Most of the interest is personal though, especially among younger people who are seeing their friends get married.

chanakya4773 says

Many single people are WIRED to be single.They cannot choose to be married. Its
scientifically been proven that some people just can't remain loyal to one
person.

You could perhaps make an argument that some people are wired to be introverts which makes it harder for them to find a mate and get married compared to an extravert. But I don't quite believe that some people have no control over cheating on their spouse due to how they are "wired." And even if they were, they can find a partner just like them and become swingers or have an open relationship.

chanakya4773 says

The Big elephant in the room is : Why can't polygamist have the same rights as gay couples? I don't think anybody ( including the so called political , rational geniuses) has the guts to answer ...what a shame.

Due to roughly equal ratio between men and women in society if polygamy were legalized what would inevitably happen is that some men would have multiple wives but it would be at expense of other men who will not be able to find mates of their own. And in a span of several generations, you can end up in a situation where genetic deseases will be multipled due to inbreeding.

Dan8267 says

leo707 says

I am still not sure which of those benefits that "someone [who] was WIRED to be single" would want.

Upon my death, I would like my social security survivor benefits to go to my siblings if I was not married. Why should I lose the benefits that I paid for against my will, especially when I was billed based on the longer life expectancy of women (half the people in most marriages)?

Do any of your sisters have children? Under certain circumstances Rhode Island allows uncles to marry nieces. You could marry a niece (non-sexual of course) and the niece would be eligible for all benefits. Another option would be to adopt a niece or nephew and they would get the benefits that way.

Other than that you can hope for legal same sex marriage, and pick a friend any friend.

you need to campaign for either:

1. Legal right to "marry" a sibling. (non-sexual of course)

2. Legal right to create a civil-union with a sibling (I believe that some states have discussed doing this in the past) and also extend survivor benefits to include civil-unions.

chanakya4773 says

Why can't polygamist have the same rights as gay couples?

Do you mean serial polygamists, e.g. Newt Gingrich? He has more rights, and eats more too.

chanakya4773 says

The Big elephant in the room is : Why can't polygamist have the same rights as gay couples? I don't think anybody ( including the so called political , rational geniuses) has the guts to answer ...what a shame.

Because they're an oppressed minority.

chanakya4773 says

dublin hillz says

Due to roughly equal ratio between men and women in society if polygamy were legalized what would inevitably happen is that some men would have multiple wives but it would be at expense of other men who will not be able to find mates of their own. And in a span of several generations, you can end up in a situation where genetic deseases will be multipled due to inbreeding.

dude...you are assuming polygamy means one man many wives. it could be one woman married to many men as well. that fixes your problem.

Polygamy is a dude marrying multuple wives. If you want women to be able to marry multiple men then polyandry would need to legalized as well. Either way it sounds way better on paper than in reality and is currently incompatible with the social organization in our society.

chanakya4773 says

IDDQD says

The idea of sham marriage is as old as dirt.

So instead of addressing the problem , you want all single people to have sham marriages..wow...you are a genius. Now we will have everybody in the country married and get benefits too...double genius.

Why call it a sham? A sexless marriage is just as legal as a sexed one. Once again don't get caught up on labels. You want the benefits to be fair then let anyone marry anyone.

I doubt everybody would be getting married...
curious2 says

I'm surprised no one in this thread has mentioned the commitments involved in marriage. There is a government interest in keeping people off government assistance, e.g. Medicaid and welfare. When two people get married, they commit "for richer or poorer, in sickness and health," etc. That commitment reduces the risk either will end up on government relief.

...marriage is not just about an endless stream of government benefits. Do you really want to be on the hook for the credit card bill of the poor person you "married" in order to help them out with benefits?

chanakya4773 says

Why the heck should someone go over so many hoops...Get the F**ing Govt out of the marriage already.

Right there should not be so many hoops.

You solved the issue here:
chanakya4773 says

my bad.

OK so polyandry will fix the imbalance due to polygamy..

+letting anybody marry anybody.

chanakya4773 says

I thought polygamists are more oppressed.

Yes, they are, and in general polygamy should be legal, but... there are many issue with polygamy and one must carefully consider all the implications before opening that bag of roiling, angry cats.

chanakya4773 says

K so you would deny civil rights because of this ? LOL

as if all marriages in USA are made in heaven and are as perfect as you dream about. LOL

My primary issue (one of many) with polygamy is that it has a strong tendency to become oppressive, abusive and an environment where civil rights are violate. Yeah, not all marriages are like mine--perfect and made in heaven--, but polygamy as a general rule traps people into bad marriages.

