If two gay men are allowed to marry, why not two straight women?

[DiveCon]

In order to take advantage of the tax code, inheritance, health insurance benefits, etc. Do proponents of gay marriage also support the "right" of straight people, who may not even live in the same state or even know each other well, to marry each other specifically to avail themselves of the incidents of marriage?

Does the current law prohibit two people of the opposite sex to get married specifically for the advantages you cite?

nope, and i'm pretty sure you don't have to perform a sex act in front of the clerk here in mass to get married if you happen to be two people of the same sex, either.

the better question is why not allow polygamy as well
as long as all parties are consenting adults

 

[rightwinger]

Does the current law prohibit two people of the opposite sex to get married specifically for the advantages you cite?

nope, and i'm pretty sure you don't have to perform a sex act in front of the clerk here in mass to get married if you happen to be two people of the same sex, either.

the better question is why not allow polygamy as well
as long as all parties are consenting adults

You can now live with two women and have children with them and not break any laws.

But if you were to marry both of them, you would be arrested for bigamy

 

[rdean]

If two gay men are allowed to marry, why not two straight women?

Because they are probably already married, to men.

You have to explain everything to Republicans. Their little minds wander and skitter so.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

nope, and i'm pretty sure you don't have to perform a sex act in front of the clerk here in mass to get married if you happen to be two people of the same sex, either.

the better question is why not allow polygamy as well
as long as all parties are consenting adults

you can now live with two women and have children with them and not break any laws.

But if you were to marry both of them, you would be arrested for bigamy

how can we live with such discriminiatory laws?????

 

[bodecea]

In order to take advantage of the tax code, inheritance, health insurance benefits, etc. Do proponents of gay marriage also support the "right" of straight people, who may not even live in the same state or even know each other well, to marry each other specifically to avail themselves of the incidents of marriage?

Does the current law prohibit two people of the opposite sex to get married specifically for the advantages you cite?

no, it does not. it may go against the stated public policy- which is generally to rpomote strong families.

Good luck enforcing THAT one. Maybe a law can be passed that the government can pry into your bedroom to make sure your marriage is on the up and up as far as promoting "strong families" is concerned.

 

[bodecea]

If two gay men are allowed to marry, why not two straight women?

Because they are probably already married, to men.

You have to explain everything to Republicans. Their little minds wander and skitter so.

 

[jillian]

funny, but up to one-third of marriages between citizens and non-citizens are sham marriages.

I'm pretty sure that's a lie, but let's see if you have a link that doesn't come from Stormfront... otherwise, I think I'll call BS.

Clearly, our marital laws are exploited for a variety of reasons.

I don't think that's "clear" at all...

And if gay couples are allowed to marry, under the guise of Equal Protection, so too should any two citizens be permitted to marry.

That's silliness... and the use of the word "guise" belies your bias.

But thanks for not really participating. You probably are unable to craft any sort of response not directed by HuffPo anyways.

Was there something to participate in? I just called it as I saw it. I'm figuring that when someone like you makes baseless and intentionally absurd statements, calling you on it is appropriate. And for the record, I don't often read Huffpo, and I'm figuring that unlike you, I'm capable of substantiating my comments......

try it sometimes... because near as I can tell, you're another loudmouth screaming from the rafters

 

[jillian]

Does the current law prohibit two people of the opposite sex to get married specifically for the advantages you cite?

nope, and i'm pretty sure you don't have to perform a sex act in front of the clerk here in mass to get married if you happen to be two people of the same sex, either.

the better question is why not allow polygamy as well
as long as all parties are consenting adults

I prefer polygyny...

and but for the fact that most polygamous relationships appear to be exploitative of women, I'd probably agree that where consenting adults are concerned, maybe others shouldn't interfere.

 

[Zona]

In order to take advantage of the tax code, inheritance, health insurance benefits, etc. Do proponents of gay marriage also support the "right" of straight people, who may not even live in the same state or even know each other well, to marry each other specifically to avail themselves of the incidents of marriage?

I am with the people who say, hey, if this is all about saving the sanctity of marriage, you should have to sign something that says, ban divorce.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

funny, but up to one-third of marriages between citizens and non-citizens are sham marriages.

I'm pretty sure that's a lie, but let's see if you have a link that doesn't come from Stormfront... otherwise, I think I'll call BS.

prove me wrong, bitchtits. I pretty well covered my ass there.

