Dumb ass social conservatives

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

>I think any guy who wants more than one wife has got to be nuts.

Amen to that. The problems don't just double - they increase exponentially.

Roger that. Even an innumerate social sciences major understands that exponent.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think any guy who wants more than one wife has got to be nuts.

Can you imagine having a dozen wives? It's a well known fact that the cycles of women living together will synchronize. That guy has got to be in a world of hurt one week a month!

I don't get it - what's wrong with one fishing/golfing/skydiving/camping week away from home each month?

seems to simplify scheduling a lot

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ManagingPrime 0]

Survivorship benefits and school grants/loans are not rights.

I'm not concerned with my personal finances so such as I'm concerned with the financial solvency of this nation. Without addressing entitlements the system, the already broken one, will be gamed. That's just a fact.

I would propose 100% equal treatment under the law of single people and married people (all the types of unions). If that makes me the bad guy so be it.

I'm comfortable in the fact that I've actually done my part to beat the streets for equal rights of the LBGT community among others. That work and other life experiences have given me the perspective that I have. There are no free rides. You don't ask for rights, you demand them. If you have to take from someone what is rightfully theirs in order to get your "rights", you are in the wrong pure and simple.

It's kind of sad that there are so many that confuse rights, privledge and entitlements.

It's just my generation and future generations that will end up cleaning up the mess created. Thanks.

[rehmwa 2]

I don't have anything to add or subtract from that - it's perfect

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>Survivorship benefits and school grants/loans are not rights.

Being able to visit a dying spouse should be.

>I would propose 100% equal treatment under the law of single people and married people

How would you deal with inherent issues like child custody? Everything in a contract? Would there be any "default" contract?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>Survivorship benefits and school grants/loans are not rights.

Being able to visit a dying spouse should be.

>I would propose 100% equal treatment under the law of single people and married people

How would you deal with inherent issues like child custody? Everything in a contract? Would there be any "default" contract?

My issue is solely with entitlements. I think gay couples should have the same rights as any other married couple.

To reiterate, because there seems to be some persistent misunderstanding: I'm not against gay marriage, I'm for it. As a student organizer LBGT rights was something I was envolved in. My brother is gay. I have ZERO shame in my position which is marriage is a right which should be available to straight and gay couples alike, however unintended consequences must be taken into consideration.

I'm not one of your dumb ass social conservatives. I've spent time cooling my heels in a jail cell fighting right alongside "liberals". I do however have a knack for illiciting the ire of liberals and conservatives alike.

[billvon 3,118]

>To reiterate, because there seems to be some persistent misunderstanding: I'm not
>against gay marriage, I'm for it.

I got that part. I was curious about your statement:

"I would propose 100% equal treatment under the law of single people and married people"

Do you mean that single people and married people should have exactly the same rights as each other? Or all single people should have the same rights of all other single people, and all married people should have the same rights as other married people? (Note that I think both can work, but the latter option has some issues due to biology.)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>To reiterate, because there seems to be some persistent misunderstanding: I'm not
>against gay marriage, I'm for it.

I got that part. I was curious about your statement:

"I would propose 100% equal treatment under the law of single people and married people"

Do you mean that single people and married people should have exactly the same rights as each other? Or all single people should have the same rights of all other single people, and all married people should have the same rights as other married people? (Note that I think both can work, but the latter option has some issues due to biology.)

Do you mean that single people and married people should have exactly the same rights as each other?

Yes.

I think I know where you are going with this, but I'll let you explain.

[billvon 3,118]

>I think I know where you are going with this, but I'll let you explain.

I don't know how it would work. How would you deal with contested custody disputes? (as one example) Would a man who had been married for ten years have the same legal right to custody as a man who had a one night stand and then disappeared for ten years?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>I think I know where you are going with this, but I'll let you explain.

I don't know how it would work. How would you deal with contested custody disputes? (as one example) Would a man who had been married for ten years have the same legal right to custody as a man who had a one night stand and then disappeared for ten years?

You went somewhere different than I thought.

In that case, no. I think the law would operate just as it does now. The judge would take consideration of all evidence presented and look to award custody to the parent who has best demonstrated that they will provide the best environment to raise the child in. Being married does not by default make someone a suitable parent.

[billvon 3,118]

>Being married does not by default make someone a suitable parent.

Definitely agreed. But it carries with it a presumption of treating two people as prospective parents, and as such is a prior declaration of that intent - which, IMO, DOES matter. It does not make a parent any better, but it does indicate their intent.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>Being married does not by default make someone a suitable parent.

Definitely agreed. But it carries with it a presumption of treating two people as prospective parents, and as such is a prior declaration of that intent - which, IMO, DOES matter. It does not make a parent any better, but it does indicate their intent.

How is this scenario relevant in the context of the current debate?

[billvon 3,118]

>How is this scenario relevant in the context of the current debate?

