patrick.net

chanakya4773 says

The so called CONTRACT is being modified now to include same sex people.

Yes, but why "so called" it is indeed a contract.

chanakya4773 says

Why can't the CONTRACT be modified where the only clause for getting the benefits is that you JUST choose some person for benefits with no strings attached.

Can you think of any contract that is not a two way street of benefits and obligations? Any contract?

Is there any legal contract where someone does not have to give something up in order to get something?

chanakya4773 says

Why does the contract have some many clauses ? ...why should they be there ?

The short answer, "Common Law."

You really should read that paper written on polygamy that I posted. It will give you a little window into how marriage evolved into what it is today, and why democratic developed nations don't allow polygamy.

chanakya4773 says

...who determined them ?

Us.

chanakya4773 says

Are these clauses not discriminatory towards single people who don't want to sign up for those but just want a no strings attached contract ?

No. Single people are welcome to enter into the same contract with a friend of their choosing. A single person choosing not to participate in a state sanctioned marriage contract with a friend is no more discriminated against than a couple that also chooses not to enter into a marriage contract.

chanakya4773 says

zzyzzx says

Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

What is he marries his sister?

This confirms my option1 in my previous post.

lets continue ....

No, it does not...

you are delusional.

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

As per your own link earlier, encouraging stable nuclear families for those children to grow up in also have a very significant advantage to society.

How do make sure they are stable...How stable are families in US with more than 50% divorce rates ? you are delusional.

I suppose now we can put "delusional" right next to "hypocritical" in the list of words that don't mean what chanakya thinks they mean.

Do you also think that it would be "ironic" if it were to rain on your wedding day? (of course I am speaking of your wedding to your platonic friend)

Is your goal to devolve this conversation to ad hominem statements if you fail to adequately articulate your point?

Being worried about estate issues via taxable amount exemption hardly qualifies as oppression in my opinion. Wouldn't it be more productive to live life to the fullest instead of questioning how to distrubute property tax free after death? I think this dilemma basically symbolizes in many ways what ails america.

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.

Polyandry is extremely rare because it's not attractive or beneficial to either gender. So, polygamy would really be many wives to one man.

However, chanakya4773 is still dead wrong because he's scenario assumes a very small population base. There are 7, soon to be 10, billion people on the planet. Lack of mate diversity is not a problem.

Polygamy does create mateless men, which leads to all sorts of problems from male ejection to violent crime, however, this does not make for a good case for outlawing polygamy since many things like religion and sports cause violent crime and other problems but remain legal.

In reality, if polygamous marriages were legal in our society, they would be extremely rare: a couple of rich rappers, executives, and Republicans. Most people would happily keep having polygamous sexual relationships outside of marriage, which is the real new norm. Of the minority that do marry, almost all would choose monogamy. After all, who the hell needs more than one mother-in-law?

zzyzzx says

leo707 says

Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

What is he marries his sister?

I'm not from Arkansas or Tatooine.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/LtU9h0VUBZg

New healthcare law subsidizes single people with income of up to $45,960, or family of 4 up to $94,200. These people would get a lot more subsidies if they were not married.

Taxes, higher taxes apply to single people making 200,000 or married 250,000. These people would pay less taxes if they were not married.

This is the reality and opposite of what the author of this thread thinks it is.

I'd like a list of all of the suckers, er I mean folks that feel like they being discriminated against in this 2013 society. I may a have lucrative racket I'd like sample a few retards with.

chanakya4773 says

you didn't answer my question

Right, I answered your ad hominem. See how that works?

chanakya4773 says

Why can't we change the contract ?

Aren't we changing it now to include same-sex couples? Yes, it can be changed.

chanakya4773 says

Also , you didn't answer how a single male could give benefits to his sister ?

I did in an earlier post, just after Dan first brought it up.

leo707 says

chanakya4773 says

Also , you didn't answer how a single male could give benefits to his sister ?

Please rephrase that.

chanakya4773 says

Also , you didn't answer how a single male could give benefits to his sister ?

do you suggest he marry her ?

Yes.

leo707 says

I did in an earlier post, just after Dan first brought it up.

