Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:05:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1641 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> And proposed: "marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults"
> (Assuming they're human, US citizens [is that needed?],
No, marriage is often used as a way to avoid deportation, which would be a
non-issue if only citizens could get married. I don't believe either party has
to be a citizen/national, so that a Canadian and a Mexican could meet up in
Vegas on vacation and get hitched by Elvis (or two gay US citizens could get
married in Canada), but that runs into the problem that there is no guarantee
that either of their homelands would recognize a marriage that was performed in
a different country. The only way to guarantee that is to get married in the
country that you want to have recognize your marriage.
> and adult = greater than or equal to 18 years of age)
That's usually not necessary either. Many states allow you to get married at 16
or 17, and a couple might still allow you to get married as early as 14.
Hopefully the minimum age has been raised to at least 16 nation-wide, but I do
remember one kid who dropped out of my high school during his junior year so he
could get married. I don't believe he even lived long enough to turn 18 (it's a
rather gruesome story, so...), but I never had any aching desire to hang out
with his crowd, so all of my information was third-hand at best.
> Are you arguing that it's actually bad that gays are allowed to get married?
> IE that they actually shouldn't be allowed to get inheritence, be claimed
> tax-wise as spouses, get hospital visitation rights, etc? (or whatever legal
> perks you get from marriage)
You missed a few that I know of, including Military notification rights (once
you're married, your spouse is the person who they talk to, rather than
parents/next-of-kin...althought this is somewhat irrelevent as long as gays
aren't allowed in the military), child custody/adoption, divorce/alimony
settlements, insurance coverage, joint ownership (related to, but not quite the
same as inheritence), and free/reduced-cost surname change (it costs money to
change your name, but wives are generally allowed to take their husbands names
for free upon marriage...though changing back after a divorce still costs
money). Not having ever been married, I'm probably missing a few (some are
probably even be state-specific). Also, filing joint tax returns is often more
costly (ever heard of the so-called "marriage tax"?), so I'm not sure I'd label
that a perq. There's also the fact that marriage generally promotes monogamy,
which in turn means that there would be less chance of contracting STDs within
married gay couples than within the unmarried gay community.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) I'm wondering how commonly held this view is. It doesn't strike me as true but I don't have any specific information with which to refute it. I guess there was a big study based on a survey in which sixty-some percent of married men admitted (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Well... If presently: "marriage is defined as the union of one consenting adult male and one consenting adult female" And proposed: "marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults" (Assuming they're human, US citizens [is that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
