Ah yes open that can of worms boyz let's just see whats inside

[Duke of Rezin]

How about someone marrying themselves? Narcissists and pro-autoeroticists have rights too!

[rgharper]

Some locales outlaw the practice of ... ah ... loving one's self; certainly many noteworthy organizations discourage its practice. Personally, I believe "If you don't love yourself, how can you love others?"

[Tacklebox]

Getting back to Ferrit and -ed, I'm in Massachusetts, where just last year gay marriage was put in place by a radical supreme court judge who don't give a sh!t what the voters think...

Anyway, married homosexual couples are afforded the same benefits (tax, ins coverage, etc.) as married heterosexual couples. That's what got me thinking about the situation because one of them was doing a roofing job and fell off the roof. He got pretty well banged up and spent some time in the hospital, and if he had a better health plan, he would have received better care.

[confus-ed]

Getting back to Ferrit and -ed...

Now if you don't watch your implications (putting me & ferrit as a 'couple' like that), you'll be the one needing hospital food !

However joking asside I really do think that common sense has left the building on this particular subject.

Gay/lesbian/straight shouldn't be in this arguement whatsoever, if marriage allows 'extra benefits' for straight couples fair enough , & if some folks think that discriminates against them because they aren't (straight), again fair enough, but to introduce legislation in an effort to even up any discrimination, that then discrimates against others - well that's just dumb, & you don't need to be a high court judge to figure that one out !

[Ferrit]

Aint that a daisy
Frankly thats the point this whole buisness of benefits for marriages/civil unions or whatever has been in place for many years.
Its just that saying a marriage is a man and a woman is sooooo dam demeaning we cant have that crap going on.
Yer exactly right confus-ed common sense has left the building on the bum's rush express.

[Tacklebox]

Now if you don't watch your implications (putting me & ferrit as a 'couple' like that), you'll be the one needing hospital food !

You know what I mean

[El_Squid]

Better be careful with that common law marriage angle, or your roommate may be entitled to half of all the assets if you separate!

[RejectionMan]

Better be careful with that common law marriage angle, or your roommate may be entitled to half of all the assets if you separate!

um half of nothing is still nothing..... hes got all the good stuff (stereo, motorcycles, amps, guitars, GF), all i have is my car....

[slgrieb]

Ferrit, in this context, I love the phrase "bum's rush". Hey, just 'cause I'm a Texan doesn't mean I support the current administration's idiot policies.

[confus-ed]

You know what I mean

I did indeed dude .. however it was funnier to 'not' !

[kato2274]

Gay/lesbian/straight shouldn't be in this arguement whatsoever, if marriage allows 'extra benefits' for straight couples fair enough , & if some folks think that discriminates against them because they aren't (straight), again fair enough, but to introduce legislation in an effort to even up any discrimination, that then discrimates against others - well that's just dumb, & you don't need to be a high court judge to figure that one out !

you mean like civil rights laws? women being allowed to vote, blacks being counted as a full person. etc.

I know what you mean -ed but be careful how you say it, because this very argument you laid out here is that same one the racist folks lay out against laws to help level the playing field for minorities.......and I don't think you want to be in that camp....do ya?

Personally I don't get what the big deal is. Who cares if two guys living together can get married for convience. what does it hurt? It's not like it doesn't happen with straight people. lots of folks aren't in love but get married for benefits and have an "open relationship"

[confus-ed]

..I know what you mean -ed but be careful how you say it, because this very argument you laid out here is that same one the racist folks lay out against laws to help level the playing field for minorities.......and I don't think you want to be in that camp....do ya?..

I'm sat here wondering what the hell you mean ? What I'm saying is that by introducing legislation that allows two gay folks to get married for financial reasons, you are then discriminating effectively against ANY two people who might also want to enjoy the same financial benefits, but who aren't allowed to marry under either 'traditional marriage' or this 'gay marriage' stuff.

My grandmother & my aunt live together but couldn't of course 'marry' (either version) & are thus discriminated against.

Is that clearer ?

[kato2274]

I'm sat here wondering what the hell you mean ? What I'm saying is that by introducing legislation that allows two gay folks to get married for financial reasons, you are then discriminating effectively against ANY two people who might also want to enjoy the same financial benefits, but who aren't allowed to marry under either 'traditional marriage' or this 'gay marriage' stuff.

My grandmother & my aunt live together but couldn't of course 'marry' (either version) & are thus discriminated against.

Is that clearer ?

umm....not sure.

In your example your grandmother and aunt wouldn't be discriminated against with gay marriage laws, unless you argue that your brother and sister are being discriminated against by tradditional (read hetero) marriage laws. so I don't quite follow how your example applies. I mean if we want to talk about laws regarding relatives marrying then let's do that in another thread.

my opinion is the only discrimination going on here is not allowing gay folks the same benefits as straight folks....I'm sure I'm in the minority here though.

[confus-ed]

..my opinion is the only discrimination going on here is not allowing gay folks the same benefits as straight folks...

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the introduction of this 'gay union stuff' (just please don't call it 'marriage' !! but that's another debate) - that stops a substantial part of the population losing out because of sexuality... but perversley it then creates discrimination against other folks, because of a lack of any sexuality in their relationships, & to me that's worse than the opening position.

[El_Squid]

Maybe it all goes back to the purpose of the tax break in the first place? Now that most married couples are both working and no one is "staying at home", the whole point of the tax break may be dead. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the point of the tax break to give the married couple a financial inducement for two people living with one income? Kind of like the dependent tax break is to help folks who are raising children, supporting an elderly relative, etc. We need to examine the purpose of the tax break, then figure out if it is still necessary, or if it should be extended to other groups.

Just a thought.