Assuming same sex marriages are legal

One thing I’ve never heard anyone address, must the couple be homosexual?

What I mean is, what if 2 people are not homosexual but want to take advantage of tax breaks, shared insurance or some of the other benefits of marriage but have no desire to be married in the traditional sense? For example a couple of older women who want the advantages of marriage but have no man in mind, or a couple of men who have no desire for a long-term relationship with a woman but would like to get the income tax breaks from marriage.

So how bout it, if same sex marriage is recognized as legal, must the marriage partners be homosexual? I suppose that a detailed ‘pre-nup’ might be in order but that’s just bean counting.

And this would be different than a man and woman who are only interested in the tax breaks doing that now in what way? If you’re trying to warn of fraud, then there’s already that risk.

Personally I don’t think that you’ll see “gay marriage” legalized nationwide UNTIL you make Domestic Partner registration legal for straights as well. As Heinlein’s LAZARUS LONG stated,

ever appeal to a man’s “better nature”. He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.

Gay marriage activists have yet to appeal to the self-interest of conservative and middle-of-the-road America. However, if you

1- stop calling it Marriage (which has too many religious connotations and isn’t really what is wanted anyway- gays can “marry” in any church that will let them, it’s the civil union they want)
2- redefine it in a way that can be utilized by qualified straight people (such as a couple living together that doesn’t want to marry, or a single father who wants to make his adult son his legal next of kin so that he will be eligible for health insurance) and that will further downplay the word “marriage”

I can guarantee it will get farther.

Wheel: How do you propose we prove that we’re gay? When hetereos apply for a marriage license, does anyone expect them to prove their sexual orientation? There have been many, many gay people in straight marriages, and nobody has objected; why shouldn’t it work the other way?

What we want is for **any **two consenting adults to have the right to join in marriage regardless of their gender or orientation.

Sampiro: When heteros have a civil union without a religious ceremony, it’s still called a “marriage” That’s what we want.

For that matter, it’s no different than someone who is gay getting married to a person of the opposite sex in order to “stay in the closet”.

Or people who marry to get their green cards or whatever.

So are anti-gay-marriage people going to say that the marriage must be consummated sexually (in order to weed out the straw-man issue of platonic same-sex marriage)?

How many times is the minimum? 'Cause as a married straight guy, I think I can get behind any referendum that legislates a greater frequency of such consummation. :smiley:

Sampiro, why should gays have to “downplay” the nature of the bond between them? By trivializing the sanctity of marriage with respect to gay people, wouldn’t they be playing right into the hands of the right-wingers? I can’t think of a single reason (that doesn’t involve looking in a 2,000 year old book) that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have exactly the same kind of marriage that heterosexual people have.

Blacks might have had an easier time of it if they had accepted segregation, and merely pushed for having their seperate facilities upgraded, but I believe that sometimes there is a larger moral principle at stake.

What’s needed is for people to let go of their prejudice. Unfortunately, that often takes time.

Income tax breaks from marriage?

Out of curiosity, I did my taxes as if married with double my current income. The difference was quite substantial with the married couple paying much more than twice the tax as single me.

There is a marriage tax, not a marriage tax break.

If that were always the case, nobody would ever file joint returns.

To be a valid comparison, shouldn’t you use the same amount of income, not double? It stands to reason that you would pay more tax if you double the amount of income, no matter what your filing status.

There’s a marriage tax penalty assuming both partners work and make about the same amount of money. However, if the couple has only one income, or one partner makes a lot more money than the other, they’ll pay less taxes by being married.

It already is - it’s called civil (as opposed to religious) marriage.

Fine - as long as a heterosexual couple who goes straight to the justice of the peace and skips a church ceremony has EXACTLY the same term applied to their union. If two gays who get hitched at the county courthouse aren’t married, then two straights who get hitched at the courthouse aren’t married either.

Unfortunately, I think that while that idea makes a great deal of sense, it’s an uphill battle. The term “marriage” for such unions is simply too entrenched.

Whoa! What do you mean by the phrase “doesn’t want to marry”? If a couple living together doesn’t want a religious ceremony, they already have the option of a purely civil union available. But if they don’t want a legally recognised union at all, why should they receive any of the benefits that go with such a union? Seems to me those benefits should be limited to couples who are also willing to take on the responsibilities and obligations inherent in a legal union.

Haven’t though through all the implications of that idea, but have no inherent objections to it. Although I question whether it’s necessary in such cases - marriage/civil union/whatever you want to call it is about formally making a non-related adult your legal kin. I suspect when the person in question is already a blood relative, a power of attourney or similar legal document is all that’s required to make the person the official next of kin, no need for the whole marriage/civil union business.

Much though I wish I could believe you, I think you’re wrong. I think religious bigotry plays a much larger role in most people’s objections to ‘gay marriage’ than they wish to admit, and they’ll object just as loudly if we call it a ‘civil union’ or a ‘domestic partnership’. It’s the whole IDEA of allowing ‘those people’ to live together openly and equally that bothers many people.

I wouldn’t mind having my marriage referred to as a ‘union’. I’ll make a deal with you; if you accept a ‘civil union’, with all the legal rights and responsibilities of a ‘marriage’, I will renew my vows in a ‘civil union’ ceremony with my opposite-gender spouse in support of the validity of such ‘unions’.

Frankly, I think single gender sexless partenerships are a fine idea (for heterosexuals, that is); I’m thinking of older people who don’t want to live alone, but don’t really want to get remarried, but don’t want to worry about a home getting sold out from under the survivor …

Agreed. More than that it takes legislation. “Gay marriage” isn’t going to pass the House. Sad but true. Pragmatic compromise that would make legislation beneficial to non-gays will.

Am I making any sense or am I suffering from my digital tourettes WOOF WOOF WOOF SALLY STRUTHERS RIBBIT again?

Well, call it whatever you like, but it should be the same for straights and gays, IMO. You shouldn’t have to create a new type of relationship that’s somehow less than a marriage. If you do that, you’re saying that your gay relationship is not as strong a bond as a heterosexual relationship. Sometimes principle is more important than pragmatism. Besides which, if legislators are against gay marriage, they aren’t going to vote for it just because you changed the name.


Look, I don’t really care about what name it’s given; I was responding more to your second point:

2- redefine it in a way that can be utilized by qualified straight people (such as a couple living together that doesn’t want to marry, or a single father who wants to make his adult son his legal next of kin so that he will be eligible for health insurance) and that will further downplay the word "marriage"

It just sounds like you’re suggesting the creation of a new type of “marriage” that’s the equivalent of a platonic relationship, and telling gay people "you can have this, but you can’t have a real marriage. To me it just plays into the hands of people who wrongly believe that gay people are incapable of having a committed relationship.

Ugh! Pet peeve: People who think they can automatically discount an analogy by implying it is trite. If you believe my analogy was inapt, then explain why; smart-ass comments don’t cut it.

You make sense, but I happen to disagree. Is that a problem for you?