Originally posted by PVS
to the children? what have those children done to earn your contempt? why do they deserve to have no healthcare? do you not have a soul?
Apparently, he only cares about the lives of unborn children. He does not care about the lives of born children, especially those being raised by same-sex couples.
"You're Gay? You Pay!" by Flavia Colgan for Philadelphia Daily NewsWE HEAR a lot about the "marriage penalty." But what about the "gay penalty"?
[There are] 1,400 benefits that same-sex couples don't have. The ones that help streamline the household economies of every heterosexual married couple in the nation.
...The financial questions raised by gay people's ineligibility for those standard benefits is where discrimination comes in. And the more I think about it, the more I think it's time to face facts.
We discriminate. We tell people who fall in love and want to build a life with someone of the same sex that they are not eligible for the 1,400 benefits that a heterosexual married couple can get in the blink of an eye. We are not only refusing same-sex partners a basic right to happiness, but we are forcing them to pay a penalty, out of their pockets, for being gay.
Call it the "gay penalty."
The cleverest same-sex partners are able, through hard work and lots of shopping, to patch together a minimal security net that protects them and their children (often those no one else wants).
They have to focus on each benefit, one at a time, come up with a strategy and often work for years to get them.
But if they were to pretend to love someone of the opposite sex, and get married by a justice of the peace in a two-minute ceremony, they would immediately be eligible for the 1,400 benefits, from joint filing for taxes to joint insurance, to annuities, pension plans, Social Security and Medicare, and status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions.
Married heterosexuals, far from paying a penalty, receive a discount for sporting their wedding rings. Single gay people who pay taxes and participate in the same network of services fundamental to every U.S. household pay more, even if they're part of a household with kids.
They pay more, and their higher payments subsidize the rest of us, from taxes to insurance.
Civil unions, if recognized from state to state, would give a same-sex couple only about 350 of the 1,400 benefits available to a married couple. Who would settle for just a quarter when everyone else gets the whole pie?
How can we argue that gay partners don't deserve the same safety net that protects every American family? How can we penalize children by withholding benefits that would make a family economy flow more smoothly?
The only argument against it is the supposedly moral one, so let's confront it head on.
Is it OK to be gay? As a society, in spite of all the noise, we're heading in the direction of saying "yes." So it's time to get real, be fair and give same-sex couples access to every benefit that every American man and wife enjoy.
"Same-Sex Marriage: For the Children" by Jennifer Rosato of Brooklyn Law School...Politicians like Governor Romney seem unaware of the fact that millions of children are being raised in same-sex households: at least one-fifth of all lesbian households already include children. And this number is likely to increase, even if same-sex marriage remains illegal. I do not hear politicians calling for gay and lesbian couples to stop creating families by enacting bans on same-sex couples’ access to assisted reproductive technology, or preventing these couples from adopting children freed from the foster care system, or taking their children from them because they are being raised in unhealthy environments.
Because these families are here to stay, the children need laws to protect them psychologically and economically. If we really care about the healthy development of children, we should permit same-sex marriage.
Gay and lesbian couples have children in many of the same ways that heterosexual couples do: through assisted reproductive technologies or through adoption. Even though these couples may lack biological ties to their children, they still are parents in every sense of the word. They feed and clothe them, they nurse them when they are sick, and participate in their activities. Yet, under existing laws, the relationship of a child with heterosexual married parents is much more stable than that of a child with gay or lesbian co-parents. A husband and wife are presumed to be the parents of the child, and it is very difficult to rebut this presumption. The idea behind these laws is to make sure that there are two people continually responsible for the child’s care until she reaches adulthood. No such presumption exists for unmarried co-parents.
The recent California case of K.M. sharply illustrates how children can be harmed by this gap in protection. K.M. and her partner E.G. raised twins until their break-up, when the twins were almost six years old. K.M. was the egg donor, and thus was genetically linked to the children; E.G. gave birth to them. When the couple broke up and K.M. sought custody, E.G. claimed that she was the one and only mother because she intended to parent the children herself from the outset, and that K.M. gave up her parental rights in writing when she donated her eggs. So far the courts have sided with E.G., ignoring the realities of the parenting relationship that K.M. had developed with the twins since their births and ignoring laws that would have allowed a father to assert rights in this situation.
If K.M. and E.G. had been married, the resolution of this case would have been simple: both would have been considered parents, with rights to custody and obligations of support. But because no presumption existed, the twins (now eight years old) may never see K.M. again. And because K.M. cannot be held responsible for them, E.G. is their sole provider. If E.G. no longer can provide for them, they will have to be supported by the state. If at some point E.G. dies, the children will be orphans. Morality aside, leaving children without a parent who wants to take responsibility for them can not be in the children’s best interests.
Although there may be other ways to protect K.M’s rights besides being married, these alternatives are not strong enough when children’s interests are at stake. Adoptions by same-sex partners are permitted, but not in all states. And there are many reasons why a co-parent might not pursue an adoption, especially when a child is very young. Because K.M. already was a mother in a number of ways, she may not have thought that she needed to adopt the children formally. Civil unions or domestic partnership statutes could provide for the children, but some of the laws being passed do not cover custody or child support issues at all.
At the end of the day, children are not really worried about whether same-sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage. Instead, they worry about who is taking care of them, and whether those parents will always be there for them. They worry about fitting in, so they may feel more normal to have married parents rather than ones that are just “unionized” or “domesticated.” And they want to avoid conflict as much as possible. So litigation should be the last resort, not the first.
Allowing same-sex couples to be married and imposing the presumption of parenthood on them is the best way to calm the children’s worries. Marriage demonstrates that the couple not only has made a commitment to each other, but also to the children they plan to raise together. The children of gay and lesbian couples deserve no less.
Has anybody not accepted the fact that people - regardless of sexual orientation - want to marry for the tax refund and not love? If anyone who is married disagrees, I want you to consider how you reacted to your tax return and how you reacted the last time your partner told you they loved you. Which were you more excited about?
Originally posted by botankus
Has anybody not accepted the fact that people - regardless of sexual orientation - want to marry for the tax refund and not love? If anyone who is married disagrees, I want you to consider how you reacted to your tax return and how you reacted the last time your partner told you they loved you. Which were you more excited about?
I have to say that I disagree. I have never gotten a joint tax return, so I couldn't possibly know what benefit there is to a joint filing. In fact, I recall my parents having to pay every year. So, unless you're joking, I'm not following.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Apparently, he only cares about the lives of unborn children. He does not care about the lives of born children, especially those being raised by same-sex couples.
I care about them all , but they should be raised in the homes of a mother and a father.
You know, like they have for society's in every country for the last 5,000 years.
Originally posted by The Omega
Nope. Same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to be married on ground of them having kids.
Simply on the grounds of it being their right. Period!
Wrong!
Marriage is ordained by God.
It was his design for a man and a woman.
Gay people don't have any "right" to usurp that.
Period!
Being that there's no proof for God existing outside of imagination, what answer do you have for this question:
Did God exist before someone decided to say he did all this stuff? Because how would we know otherwise? There's no proof, he's never been here. There's no "God Was Here 0000 BM" written on the pyramids.
-AC
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I care about them all , but they should be raised in the homes of a mother and a father.You know, like they have for society's in every country for the last 5,000 years.
Wrong!
Marriage is ordained by God.
It was his design for a man and a woman.
Gay people don't have any "right" to usurp that.
Period!
move to iran if the thought of a theocracy makes you ejaculate.
here though, your argument holds no weight.
Originally posted by The Omega
Nope. Same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to be married on ground of them having kids.
Simply on the grounds of it being their right. Period!
In the United States, marriage is NOT a right--it's a privilege, just like driving. And just like driving and any other privilege, it is conditional and can be taken away.
Originally posted by Lana
Marriage existed before Christianity.
Before Christ yes.
But remeber that the Judeo-Christian religion is more than 2,006 years old.
The first marriage ceremony, in some form that we would recognize today, would be taken from the first books of the Bible, as would the society's guidelines as for what constitues a marriage, how married couples are to live, etc...
The Bible actually goes back to the beginning of the earth, not that you believe that or anything, but the dead sea scrolls and other writings only confirm that the early scriptures were authentic, and just as old as the first societys to form order and rules.
I'm not saying that simple societys may or may not have had men and woman joined together, hunting and gathering, raising children....
But the idea of marriage as a ceremony performed to bring two people together for life, in front of witnesses, an ordained person, and even God himself.....
DOES in fact, come from the bible.
Totally off topic:
Why does the world exist in two time periods B.C- Before Christ.... and A.D. A-something Domoni- In the year of our Lord.....
If he was a fake. If God isn't real... it's awfull funny that our WHOLE HISTORY is recorded based on the life of Jesus Christ.
Food for thought.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
In the United States, marriage is NOT a right--it's a privilege, just like driving. And just like driving and any other privilege, it is conditional and can be taken away. Period!
Lies.
If it's a privilege then what measurements must be meant? If you are straight, you can get married, murderers and rapists can enjoy the right of marriage as long as they're straight. It's a right, not a privilege.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Before Christ yes.But remeber that the Judeo-Christian religion is more than 2,006 years old.
The first marriage ceremony, in some form that we would recognize today, would be taken from the first books of the Bible, as would the society's guidelines as for what constitues a marriage, how married couples are to live, etc...
The Bible actually goes back to the beginning of the earth, not that you believe that or anything, but the dead sea scrolls and other writings only confirm that the early scriptures were authentic, and just as old as the first societys to form order and rules.
I'm not saying that simple societys may or may not have had men and woman joined together, hunting and gathering, raising children....
But the idea of marriage as a ceremony performed to bring two people together for life, in front of witnesses, an ordained person, and even God himself.....
DOES in fact, come from the bible.
That's a WEDDING! Marriage can be done without any of that crap.