patrick.net

zzyzzx says

I’m convinced that the real reason liberals want gay marriage so much is because lawyers are big supporters of Democrats and they want that lucrative divorce business.

I'm convinced that the real reason ANYONE would want gay marriage is because heteros can marry, divorce, live together, serve in the military, openly show their affection in public, etc and no one gives a shit. They can have plural marriages and get their own teevee show...

But gay people? they're not real people and shouldn't be allowed to live and walk among us (in the eyes of some).

Gay people don't want to be treated better than the rest of the population - they just want to be treated equally. They would like the opportunity to have a ceremony and be legally recognized as a family unit, including the tax breaks, benefits, etc that heteros can have.

People throw the bible into the mix - claim that God didn't create homosexuals. Bullshit. God created man (if you so believe) and man wrote the bible. We're discriminating against people because of who they are and making them act hetero in order to fit in.

I listened to a radio show during yesterday's commute - it was from Sept 2008 about don't ask/don't tell. Under that law, military people couldn't have gay behavior or ever have had it - or they would be kicked out of the military. No part of their lives could be "gay." and it was a way to get rid of people from their chosen career. It was a great injustice, considering 30+ countries allow gays to serve and they're still able to kill people and bomb stuff.

Being the devil's advocate here:

If we let gays marry, why not let a brother marry their sister? Or a son their mother? Or marry multiple people simultaneiously? Are we going to let gay people have incestuous marriages? After all...

elliemae says

They would like the opportunity to have a ceremony and be legally recognized as a family unit, including the tax breaks, benefits

8ball say:
"Being the devil’s advocate here:
If we let gays marry, why not let a brother marry their sister? Or a son their mother? Or marry multiple people simultaneiously? Are we going to let gay people have incestuous marriages? After all…"

Hey, devil: Gay people walk among us, work among us and don't push their sexuality on us (for the most part, because there are always exceptions). They want to love someone and have that love recognized.

Brothers can't marry their sisters because their children will most likely be retarded. There isn't a huge population of brother/sister romances, but if there were we would be forced to confront it. Same with son/mother. In Utah, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, and many other states there are multiple partner marriages. I doubt that these people would want to be legally recognized due to the fact that most of the multiple wives collect welfare for their thousands of babies. They couldn't do that if they were legally married.

Gay people only want to be able to live openly and legally with their partners. It doesn't hurt anyone. The arguments against them is due to fear because people don't understand that they're not child molesters or incesters. They're men and women who are attracted to same sex partners - they have the same types of relationship issues as do heteros including fighting, making up, wanting children, etc.

Comparing gay people to sexual deviants is crazy. We allow heteros who screw around on their spouses to marry - and s&m clubs, swingers, etc. Some of the shit that they do is reprehensible, but they're hetero so it's okay. Meanwhile, a gay couple who live quietly and just want equality must have a "devil's advocate" to compare their lifestyle to incestuous relationships?

Ugh.

elliemae says

Hey, devil: Gay people walk among us, work among us and don’t push their sexuality on us (for the most part, because there are always exceptions). They want to love someone and have that love recognized.

I don't have a problem with gay people - I work with several and it has never been an issue for me.

I'm only bringing up the "complaints" that I see from anti-gay marriage people. Until you come up with something better, you aren't going to win any of them over.

elliemae says

Brothers can’t marry their sisters because their children will most likely be retarded.

So people with genetic defects, by your logic, shouldn't have children either? Can we quickly pass a law in the lame duck congress for this? Someone call Harry Reid, quick!

elliemae says

I doubt that these people would want to be legally recognized due to the fact that most of the multiple wives collect welfare for their thousands of babies. They couldn’t do that if they were legally married.

You have evidence to back this up too, right? I think polygamist would like to ...

elliemae says

They would like the opportunity to have a ceremony and be legally recognized as a family unit, including the tax breaks, benefits, etc that heteros can have.

...but I don't see you fighting for their right to happiness...

EightBall says

Until you come up with something better, you aren’t going to win any of them over.

I'm not trying to win anyone over and have no idea what you're talking about.

EightBall says

elliemae says
Brothers can’t marry their sisters because their children will most likely be retarded.
So people with genetic defects, by your logic, shouldn’t have children either? Can we quickly pass a law in the lame duck congress for this? Someone call Harry Reid, quick!

Please call your congressperson if you have a problem with this - I'm sure that they're waiting by the phone for your call. I was merely pointing out your rather ludicrous homophobic comment that linked incest and gay marriage. You own that logic, don't blame me.

EightBall says

You have evidence to back this up too, right?

