Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: About the Gay Marriage debate

  1. #1
    Original Founder
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    17,695
    I'm not going to take sides in this, although I do have personal feelings about the issue. I do want to say that some of the arguments on both sides just don't make sense to me.

    Today on the radio, after President Obama made his personal feelings known, an opponent of Gay Marriage said the basic reason to oppose Gay Marriage is to protect children in a Gay Marriage. My question: do you have to be married to have a child?

    Supporters of Gay Marriage say they need the protections afforded by a marriage. My question: is there another way to provide those same rights and privileges without using the word "marriage" but using another term that includes the same protections and rights and privileges?

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    29
    California, Washington, and many other states have "anything but the word marriage" civil unions which convey the same rights within the state, but do not convey those rights to other states where only "married" individuals have those rights. For instance, imagine someone gets into a car accident in another state and the disheartened parent blocks access to one's same sex partner because they expected them to marry someone of the opposite spouse. That is not an uncommon scenario.

    Ultimately the Obama statement is just show until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed, which bars the IRS and the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages. This actually leads to oddball tax situations where same sex married couples with children actually pay less in tax than opposite sex married couples with children, if both spouses make similar amounts of money. I can see the other side's point, though, on recognition of same sex marriage for private purposes. For instance, some people may not object to the government granting privileges to civil unions, but by not using the word "married" they can continue to discriminate in favor of opposite sex couples. It is definitely an interesting question, and one that will not be settled anytime soon.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •