How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

[WorldWatcher]

I know what you mean, lol. Not all "gays" support same gender marriage. I employ a really nice lesbian lady to take care of my adult autistic son. She and her partner are fine with collecting two separate child support checks, while she works and partner gets a welfare check and stays home with their kids. Ever see an opposite gender couple do that?

You mean an opposite gender couple remain unmarried so that the woman can draw welfare?


Ya, happens all the time.


>>>>

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

I’m sorry, you seem to have missed the point. Let me explain.

1. Under welfare laws, when two people are Civilly Married, the COMBINED income of both parties is used in determining eligibility for assistance. If the parties are not married, then they are treated as individuals. One person then has no income, they may be eligible for assistance. On the other hand all the income of the other person would be counted towards eligibility – which means they are unlikely to qualify if they are working. If that individual is working and not claiming it, say they are working under the table without reporting it to the IRS, then that is fraud and is against the law no matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual.

2. Therefore if two people (regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) are in a valid legal Civil Marriage, they would not receive “double” the entitlements because the income of the working individual would be counted for the family unit.

Now, there are three variables that are impacted: One the State recognizes Civil Marriages between individuals regardless of gender, the state does not recognize Civil Marriages between individuals of the same gender, and the federal component. In a state where Civil Marriages are recognized, then the total income would be counted for the family unit. In states where Civil Marriages are not recognized, those individuals are not Civilly Married. The federal component means that DOMA says those individuals are not Civilly Married .

Your example is actually a point that supports recognition of Civil Marriage by same-sex couples because if they are in a Civil Marriage, the welfare fraud you describe would be illegal.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

I have no idea: (A) what “classes” of marriage you mention are, and (B) what “three-party” marriages have to do with TWO consenting adults being Civilly Married. Last I checked, two does not equal 3-party.

Under the law there are no classifications of Civil Marriage placing any one over the other. There is just Civil Marriage between consenting adults – in all cases (Man + Woman, Man+Man, and Woman + Woman) – they are equal under the law in the states where same-sex Civil Marriages are legal.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are deliberately missing the points.

Isn't a custody battle cruel for children? Heterosexuals are more likely to go through a custody battle, yet they are still allowed to procreate, when it is clear that sometimes, they care only for themselves.

Are you saying that all heterosexual couples are "cruel for children"? Or are you using the exception to throw the baby out with the bath water? Because when I say that no same gender couple is without at least one step parent, I do mean "all". And when I say that all same gender couples who advocate for same gender marriage for the changes to marriage that are harmful to children, again I do mean "all".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because when I say that no same gender couple is without at least one step parent, I do mean "all".

Hwyangel, it appears that you don't understand what a "step parent" is.

Stepmother - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
STEPMOTHER: the wife of one's father when distinct from one's natural or legal mother
STEPFATHER: the husband of one's mother when distinct from one's natural or legal father


A stepparent is the legal spouse of a child's parent, but who have not adopted the child. Stepparents typically have no legal claim the the child. Stepparents are distinct from both the natural mother/father and legal mother/father.

Once (or if) the individual actually adopts the child, they are no longer a "Stepparent" - they are now the legal mother or father of that child.


**********************************

Secondly, there are two situations:

1. In all states, when a child is born within the framework of Civil Marriage, the individuals involved are automatically as a function of law the parents of the resulting child. Whether they have a biological connection to that child or not. If a different-sex, Civilly Married couple is infertile together - she gets a sperm donation and delivers a child - then the husband and wife are both the legal parents. Neither is a "stepparent". On the other hand if a same-sex, Civilly Married couple is infertile together - she gets a sperm donation and delivers a child - then the wives are both the legal parents. Neither is a "stepparent".

2. In addition, when couples adopt a child they become the parents of the child, they are not classified as "stepparents" because they don't have a biological relationship to the child.



>>>>

 

[logical4u]

There is no benefit in the denial of marriage to gay Americans.

Do you have a model society that you are using for your statement?

 

[Vidi]

I know what you mean, lol. Not all "gays" support same gender marriage. I employ a really nice lesbian lady to take care of my adult autistic son. She and her partner are fine with collecting two separate child support checks, while she works and partner gets a welfare check and stays home with their kids. Ever see an opposite gender couple do that?

You mean an opposite gender couple remain unmarried so that the woman can draw welfare?


Ya, happens all the time.


>>>>

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

 

[Vidi]

There is no benefit in the denial of marriage to gay Americans.

Do you have a model society that you are using for your statement?

A model is not needed. Can you name any benefit to American society in which the denial of all legal rights and priviledges are extended to one group but not all groups of citizens?

 

[tjvh]

You mean an opposite gender couple remain unmarried so that the woman can draw welfare?


Ya, happens all the time.


>>>>

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[rdean]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

It makes homophobes happy and then they can turn to a new target. Blacks, Muslims, women, atheists, scientists, teachers, union members, Hispanics, the unemployed, the poor, children....

Reminds me of a certain political party. But I won't name it because they get upset and feel they are being picked on.

 

[Vidi]

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Or a more traditional definition of a Man and his wife and his wife and his wife and his wife.

 

[rdean]

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sharing this information in a friendly way. No insult is offered. I'm sure you are really smart and already know how to use Google. Consider it a "service" because you may be too busy to look it up yourself. I hope it helps.

 

[Vidi]

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

I am going to answer this again...this time without the joke.

Some same traditional marriage is the LIFE LONG union of a man and woman.

With divorce rates at nearly 50%, the defintion of marriage has already been changed. The divorce rate proves that marriage has a "flexible" definition at best. But lets say we dont redefine our defintion but instead redefine our VIEW of the definition.

Redefining our VIEW of marriage to include same sex couples is simply not that big of a deal.

How about The LIFE LONG union of two consenting adults?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

Needless to say, unless one has engaged in a same-sex marriage, they really have no idea what they're talking about.

This is the United States and we fight for equal rights for ALL Americans. Even those with whom we disagree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An union of two consenting adults as marriage is a great definition.

Same sex couples should have the same trial and tribulation of traditionally married couples.

However, no one should think that somehow polygamy, polyandry, and polymory will somehow not be part of the issues involved with the redefinition of marriage.

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

I am going to answer this again...this time without the joke.

Some same traditional marriage is the LIFE LONG union of a man and woman.

With divorce rates at nearly 50%, the defintion of marriage has already been changed. The divorce rate proves that marriage has a "flexible" definition at best. But lets say we dont redefine our defintion but instead redefine our VIEW of the definition.

Redefining our VIEW of marriage to include same sex couples is simply not that big of a deal.

How about The LIFE LONG union of two consenting adults?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

I am going to answer this again...this time without the joke.

Some same traditional marriage is the LIFE LONG union of a man and woman.

With divorce rates at nearly 50%, the defintion of marriage has already been changed. The divorce rate proves that marriage has a "flexible" definition at best. But lets say we dont redefine our defintion but instead redefine our VIEW of the definition.

Redefining our VIEW of marriage to include same sex couples is simply not that big of a deal.

How about The LIFE LONG union of two consenting adults?

Key word - "consenting"

Beyond that, its no one elses business.

Never mind that "traditional" man/woman marriage has become a sad joke in our country. They demand "forever" marriage from same sex couples but can't deliver that themselves.

If "traditional" marriage is what we're supposed to aspire to, it leaves a lot to desire. As soon as hetero-marriage is perfect, THEN they can make the rules for everyone else. Until then, they need to understand that same sex marriage is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

 

[masoric]

To me the issue is very simple... Individuals have rights. Groups or "Society" at large do not have rights greater than the sum of their individual members. For something to benefit society, it must benefit one or more individuals. For something to hurt society, it must harm one or more individuals.

A gay marriage or a civil unions would benefit some individuals and would not harm any individuals. If one wants to make an argument at a collectivist level, they must prove that gay marriage harms some individuals.

 

[Moonglow]

Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

An union of two consenting adults as marriage is a great definition.

Same sex couples should have the same trial and tribulation of traditionally married couples.

However, no one should think that somehow polygamy, polyandry, and polymory will somehow not be part of the issues involved with the redefinition of marriage.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

I am going to answer this again...this time without the joke.

Some same traditional marriage is the LIFE LONG union of a man and woman.

With divorce rates at nearly 50%, the defintion of marriage has already been changed. The divorce rate proves that marriage has a "flexible" definition at best. But lets say we dont redefine our defintion but instead redefine our VIEW of the definition.

Redefining our VIEW of marriage to include same sex couples is simply not that big of a deal.

How about The LIFE LONG union of two consenting adults?

Again, all that matters is whether or not the "union" is consensual.Whether is nutso Mittens or the monster, Jeff Warrens, all that really matters is if its a consensual union between ADULTS.

If so, its no one elses business.

Really. The R needs to stop meddling in other people's business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

luddly what your or I think does not matter.

Yes, multiple partner marriages will be an issue, whether you think they should or not.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.

Yabut, that's not the first law of "Christians".

 

[Noomi]

Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.

This is true, but why do so many Christians ignore this, and spend most of their time judging and condemning others?