Yeah, but your solutions, if they work, have some pretty serious side effects as well. If Social Security is forced savings, even in part, I should be able to give the unused portion of those savings to my heirs without having to adopt or marry a niece or nephew. If Social Security is insurance, then the max levels should be way lower and few people should receive it.

I don't like making SS a combination of insurance and force savings as it seems to then do a poor job of both and separating those functions honestly is near impossible. One solution per problem, please, otherwise your solutions will not work well.

chanakya4773 says

How many people are really sticking together to raise kids ? Divorce is all
time high and i can't think of anything more devastating to a kid than parents
divorcing.

Basically , whatever Govt is trying to do is not working ... like always.

All the more reason why the Government shouldn't mess or water down marriage any further by changing the definition to include alternative sexual lifestyles of a small minority of the population.

The institution of marriage (per the government's interest) should only be about assisting with the hard work of procreation and raising kids (future tax payers).

Those who are in favor of gay marriage seem more interested in the institution of marriage to be about the adult's needs (and their want for societal affirmation) than it is about the core requirement of civilization (propagation of the species).

I really think the rise in the divorce rate has much to do about divorcing marriage (pun intended) from procreation. Today's generation is all about MY feelings and MY pleasure. The Greens have even made breeding seem like a selfish act believing we are hurting mother earth. Sure there are plenty of loving couples who are happily married without children. But the vast majority of heterosexual marriages (over 80%) result in children.

The State has a vested interest in supporting a societal structure like heterosexual marriage which is responsible for providing our society's future.

socal2 says

The institution of marriage (per the government's interest) should only be about assisting with the hard work of procreation and raising kids (future tax payers).

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

leo707 says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

Evidently. He appears also to be suggesting that marriages should expire when the kids move away. Allowing the elderly to get married or stay married would put the adults' needs first, and "divorce marriage from procreation."

BTW, many gay couples DO have kids, but he doesn't see that. At least Justice Kennedy seemed to recognize the unfairness of failing to recognize those marriages, though nobody knows how the decision will go.

The OP's comment about hating activists' "hypocrisy" reminds me of this quotation:

"We can easily reduce our detractors to absurdity and show them their hostility is groundless. But what does this prove? That their hatred is REAL. When every slander has been rebutted, every misconception cleared up, every false opinion about us overcome, intolerance itself will remain finally irrefutable."

They can't provide logical reasons why, but they know what they feel.

leo707 says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

you are completely lost and unable to understand the concept of marriage.

thomaswong.1986 says

leo707 says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

you are completely lost and unable to understand the concept of marriage.

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing. There are many DINKs out there and they have a right to be married. Why should people give up their freedom not to have children?

curious2 says

BTW, many gay couples DO have kids, but he doesn't see that.

you have a last name.. you are the blood of your father and his father down the family lineage. He who carries the family name. Adoption isn't a substitute for the family tree. Marriage is part of many cultures across the globe and across time. Else we are all bastards and can claim the rights without legal bloodlines to prove it.

dublin hillz says

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing.

look at global cultures across time and say that !

thomaswong.1986 says

Adoption isn't a substitute for the family tree.

??? So now you're against adoption too? Do you recall that President Gerald Ford, a REPUBLICAN, was [update - see below - informally] adopted? Should he not have been allowed to adopt his stepfather's family name?adoptive parents not have been allowed to get married?

And besides, many gay couples have children who are BIOLOGICALLY the child of one or the other, not even adopted.

curious2 says

leo707
says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or
people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get
married?

Evidently. He appears also to be suggesting that marriages should expire when
the kids move away. Allowing the elderly to get married or stay married would
put the adults' needs first, and "divorce marriage from procreation."

BTW, many gay couples DO have kids, but he doesn't see that. At least Justice
Kennedy seemed to recognize the unfairness of failing to recognize those
marriages, though nobody knows how the decision will go.

No - I don't want the government determining who is fertile or who is capable or wants to have kids in issuing marriage licenses. But it doesn't take much investigation to realize that gay couples can't procreate without going through extensive outside procedures like surrogates or adoption.

Just because some gay couples have managed to adopt or find a surrogate to have children, doesn't mean it is the norm or enough to require to change the definition of marriage. We have very little data on how these family arrangements turn out in the long run. And I think most people would agree that all things being equal, it is better to have a male and female as parents instead of a gay couple raising kids. Can you even agree to that statement?