Actually married people are penalized in taxation of income. The federal government is taxing singles who make 400K and couples who make 450K an extra 4 percent. Same for California, single who make 200K and couples who make 250K. Why not 800K and 500K for couples?

Also I was just thinking of this last night. If this passes, there will be lots of fraud. Say, someone with a pension who is about to die, agrees to marry his buddy, so the buddy can get the benefits, something like that, and he does it for a fee, so the benefits can go to another third party. I see room for all sorts of fraud being committed. People don't need to marry because they love each other and want to be lifelong partners. They will marry their friend for some arrangement where somebody is ripping off another's pension/insurance proceeds/Social Security payouts, endless number of things.

chanakya4773 says

Its an arrangement which they are willingly signing up for.

People get married (polygamous or not) for all kinds of reasons, and they are not always as "willing" as we would hope. Polygamy can create more of an environment where options for young women are such that they don't have--or are unaware of--any better options.

chanakya4773 says

Who are heck are we to judge them and decide for them ?

We are all part of the greater society in which we live, and we judge people all the time. The hope is that those judgements lead to fewer violations of civil rights.

chanakya4773 says

are we still in a free society?

Yes, but that freedom--at least should not--extend to being free to violate another civil rights. Yes, this also includes drawing a line on what "arrangements" people can willingly let themselves become a part of. Do you think that two people should be able to make a agreement where it is legal for one to kill the other? What about kill and eat? People just draw that line in different places and yes one's own personal line is almost never in the exact same place as the one that we have all agreed on as a society.

What benefits are there? In our tax bracket we pay more being married than we would if we both were single.

Tax system isn't setup to punish or reward single/married people. It's setup to take as much money as it can from everyone. So they play around with tax numbers until they find the best way to take more.

chanakya4773 says

I think this whole mess reinforces my previous belief that GOVT messes up anything it puts its hands on. housing inducstry , marriage, healthcare..etc

Get GOVT out of marraige and we solve problem, if i can sum up whats going on..it this : Govt is giving freebies to married people and gay couples want them too.

what happens to rest of the people who are paying for it or getting negatively affected ?

It sounds like you are not so much worried that married people are getting benefits that single people are not getting, but you just don't want anybody to get the benefits.

Why not just say that from the get-go? Why the ruse about discrimination?

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

People get married (polygamous or not) for all kinds of reasons, and they are not always as "willing" as we would hope. Polygamy can create more of an environment where options for young women are such that they don't have--or are unaware of--any better options.

All this applies to regular marriage as well.

Yes, but not to the same degree and for different reasons. If you are really interested in discussing the nuances of polygamy (I know it has been discussed on Pnet in the past, but I don't have time to find the old threads now) I suggest starting another thread. The implications of polygamy are many and can be very different from a two-person marriage.

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

Yes, but not to the same degree and for different reasons. If you are really interested in discussing the nuances of polygamy (I know it has been discussed on Pnet in the past, but I don't have time to find the old threads now) I suggest starting another thread. The implications of polygamy are many and can be very different from a two-person marriage.

Basically there are only nuances.. there is no good reason.

You sound like someone who would never be convinced otherwise. We can agree to disagree then.

leo707 says

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

Yes, but not to the same degree and for different reasons. If you are really interested in discussing the nuances of polygamy (I know it has been discussed on Pnet in the past, but I don't have time to find the old threads now) I suggest starting another thread. The implications of polygamy are many and can be very different from a two-person marriage.

Basically there are only nuances.. there is no good reason.

You sound like someone who would never be convinced otherwise. We can agree to disagree then.

Just in case you have any genuine interest in whether or not the implications for both women and the greater society are mere nuances or something larger; here is an affidavit from a polygamy expert that was submitted during a Canadian court case (it includes a research paper on polygamy):
http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf

Here is an easier to read summary of the findings:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Nov2011.Polygamy.pdf

Enjoy!

chanakya4773 says

Govt is giving freebies/favors to married people and gay couples want them
too.

As others have pointed out, the ONLY interest our government has in the marriage business is to encourage men and women to stick together and do the hard work of raising new children (future tax payers) to support our entitlement Ponzi schemes.