Clearly, our marital laws are exploited for a variety of reasons.

I don't think that's "clear" at all...

Then educate yourself. Sham marriages are not uncommon. A simple google search will help you immensely.

And if gay couples are allowed to marry, under the guise of Equal Protection, so too should any two citizens be permitted to marry.

That's silliness... and the use of the word "guise" belies your bias.

Marriage is an individual right, not a couple's right. The law applies equally- to heteros, homos (like you), and would-be polygamists.

But thanks for not really participating. You probably are unable to craft any sort of response not directed by HuffPo anyways.

Was there something to participate in? I just called it as I saw it. I'm figuring that when someone like you makes baseless and intentionally absurd statements, calling you on it is appropriate.

None of which you can find, but dont bother, fishmonger.

And for the record, I don't often read Huffpo, and I'm figuring that unlike you, I'm capable of substantiating my comments......

which you have utterly failed to do any more than anyone else.

try it sometimes... because near as I can tell, you're another loudmouth screaming from the rafters

You make Rosie ODickchick seem palatable.

 

[del]

funny, but up to one-third of marriages between citizens and non-citizens are sham marriages.

I'm pretty sure that's a lie, but let's see if you have a link that doesn't come from Stormfront... otherwise, I think I'll call BS.

prove me wrong, bitchtits. I pretty well covered my ass there.



I don't think that's "clear" at all...

Then educate yourself. Sham marriages are not uncommon. A simple google search will help you immensely.


That's silliness... and the use of the word "guise" belies your bias.

Marriage is an individual right, not a couple's right. The law applies equally- to heteros, homos (like you), and would-be polygamists.

But thanks for not really participating. You probably are unable to craft any sort of response not directed by HuffPo anyways.

Was there something to participate in? I just called it as I saw it. I'm figuring that when someone like you makes baseless and intentionally absurd statements, calling you on it is appropriate.

None of which you can find, but dont bother, fishmonger.

And for the record, I don't often read Huffpo, and I'm figuring that unlike you, I'm capable of substantiating my comments......

which you have utterly failed to do any more than anyone else.

try it sometimes... because near as I can tell, you're another loudmouth screaming from the rafters

You make Rosie ODickchick seem palatable.

 

[Gunny]

Is it fag day on the board? What's with all the gay threads? Who gives a fuck what sexually aberrant people wan tot do so long as it is between consenting adults.

Whan me to call their behavior normal? No.

 

[xotoxi]

In order to take advantage of the tax code, inheritance, health insurance benefits, etc. Do proponents of gay marriage also support the "right" of straight people, who may not even live in the same state or even know each other well, to marry each other specifically to avail themselves of the incidents of marriage?

I do.

I would not call it marriage. All state sanctioned unifications between two adults would be called a Civil Union. It would be a contract which would entitle the two individuals shared benefits regarding taxes, property ownership, inheritance, and decision making.

Civil Unions would have NO implication of sex or sexuality within this relationship, as the state should not be in the business of licensing sexual relationships.

A Civil Union would be between a man and a woman, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, an adult child and a parent, etc.

Remember...the Civil Union would not be a license implying or authorizing sex.

Marriage would be an entity reserved for religions. If a religion wanted to marry two gay men or lesbians, that is their deal.

 

[Si modo]

Is it fag day on the board? What's with all the gay threads? Who gives a fuck what sexually aberrant people wan tot do so long as it is between consenting adults.

Whan me to call their behavior normal? No.

If I understand the OP correctly, the question is not a marriage for sexual reasons, rather for convenience of benefits and legal issues. Sort of like two bridge club widows getting married for convenience of these benefits. Platonic and friends. And, to me, it's an interesting question. I can see it happening.

 

[xotoxi]

Whom do we think has recycled themselves as ThePickledPunk???

 

[DiveCon]

In order to take advantage of the tax code, inheritance, health insurance benefits, etc. Do proponents of gay marriage also support the "right" of straight people, who may not even live in the same state or even know each other well, to marry each other specifically to avail themselves of the incidents of marriage?

I do.

I would not call it marriage. All state sanctioned unifications between two adults would be called a Civil Union. It would be a contract which would entitle the two individuals shared benefits regarding taxes, property ownership, inheritance, and decision making.

Civil Unions would have NO implication of sex or sexuality within this relationship, as the state should not be in the business of licensing sexual relationships.

