Civil unions

Chaunceyt has some very good points!

I am in the deep south and I know my government and how some people are here. There is always someone that likes to start….problems. What I am saying is that this could cause a lot more problems than answers.

Say you had a roommate about 10 years ago. Now you are doing very well and he/she is not. He sues you for alimony claiming you were lovers. Do not any of you see the problems this could cause?

Chaunceyt has some very good points!

I am in the deep south and I know my government and how some people are here. There is always someone that likes to start….problems. What I am saying is that this could cause a lot more problems than answers.

Say you had a roommate about 10 years ago. Now you are doing very well and he/she is not. He sues you for alimony claiming you were lovers. Do not any of you see the problems this could cause?

Mikep2

I’m against forcing the term "married" could care less about civil union, etc.

my entire argument has been around the reason gay and lesbian want their relationship to be consider "married" in contrast to "civil union" is directly related to the benefits granted to traditional married couples.

I think I’ve stipulated traditional married couple can and do adopt. Yet, I don’t think tax payers should incur the cost of them obtaining that child. Since we incur a cost after the adoption.

Your last statement. I don’t have a problem with gays / lesbian adopting children. I personally don’t want my tax dollars paying for the adoption process, etc.  Allowing their relationship to be called a marriage does change alot. Maybe not in reference to adoption.

This has been an interesting and very civil conversation. I’m only concerned with the additional costs associated with this fight to be considered "married".

Hopefully we’ll get a chance to debate another issue.  I think we both understand each other on this issue. However, if not…

keep the conversation going…

Thanks

chaunceyt

So, are you against same sex marriage?  Or OK with same sex marriage just as long as there is no undue burden on the state?

To answer your question: about marriage as just a contract for benefits…you do have a point as there are benefits our society has granted married couples.  Now, since a different sex marriage has the right to adopt (please note that we don’t "obtain" PEOPLE anymore) and put a burden on the state, why wouldn’t a same sex marriage?  Every couple that adopts gets some tax assistance, no matter their income.  Know why?  Because there is actually less of a burden on the state because that child is no longer being cared for by the state, ultimately the state (i.e. the taxpayers) win, not to mention there is a MUCH better chance that child will be a contributing member of society.

Also,  do you argue that gay and lesbian couples/people don’t adopt children now?  So, I’d say that since they do and are allowed to adopt, allowing their relationship to be called a marriage, doesn’t change much…as far as adoption is concerned.

Many years ago I read a Dear Abby column in which a gay man told his story. He had been in a relationship with his partner for thirty years. Together they had bought a home, set up a household, etc. His partner passed and his family, who hated that their son was gay and were never accepting of the relationship or the surviving partner came in and took everything. Not only did they take furniture and things of value, they took personal items simply to cause more pain to the partner. For whatever reason, the partner’s name could not be on the papers that gave title to the house and because their relationship had no legal basis the deceased’s family had the legal right to do what they did. I had been living with my wife to be for several years at the time and it stunned me that the same thing could potentially happen to her! The sexual orientation aspect of the issue disappeared for me right then and I saw it as a human issue. Is it not still allowable in quite a few states to discriminate in hiring and housing based on sexual orientation? Sometimes I think the need to hate should have been included in Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs because some people seem to need to ba able to do that more than anything else.

Everyone that becomes a productive member of society pays taxes!

I’m saying that the traditional marriage benefits/expects to benefit from having children or adopting by claiming dependents. Yes the gov’t makes an investment in families that produce offsprings. Why else would they provide incentives? The gov’t doesn’t allow it. The male and female design was to produce an offspring so it’s considered a human right.

I am saying that if that the population wanting to marry can’t produce by default shouldn’t put a burden on the state to "obtain" children and expect the gov’t to provide benefits for taking care of that possible tax payer.

my argument is about the benefits allocated to those considered "married" we’re increasing that population and it’s going to be an expense. regardless of an implied right to marry or desire to marry.

Do you negate marriage is just a contract for benefits?

@chauncet

"expected benefit " – so, please correct me if I am wrong, are you stipulatting that the gov’t allows people to marry because of an implied benefit of being married is producing tax payers, and that if a population wanting to marry can’t, by default, produce a tax payer w/o putting a burden upon the state, then that population shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

I just want to make sure I have your argument correct, before I go on.  I don’t want to be arguing a point that has nothing to do with what you are trying to say.