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy1078.html
This article states that 44% of Colorado City residents received $1.5 million in food stamps in 2006/2007. The average monthly food stamp benefit in Hildale is $829.00. There are also Medicaid and WIC recipients that wouldn't be eligible if the "husbands" were listed on the birth certificates and welfare applications.

Notice that I didn't say that it was fraud - it's not. As long as they're not legally married they can take advantage of food stamps, medicaid, TANF, section 8 and other programs. If you have a problem with this - and because I've said it, I'm sure that you do - please personally drive to Colorado City & Hildale and see it for yourself. As a social worker, I've also witnessed people who live in Arizona use a Utah address for assistance because Utah offers some social programs that are more advantageous to the elderly than the Arizona laws. Social workers & eligibility workers aren't allowed to question whether the address is actually where the patient lives, even though the nursing agency is going to an Arizona address. In other words, I've personally seen this practice and know whereof I speak.

EightBall says

…but I don’t see you fighting for their right to happiness…

Well, 8ball, that's because gay people have the right to be happy or not. They don't however, have the right to get married. I'm not sure that you understand what the issue is - or perhaps you're so busy taking this personally that you aren't able to see that the thread is about the socioeconomic benefits (or not) of legalizing gay marriage.

EightBall says

I don’t have a problem with gay people - I work with several and it has never been an issue for me.

Next thing you'll say that some of your best friends are gay...

EightBall says

Being the devil’s advocate here:
If we let gays marry, why not let a brother marry their sister? Or a son their mother? Or marry multiple people simultaneiously? Are we going to let gay people have incestuous marriages? After all…
elliemae says

They would like the opportunity to have a ceremony and be legally recognized as a family unit, including the tax breaks, benefits

I have absolutely no issue with polygamy being legal. There are some tricky tax issues to sort out, but if everyone is consensually married (and, really, you can't be if you're too young to even vote...), sounds good to me.

Incest is a difficult issue. If everyone involved is of a sound mind on the issue, and nobody has been coerced, sure, why not? After all, there's nothing preventing these people from having their *relationship*. You can be a mother fucker if you want to be a mother fucker.

Really, what we should have is not "marriage", but rather a generic formal way of declaring legal status between two people, for a variety of reasons. People with particular religious beliefs are free to do whatever they want in that regard, but it should have no real bearing on what the state recognizes.

CrowsAreSmart says

seaside: They say about 10% of the population is GLBT. So, I would say so!
Wow, I just came back to check this thread - thanks for all the discussion so far!

They're walking among us, I know. But, comm'on! 10%?

That's way higher than I thought, and I don't think I can take this as the fact. Can you tell me who exactly are "they" and what method they used?

What planet are you from ? That number has been tossed around for several decades and goes back I think to Kinsey. But I would agree that it seems a little high. Then again, hang out in a gay neighborhood of a major city for a while, and it will seem low.

Planet washington DC, where nice man is either married, government worker or gay. lol.

Kinsey? that explains a lot.

Here are some maps from the 2000 Census indicating the number of same-sex households per 1,000 households. I uploaded an image, however, if it doesn't work, follow this link and scroll to the maps towards the bottom.
http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/factSheet_General_LGBT.pdf

Interesting map. I had heard about the west Texas thing, but it's a bigger area than I knew.

How does that work ? If two men are roommates or like the "odd couple," that wouldn't constitute same sex couple would it ? So there must be a question on the census that asks "are you living as a couple with a member of the same gender?" (or "do you live with your gay lover?"(just kidding)) Wouldn't a lot of gay couples, the kind who aren't looking to get married, think, "that's none of the governments business ?" Especially if they lived in an area where tolerance was relatively low.

I also suspect that the real reason gay marriage isn't legal in very many places is because the judges won't know who to give the house to when lesbians get divorced.

zzyzzx says

I also suspect that the real reason gay marriage isn’t legal in very many places is because the judges won’t know who to give the house to when lesbians get divorced.

Now that's funny.

zzyzzx says

I also suspect that the real reason gay marriage isn’t legal in very many places is because the judges won’t know who to give the house to when lesbians get divorced.

Great joke. You made the point better with the joke than I did by trying to be serious.

I'm all for gay marriage. It will be a boon for men, because the inequities of hetero marriage will be exposed. And that is ONE of the reasons so many people are against it.

elliemae says

I was merely pointing out your rather ludicrous homophobic comment that linked incest and gay marriage

When in doubt, call the other person homophobic. Nice.

elliemae says

I’m not trying to win anyone over and have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you want to end discrimination, you can't just force it - you need to get people to accept it. Repeatedly saying "You are just homophobic" isn't very effective.

