Originally posted by Redwolf
[B]"Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument."So far you guys don't have any decent arguments here. Most of you resort to putting forth an opinion instead of facts.
[/B]
So far you guys? So far your guys have done exactly the same. You seem to think that one website is superior to another because you posted it. As Roosevelt said, there are as many experts as there are opinions.
As for my comments about the age and openmindedness of the people on this site, it was representative of the population of this country as a whole. As you can see, those people who support gay marriage tend to say "I'm all for it" or some other one sentence response. It's the people who are so insecure and threatened, like yourself, that have the most to say.
"The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children"James G. Pawelski, MSa, Ellen C. Perrin, MDb, Jane M. Foy, MDc, Carole E. Allen, MDd, James E. Crawford, MDe, Mark Del Monte, JDf, Miriam Kaufman, MDg, Jonathan D. Klein, MDh, Karen Smithi, Sarah Springer, MDj, J. Lane Tanner, MDk and Dennis L. Vickers, MDl
Civil marriage is a legal status through which societal recognition and support are given to couples and families. It provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one's will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent only the "best guesses" of the legal community and may not withstand challenges from extended family members of the couple. Such challenges are not rare given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples.
As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections. In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status.
For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:
[list][*]legal recognition of the couple's commitment to and responsibility for one another;
[*]legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;
[*]legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents;
[*]joint or coparent adoption (in most states);
[*]second-parent adoption (in most states);
[*]foster parenting (in some states);
[*]eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;
[*]ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);
[*]protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);
[*]automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner;
[*]access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for
nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);[*]access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);
[*]ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;
[*]ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
[*]ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;
[*]recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or
nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;[*]ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
[*]ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one's partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);
[*]ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;
[*]recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child's education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;
[*]ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;
[*]access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation;
[*]ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;
[*]privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;
[*]immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
[*]protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);
[*]access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);
[*]visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;
[*]children's rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;
[*]legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;
[*]domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;
[*]automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
[*]children's right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;
[*]surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
[*]Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;
[*]exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
[*]automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
[*]access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits;
[*]ability to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and
[*]right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.[/list]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined in 2004 that allowing civil marriage for same-gender couples would have a positive effect on the federal budget. The CBO found that allowing same-gender couples to marry would increase federal income tax revenues by $400 million annually to the end of 2010, resulting largely from the "marriage penalty tax." Although Social Security payments and spending on insurance coverage for partners of federal workers would rise over time, other expenditures such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would decrease. The net result would be a savings of nearly $1 billion per year. The Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, had similar findings on the federal budget and for several state budgets.
Marriage between cousins and brothers and sisters is good for those who are of old age and sterile, and have difficulty getting to know people outside of their familyTwenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line). Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The remaining nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit first-cousin marriages without restriction.