We can't have big cradle to grave government and not have at least a replacement level birth rate.

dublin hillz says

Due to roughly equal ratio between men and women in society if polygamy were legalized what would inevitably happen is that some men would have multiple wives but it would be at expense of other men who will not be able to find mates of their own.

All the poly groups I know are one woman with two men or a man with a husband and wife.

And in a span of several generations, you can end up in a situation where genetic deseases will be multipled due to inbreeding.

We already have inbreeding with the races mostly sticking to themselves. Maybe women wishing to conceive should be required to report to the nearest government facility for fertilization and men should be required to follow their donation to the national sperm bank with vasectomies to limit inbreeding? Or we could address this the old fashioned way with arranged marriages?

Four legged mutts are better pets with fewer problems like hip dysplasia and tendencies towards anti-social personalities. Two legged ones should be better people.

chanakya4773 says

The problem with this data is that its considering polygamy in isolation.

Polygamy along with polyandry cannot have these issues.

Polygamy/polyandry allows for those of power position and wealth to have many spouses. Yes, if we had a society where there were women of power and position equaled the number of men with power and money, and said women had a desire to marry the excess men then yes, polyandry would solve those issues.

chanakya4773 says

Also , We can get tons of such data on gay marriage as well. there is always data to support what you want to believe.

Right, that is we evaluate the data.

One can choose to accept the data presented at the Creation Museum or accept the data of paleontologists and archeologists.

When someone falls into this camp...
leo707 says

someone who would never be convinced otherwise.

...then there is little hope that they will ever honestly evaluate data let alone understand why other believe differently.

chanakya4773 says

In the end , its utter hypocrisy for gay rights activists to say that gay
marriage is OK and
polygamy/polyandry is not OK because its not good for the
society. The same people are fighting with the reasoning that "good for society"
cannot be the litmus test for restricting civil liberties.

I think gay marraige should be legal and so should polygamy/polyandry, prostitution etc. Any action between consenting adults is none of my business. The govt should get out of the divorce business. One of my colleagues who was gay got out of a 15 yr relationship. He lost nothing, kept his house and money, no alimony, no palimony. He voluntarily allowed his ex to stay in the house for a few months and then finally gave the heave -ho when things became toxic. That is how it should be. Can you imagine, if that was a "straight" marraige. They would have taken him to the cleaners. IN CA, if you are in a 10 yr marraige, the court has jurisdiction over you for life. WTF??

chanakya4773 says

In the end , its utter hypocrisy for gay rights activists to say that gay marriage is OK and

polygamy/polyandry is not OK because its not good for the society. The same people are fighting with the reasoning that "good for society" cannot be the litmus test for restricting civil liberties.

We have the right to freedom of speech, but you can not exercise that freedom by yelling "fire" in a crowed theater. The right to do anything we want at anytime is not a civil liberty. As a society we have chosen to put restrictions into place when there is legitimate (ideally) reason to believe that harm could result.

No, it is no it hypocrisy to place a line on what behavior is OK and what is not. It would only be hypocrisy if there was a legitimate argument that Gay marriage was not "good for society", as there is for polygamy/polyandry.

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

Polygamy/polyandry allows for those of power position and wealth to have many spouses.

whats wrong with that ? This is happening all the time in real world.

People with more money and power might have many partners ( girl friends / boy friends) If there are people who want to share the money and power from that individual for their "OWN" benefit WILLINGLY, whats the problem ?

People like Hugh Hefner have multiple girlfriends ..i don't think thats illegal.

Are you now going to make it illegal for a rich and powerful to have more friends as well because they are attracted to him for his riches and want to get a bite of it.

I can see that you missed the point entirely.

Clearly you did not read the paper (or the summary) on the implications of polygamy.

chanakya4773 says

There are TONS and TONS of it if you research.

All of that "research" is funded by the Catholic and Mormon churches. Although they might thank you for providing free publicity for their "research," you don't help the cause of single people by joining the bigoted assault on gay couples. Small kids ridicule each other for every conceivable reason and for no reason at all, clothing is the most common, but the children of gay couples are not "tormented for life," they do as well as the children of opposite-sex couples.

chanakya4773 says

i just hate the hypocrisy

You hate something, but you're claiming hypocrisy where there is none. Supporting the equal protection of the laws governing marriage, for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, does not correlate with supporting or opposing polygamy and single people. I understand they are all related to family law, but they are like different cards in the same deck: it isn't fair to assume that people who support one will support or oppose all.