Kevin says

I have absolutely no issue with polygamy being legal. There are some tricky tax issues to sort out, but if everyone is consensually married (and, really, you can’t be if you’re too young to even vote…), sounds good to me.

Incest is a difficult issue. If everyone involved is of a sound mind on the issue, and nobody has been coerced, sure, why not? After all, there’s nothing preventing these people from having their *relationship*. You can be a mother fucker if you want to be a mother fucker.

Really, what we should have is not “marriage”, but rather a generic formal way of declaring legal status between two people, for a variety of reasons. People with particular religious beliefs are free to do whatever they want in that regard, but it should have no real bearing on what the state recognizes.

Someone with a consistent philosophical belief - nice!

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/melissa-etheridge-ex-t-live-23k-month-170820392.html

Melissa Etheridge’s Ex: I Can’t Live On $23K A Month

Twenty grand a month or so probably sounds like a nice payout to most average divorcees out there. However, Melissa Etheridge's ex-partner, Tammy Lynn Michaels, isn't one of them. The 37-year-old former actress has filed documents claiming she cannot survive on the $23,000 Etheridge is granting her monthly in child and spousal support.

Michaels also noted that she "has limited income and virtually no savings," while Etheridge "has extensive resources at her disposal and a tremendous earning capacity."

Multiple studies have found consistently that recognizing gay marriage does in fact help the economy:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gay-marriage-has-boosted-iowas-economy-study-concludes/

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-4167209.html

In 2008, west coast mayors implored California voters to oppose Prop h8 because coastal city economies were benefiting from gay weddings. Alas the inland voters ignored them, frightened by the terribly dishonest h8 campaign (see the movie "8: The Mormon Proposition").

In reply to Nobody's comment about tax revenues, the net effect remains favorable because married people are less likely to become wards of the state. The income tax brackets reflect the legal sharing of income between two persons. Melissa's ex might complain that her alimony isn't enough to sustain the budget she had become accustomed to, but it's plenty to keep her off welfare and SSI.

So if the marriage tax penalty goes away, then politicians will all of a sudden be against gay marriage? I'm inclined to think at least a few would flip flop on that.

curious2 says

Multiple studies have found consistently that recognizing gay marriage does in fact help the economy:

Gives new meaning to the term "stimulus package."

It creates jobs for divorce lawyers at least. Not sure how much wealth that actually creates for the economy though.

wthrfrk80 says

It creates jobs for divorce lawyers at least.

On the other hand, it means less money on medical care:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/755834

Bullying and discrimination cause significant costs, with no clear benefit.

CrowsAreSmart says

Thoughts?

Gay marriage isn't going fill the coffers. Now gay divorce will certainly fill the coffers of lawyers and divorce courts.

Legalizing and taxing pot would be a far more effective revenue strategy. The reason prohibition was ended was for the alcohol tax revenue.

EightBall says

Being the devil's advocate here:

If we let gays marry, why not let a brother marry their sister? Or a son their mother? Or marry multiple people simultaneiously? Are we going to let gay people have incestuous marriages? After all...

The only justification for laws against incest, if there is any, is that the offspring would be much more likely to be genetically deformed. And over generations, incestual relations cause many chronic, genetic diseases. The justification for state interference is simply that the state is preventing the parents committing incest from inflicting harm on a child by giving it deformed genes.

However, one could argue that this implies the state has the right to prevent anyone with a "serious" genetic defect from reproducing. The criteria for serious being up to the state. This is a very dangerous power to give to the state, and it almost calls for abuse. It also requires that you accept that people do not have the right to reproduce. And that is a seriously dangerous proposition.

In any case, the justification for prohibition of incest and incestual marriages has no bearing on the issue of gay marriages. Nor do other issues such as polygamy or bestial marriages.

As far as the state is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. As such, both gay marriage and polygamy should be allowed. You can enter a contract with a person of the same sex. You can also enter a contract with multiple other people.

The problem is that the state is doing something that it should neither have the power nor the responsibility to do: decide which intimate relationships are valid. The state should not be in the bedroom in the first place.

The solution to the marriage controversy is simply to remove the state from the issue of marriage all together. Marriage is a social institution and a religious institution. It should not be a state institution. There should be no laws regarding marriage, and the word marriage itself should not have any legal definition.

Laws involving joint property should be written agnostic to the issue of marriage, as should laws involving parental rights and guardianship of children. After all, many children are born out of wedlock anyway.

If you take the state out of marriage and divorce health care from employment, then the whole issue of gay marriage becomes merely a social one and as such utterly unimportant like the question "Is golf a sport?".