And I am certainly not saying that marriages should expire when the kids move away. I think kids should be the first line in taking care of their parents when they get older and need financial and medical help.

All I am saying is that marriage is a delicate institution not to be messed with. Marriage is older than organized religion and is one of the most vital relationships to advance civilization. But look how the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the US in the last few decades with the availability of contraception and no-fault divorce. Look at the ruin of the African American family where over 70% of kids are born to single mothers (and guaranteed poverty). Well meaning liberals spent a good part of the last few decades telling the culture that a "village" of grandmothers, aunties and sisters were just as good as the traditional nuclear family in raising kids. We have allowed the culture to separate marriage from child raising responsibilities and it has destroyed some segments of our society.

socal2 says

Can you even agree to that statement?

No, that claim has been disproved repeatedly and is already addressed above, and you're repeating it as a way of repeating your position which you hold for other reasons. It isn't even an argument against recognizing gay couples' marriages, and in fact you have none, it's just a distraction. But the exchange is a waste of time, for the reason already explained above.

socal2 says

All I am saying is that marriage is a delicate institution not to be messed with. Marriage is older than organized religion and is one of the most vital relationships to advance civilization.

In that case, you should blame Constantine for prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married, and converting to Christianity, which led to the fall of Rome.

Dan8267 says

If Social Security is forced savings, even in part, I should be able to give the unused portion of those savings to my heirs without having to adopt or marry a niece or nephew.

Zero, of your dollars that are payed into SSI are ever saved, in any way, specifically for you.

Dan8267 says

If Social Security is insurance, then the max levels should be way lower and few people should receive it.

Social Security is entirely an insurance system to "insure" that workers and those that depend on them for financial assistance don't fall into poverty due to things like old age, injury, death, etc. One of the biggest misconceptions about our system is that SSI is anything other than insurance.

As I am not an actuary--in addition to not having access to all the data--I can't comment on what levels are necessary.

Yes, many people that receive checks from Social Security feel entitled to the money even when they don't need it and would be entirely comfortable if the SSI checks stopped tomorrow. In my opinion these people should not be eligible for benefits. Like with car or health insurance people should aspire to never receive a SSI check.

Dan8267 says

I don't like making SS a combination of insurance and force savings as it seems to then do a poor job of both and separating those functions honestly is near impossible. One solution per problem, please, otherwise your solutions will not work well.

Sure I more or less agree that one solution per problem is the way to go. However, one program can use many solutions to solve a number of problems. How many problems does having public fire fighters solve? And, they don't try and solve every problem by spraying water on it or hitting it with an axe.

Is SSI perfect? Hell no, but its general mandate is something worthy to aspire to.

thomaswong.1986 says

dublin hillz says

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing.

look at global cultures across time and say that !

They have simply not evolved enough to appreciate all the free time that can be filled by entertaining television programs, sporting events and wine/beer tasting....

curious2 says

??? So now you're against adoption too? Do you recall that President Gerald Ford, a REPUBLICAN, was adopted? Should his adoptive parents not have been allowed to get married?

once again .. your lost ! As for Ford.. do try to read up on his childhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_ford

dublin hillz says

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing. There are
many DINKs out there and they have a right to be married. Why should people give
up their freedom not to have children?

I believe over 80% of heterosexual marriages result in procreation. So procreation is very much an intregal part of the vast majority of marriage.

Besides, this topic is about descrimination against single people. The only reason the State gives incentives to married couples is to help the 80% majority who take on the hard and vital work of raising future tax payers.

I love my kids. But I would be living much larger here in Southern California at the beach and traveling the world if I didn't have to spend money to educate, shelter and feed them to become productive citizens.

dublin hillz says

thomaswong.1986 says

dublin hillz says

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing.

look at global cultures across time and say that !

They have simply not evolved enough to appreciate all the free time that can be filled by entertaining television programs, sporting events and wine/beer tasting....

Ummm...OK, I looked across time and through all cultures and did not see one culture that barred infertile people from getting married or immediately dissolved marriages after the children were grown and the parents too old to bear any more.