Your claim is that there should be no difference between single and married people when it comes to rights in legal issues like custody. Prior intent, however, does matter (IMO) - and marriage is the conventional way to declare that.

[jakee 1,595]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the disconnect here is that when you say 'equal treatment, single or couples' you are only talking about monetary issues - benefits, tax breaks etc - while Bill is taking you at face value and talking about everything else that comes with being part of a legally recognised couple such as medical decision making.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>How is this scenario relevant in the context of the current debate?

Your claim is that there should be no difference between single and married people when it comes to rights in legal issues like custody. Prior intent, however, does matter (IMO) - and marriage is the conventional way to declare that.

I don't see how it's pertinent to the discussion. Marriage is a contract. I can see where that contract establishes the prior intent you mention. But I don't see where single people could not also enter into a contract establishing intent as well.

My focus is more on survivor benefits and the like.

Example:
Person A, Person B and Person C individually pay in 100K to social security over the course of their lives. None of the persons has children.

All three persons collect SS income at the age of eligibility.

Person A is single. Persons B and C are married. Person B is married to Person C and person B dies shortly after starting to receive benefits. Person C collects their benefits and additionally collects the survivor benefits of person B.

How is it fair that Person C receives survivors benefits and their own benefits. Granted. All persons are entitled to those payments because they did in-fact pay into the system. However, Persons C and B can have part of their benefit go to a surviving spouse and person A has no ability to direct those payments after their demise since they have no surviving spouse or child. That's not fair.

Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits.

Overlooking the whole issue of fairness. Gay marriage, as proposed by some, leaves the door wide open for gaming the system.

The deck is stacked in favor of heterosexual married couples. I think gay marriage is the perfect opportunity to ensure fairness for all parties.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Understood. I don't take any issue there. Marriage is a contract and that contract addresses a number of issues, like medical decision making. I've got no issue there as there is nothing that prevents me as a single person from giving medical power of attorney. Marriage is a useful contract...I agree.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How is this scenario relevant in the context of the current debate?

just a few posts earlier you preach the risk of the unintended consequences.

I'm having a hard time figuring out your actual stance on the 'benefits.' At times it appears that you're opposing gay marriage because it will cost society more when these people marry...even though the status quo has those people subsidizing everyone else who can freely choose to do so. Complaining that gays, or simply friends, might "marry" to abuse it is a silly concern when we already have plenty of examples of this for male/female pairings. If you're worried about fraud, you deal with fraud, in any form.

It looks like Bill's also trying to get this conflicting info settled, so it's certainly relevant.

[ManagingPrime 0]

It does not sound good, but in political parlance I guess I'm saying I think its ok to hold gay marriage hostage in exchange for comprehensive entitlement reform.

Excluding entitlements I can't, off the top of my head, think of a situation where there is not a work around for domestic couples. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>I would propose 100% equal treatment under the law of single people and married people

How would you deal with inherent issues like child custody? Everything in a contract? Would there be any "default" contract?

At least in theory there is no difference in how children are treated under the law whether their parents were never married or if they are divorced.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[labrys 0]

Quote

Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference?

Owned by Remi #?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference?

That's the trillion dollar question.

Half seriously and half in jest I suggested two friends marry each other for the financial aid benefits... they did. Since they were both gay it really was the perfect marriage considering the circumstances.

I don't know if anyone watches the showtime show shameless, but last nights episode had a humorus bit about the character frank trying to take advantage of domestic partner benefits in chicago.

How much abuse will there be? I have no idea, but I do understand that there are tipping points with these things. At which point do a large percentage of people game the system because "you're a sucker if you don't"?

If a law is like a computer program, why would you write a new piece of code that's going to interact with an existing piece of code that is already known to be flawed. If you keep doing that you end up with shit software.

I think there is an elegant way to get gay marriage legislation passed that if not of benefit to all citizens, at least does no harm.

In my mind that would be if gay marriage becomes law on A date anyone not married by that date is not eligible for X, Y or Z benefits. Anyone married prior to that date is still fully vested in those benefits. Would close to 60% of americans still support gay marriage if that was the case? Maybe, I think it depends on how it's presented.

[oldwomanc6 60]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference?

That's the trillion dollar question.

Half seriously and half in jest I suggested two friends marry each other for the financial aid benefits... they did. Since they were both gay it really was the perfect marriage considering the circumstances.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fraud.

No matter which side one is on this issue, every time someone does this, it makes it more difficult for those who are on the up and up.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference?

This is getting a bit far afield of my direct knowledge and experience but my understanding is the survivor's benefits are based on the wages earned while the couple is married. Also, I believe there is a 10 year marriage requirement for survivor benefits. These are based on Social Security requirements. Private pensions can already pass to survivors (same or opposite sex) based on their own rules.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

At which point do a large percentage of people game the system because "you're a sucker if you don't"?

It may be the point at which people forget that the only legal way to terminate a marriage is divorce.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Agreed, but very difficult to prove.