A Civil Union would be between a man and a woman, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, an adult child and a parent, etc.

Remember...the Civil Union would not be a license implying or authorizing sex.

Marriage would be an entity reserved for religions. If a religion wanted to marry two gay men or lesbians, that is their deal.

how is it so many are supporting this option(one i had had for several years myself) yet we still have this problem and there isnt a massive movement in this country to get the government the HELL out of marriage?

 

[Si modo]

In order to take advantage of the tax code, inheritance, health insurance benefits, etc. Do proponents of gay marriage also support the "right" of straight people, who may not even live in the same state or even know each other well, to marry each other specifically to avail themselves of the incidents of marriage?

I do.

I would not call it marriage. All state sanctioned unifications between two adults would be called a Civil Union. It would be a contract which would entitle the two individuals shared benefits regarding taxes, property ownership, inheritance, and decision making.

Civil Unions would have NO implication of sex or sexuality within this relationship, as the state should not be in the business of licensing sexual relationships.

A Civil Union would be between a man and a woman, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, an adult child and a parent, etc.

Remember...the Civil Union would not be a license implying or authorizing sex.

Marriage would be an entity reserved for religions. If a religion wanted to marry two gay men or lesbians, that is their deal.

how is it so many are supporting this option(one i had had for several years myself) yet we still have this problem and there isnt a massive movement in this country to get the government the HELL out of marriage?

[Emphasis added] Exactly. And it really is the simplest and most elegant solution to the problem of rights.

 

[xotoxi]

In order to take advantage of the tax code, inheritance, health insurance benefits, etc. Do proponents of gay marriage also support the "right" of straight people, who may not even live in the same state or even know each other well, to marry each other specifically to avail themselves of the incidents of marriage?

I do.

I would not call it marriage. All state sanctioned unifications between two adults would be called a Civil Union. It would be a contract which would entitle the two individuals shared benefits regarding taxes, property ownership, inheritance, and decision making.

Civil Unions would have NO implication of sex or sexuality within this relationship, as the state should not be in the business of licensing sexual relationships.

A Civil Union would be between a man and a woman, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, an adult child and a parent, etc.

Remember...the Civil Union would not be a license implying or authorizing sex.

Marriage would be an entity reserved for religions. If a religion wanted to marry two gay men or lesbians, that is their deal.

how is it so many are supporting this option(one i had had for several years myself) yet we still have this problem and there isnt a massive movement in this country to get the government the HELL out of marriage?

I don't know.

Probably because it is conceptually easier for people to understand that gays will be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state, rather than saying that states will no longer recognize marriage between a man and a woman.

Think of the uproar with that! The same people who are arguing that marriage is not a right, would suddenly complain that their rights are being taken away.

 

[DiveCon]

I do.

I would not call it marriage. All state sanctioned unifications between two adults would be called a Civil Union. It would be a contract which would entitle the two individuals shared benefits regarding taxes, property ownership, inheritance, and decision making.

Civil Unions would have NO implication of sex or sexuality within this relationship, as the state should not be in the business of licensing sexual relationships.

A Civil Union would be between a man and a woman, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, an adult child and a parent, etc.

Remember...the Civil Union would not be a license implying or authorizing sex.

Marriage would be an entity reserved for religions. If a religion wanted to marry two gay men or lesbians, that is their deal.

how is it so many are supporting this option(one i had had for several years myself) yet we still have this problem and there isnt a massive movement in this country to get the government the HELL out of marriage?

I don't know.

Probably because it is conceptually easier for people to understand that gays will be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state, rather than saying that states will no longer recognize marriage between a man and a woman.

Think of the uproar with that! The same people who are arguing that marriage is not a right, would suddenly complain that their rights are being taken away.

well, i think it was Loving V the State of Virginia that set the precedent that Marriage was a right, did it not?

 

[xotoxi]

how is it so many are supporting this option(one i had had for several years myself) yet we still have this problem and there isnt a massive movement in this country to get the government the HELL out of marriage?

I don't know.

Probably because it is conceptually easier for people to understand that gays will be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state, rather than saying that states will no longer recognize marriage between a man and a woman.

Think of the uproar with that! The same people who are arguing that marriage is not a right, would suddenly complain that their rights are being taken away.

well, i think it was Loving V the State of Virginia that set the precedent that Marriage was a right, did it not?

I don't know.