However, I did see many that allowed same sex marriages.

Maybe I missed something could you give an example please?

curious2 says

And besides, many gay couples have children who are BIOLOGICALLY the child of one or the other, not even adopted.

strange ways! trying telling that to many global cultures.. it just isnt Kosher!

This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.

mell says

This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.

One thing the government can do to incentivize having children is provide day care at small fee that will be open during times that parents are likely to be working. The small fee would mean that it would be partially subsidized by the goverment and be paid for via existing or if necessary new revenues.

thomaswong.1986 says

it just isnt Kosher!

You don't need to be Jewish to get married, or to have children. Though other global cultures might kill you for being Christian and holding to strange ways and beliefs, yet that is not an argument against marriage equality.

But thank you for the information about Gerald Ford. He wasn't formally adopted. But, he adopted his stepfather's family name, should he not have been allowed to do that? Living with his biological mother and an otherwise unrelated stepfather put him in a situation quite similar to the children of many gay couples, who live with one biological parent and benefit from the security and stability of marriage.

dublin hillz says

They have simply not evolved enough to appreciate all the free time that can be filled by entertaining television programs, sporting events and wine/beer tasting....

Perhaps it is a myth, but didn't medieval peasants have a lot more free time that people today?

No, flat screen TVs though.

leo707 says

dublin hillz says

They have simply not evolved enough to appreciate all the free time that can be filled by entertaining television programs, sporting events and wine/beer tasting....

Perhaps it is a myth, but didn't medieval peasants have a lot more free time that people today?

No, flat screen TVs though.

Yeah, but they couldn't climate control their pad and had no cars.

curious2 says

No, that claim has been disproved repeatedly and is already addressed above,

Wow - quite remarkable. I checked your link and didn't see how it was addressed before.

Do you have kids?

I can guarantee you that my wife can provide my daughter with better parenting advice on female issues, emotions, hormones, menstration etc. than I can since she has biologically experienced it already. And I can certainly provide my boy better parenting advice than my wife can in terms of male issues, discipline, agression and respect since I have lived it too.

We live in a bizarro world where some people really seem to think there are no biological and emotional differences between the sexes in terms of child raising.

That said, I know full well that there are many good and stable gay couples that are raising good kids. And I think it is preferable to have kids adopted to gay parents than stuck in foster homes or single parents. But all things being equal, I think it is absolutely a no brainer to place adopted kids to heterosexual couples than gay couples.

mell says

if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not.

This is the current system. I have never heard of any incentive for raising children that is only available to married people.

mell says

This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.

They already do that. Why do you think we have so many welfare babies and children being born out of wedlock? I personally have a couple co-workers who have kids who have kids who don't want to get married because they will lose their government subsidy.

Raising children to single parents is a guarantee to a life in poverty, dependency and even crime. Regardless of how much government assistance they get.

Better to have policies that keep the married couples together who are raising kids.

leo707 says

Social Security is entirely an insurance system to "insure" that workers and those that depend on them for financial assistance don't fall into poverty due to things like old age, injury, death, etc. One of the biggest misconceptions about our system is that SSI is anything other than insurance.

If that's the case, it's damn fucking expensive insurance at $7,049.40/yr or $317,223 over a working lifetime (assuming retiring at 65). That's a McMansion in a prime location.

Also, as an insurance policy, it's paying out to way too many people who aren't poor. Perhaps that's why its so expensive. I know a lot of people on Social Security who are middle class, not poor, and would still be even without SS.

Perhaps SS was intended to be solely an insurance policy against poverty, but the way it acts and the way people expect it to act surely isn't purely insurance.

Plus, as an insurance policy, it really doesn't make sense that highly paid professionals should have to pay more than unskilled workers. After all, the former is much less likely to need the insurance.

Dan8267 says

If that's the case, it's damn fucking expensive insurance at $7,049.40/yr or $317,223 over a working lifetime (assuming retiring at 65). That's a McMansion in a prime location.

To clarify, that's just the employee contribution. The total cost of this insurance is twice that amount.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-security-and-medicare-tax-rates%3B-maximum-taxable-earnings

mell says

if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up

Shouldn't we be incentivizing not bringing up children? Like there's a job shortage in our country.