I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
Do people really need encouraging? It's not like there's a shortage of babies.
And many same-sex couples provide (or at least, desire to provide) the valuable service of fostering or adopting children who have no families. Why not further encourage them to do so by extending them the same legal benefits?
__________________
Jesus says we die a little death for him every day.
~ La Petite Mort, Erin McKeown
I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
Um... if one spouse dies, the other spouse inherits all of his/ her assets without incuring inheritance tax. However, if his/ her assets are willed to any children he has, it IS subject to inheritance tax. Wait - how is that about the children again???!!!
I do agree that government marriage and church marriage should be seperated, however I'm not going to accept a 'civil union' because they are useless outside of the state they are performed in! Unless we receive legal support from the federal government, the union will be null and void anywhere where it wasn't performed.
There is also a certain amount of confusion that civil unions generate. Like, there have been many an occasion where someone, like a hospital worker, has asked a gay 'unioned' man whether he is married, single, widowed or divorced. He says, "I'm in a civil union". She gives him a confused look, and ticks, 'single'. I mean, what the hell is a civil union? Most people don't recognise it. You say, "I'm married" and everyone knows what you're talking about.
To the person who suggested leaving marriage to the church, and reverting all government marriages to civil unions, I think you may be onto something. For one thing, it would keep religious folk happy. For second, since the majority of people have government marriages, the majority of people would have civil unions... so they'd know what you mean when you say 'I'm in a civil union'. Confusion = dissapears!
Actually I like this idea. One thing though - in this proposal of yours, would 'church' marriage get all the rights and tax breaks that 'government civil union' gets? So the government would still be involved in church marriage?
Last edited by God-fearing Queer; 15th July 2008 at 08:00 AM.
Do people really need encouraging? It's not like there's a shortage of babies.
And many same-sex couples provide (or at least, desire to provide) the valuable service of fostering or adopting children who have no families. Why not further encourage them to do so by extending them the same legal benefits?
It's not just having the baby, it's also about building a home and other useful assets concerning a basic people-producing unit.
When you foster or adopt children, you're not creating them; just moving them around. If you adopt children, you will be raising them, however, and therefore you receive a children's welfare check.
Um... if one spouse dies, the other spouse inherits all of his/ her assets without incuring inheritance tax. However, if his/ her assets are willed to any children he has, it IS subject to inheritance tax. Wait - how is that about the children again???!!!
You misunderstand. Inheritance has nothing to do with people-production.
Marriage is not just about people production; God, when he created Man, had two choices. Make man asexually reproduce, or make him need a partner. When God made Eve, He said, "It is not good that man should be alone." Marriage was made for companionship and unity, children are an OUTCOME of marriage, not the PURPOSE of it.
From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.
It is the society that sets the law, and the society that pays the bill.
If your priests and churches and gods want to start giving out benefits to all religious or non-religious inter-personal associations regardless of their function then they are welcome to do so with their own resources.
One thing though - in this proposal of yours, would 'church' marriage get all the rights and tax breaks that 'government civil union' gets? So the government would still be involved in church marriage? 
Linear Mode
