The Black Vault

Wow!!! Awesome!!!

Next up, human-rat unions!

No, next up is why if anyone can marry anyone now, why the Morman's can not have several wives again, if it is mutual consent? Why isn't that unconstitutional to not allow that, there reliogion allowed it?

Like I said before, marriage has responsibility and limits. Now gay married couples will be responsible for each other debts, where nothing made them responsible as single couples, like catostrophic hospitial bills and taxes. Secondly, programs they qualify for as single people now, will have a new criteria as married status, and many benifits will end. Hospice, medical, other things keyed to income of a single will all change with marriage.

Be care what you wish for, sometimes it isn't that great.














:"{pppp

greeney2 wrote:No, next up is why if anyone can marry anyone now, why the Morman's can not have several wives again, if it is mutual consent? Why isn't that unconstitutional to not allow that, there reliogion allowed it?

Like I said before, marriage has responsibility and limits. Now gay married couples will be responsible for each other debts, where nothing made them responsible as single couples, like catostrophic hospitial bills and taxes. Secondly, programs they qualify for as single people now, will have a new criteria as married status, and many benifits will end. Hospice, medical, other things keyed to income of a single will all change with marriage.

Does any of that give a single good reason to disallow same-sex marriages?

A few years ago, the State of California ruled that the definition for marriage for a man to a woman, was not unconstitutional, because there were many laws in place to support civil unions, and that they were not discriminated against. If it were up to me, same sex couples/partners would not be allowed to add each other to group insurance at all. They are not financially responsible for the others debts, and should not be considered legal dependants. You have a friend that needs major surgury, so you claim he is your partner to add him on your policy and he gets the medical care. If any of us have a child over the age of dependant qualification, and needs the same surgury, too bad. I have a coworker who son nearly died as a child and required a Kidney transplant. When he was the cut off age, his insurance lapsed and they would not cover a penny for his rejection medicine, he has to take for life. That child, even past the age limit, is a true dependant of his parnets. You think thats fair? You think that is right? 2 friends concocting a fabricated relationship to defraud the insurance company, and 2 legitimate parents can't keep thier son alive without his medication that costs a fortune. They had to fight for the Kidney transplant in the first place.

I'll take that as a no.

We're not talking about fabricated relationships, people claiming to be partners for their own agenda, we're talking about marriage.
People of opposite sex get married for dubious reasons, fyi.

About the polygamy, the argument "polygamy shouldn't be legal implies same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal" just doesn't fly.

I didn't say I was in favor of either polygamy or same sex marriage, but if you are going to allow one becasue it discriminates and is unconstitutional, how can you deny the other, for the same reason. You ask what reason is there for not allowing same sex marriage, what reason would you have for not allowing polygamy, if they are all consenting adults? If the one doesn't affect me why does the other? Pretty obvious we have thrown out any religious teachings, when it comes to any laws for Constitutional rights, and that is the primary argument against either.

As far as the adding of "dependants", that definatly was one of the reasons partners formed civil unions, when the Federal law was passed allowing declared partners, to be added to group insurance coverage. And it was a scam of the system, that violated people with conventional marriages and families, who negotiated those rights as benifits with their companies. Dependants had to be legitimate, such as a spouse or lawful child. It most definatly was a primary reason for doing so, in order to get major medical treatment, for partners who were otherwise uninsured. It was one way of getting coverage without being turned down, because group medical can not put preexisting or time limits for certain things like private policies can. Coverage would be instant, with the civil unions, and you could declare your partner, just as if you were a newly married man and woman, regardless of preexisting conditions. The end result is companies further take coverage away, becasue of these laws requiring them to insure people they never intended, driving our cost of insuring legitimate families up.

greeney2 wrote:I didn't say I was in favor of either polygamy or same sex marriage, but if you are going to allow one becasue it discriminates and is unconstitutional, how can you deny the other, for the same reason. You ask what reason is there for not allowing same sex marriage, what reason would you have for not allowing polygamy, if they are all consenting adults? If the one doesn't affect me why does the other? Pretty obvious we have thrown out any religious teachings, when it comes to any laws for Constitutional rights, and that is the primary argument against either.

There is no constitutionally-founded reason to prohibit polygamy except the tenth amendment which allows states to decide. And states can decide by putting such measures on the ballot.

As far as the adding of "dependants", that definatly was one of the reasons partners formed civil unions, when the Federal law was passed allowing declared partners, to be added to group insurance coverage. And it was a scam of the system, that violated people with conventional marriages and families, who negotiated those rights as benifits with their companies. Dependants had to be legitimate, such as a spouse or lawful child. It most definatly was a primary reason for doing so, in order to get major medical treatment, for partners who were otherwise uninsured. It was one way of getting coverage without being turned down, because group medical can not put preexisting or time limits for certain things like private policies can. Coverage would be instant, with the civil unions, and you could declare your partner, just as if you were a newly married man and woman, regardless of preexisting conditions. The end result is companies further take coverage away, becasue of these laws requiring them to insure people they never intended, driving our cost of insuring legitimate families up.

Opposite sex couples can also form civil unions, right?
If it, for some reason, ended up costing A LOT of money to end slavery, should slavery not be ended, hypothetically speaking? I mean, this argument here (against same-sex marriage??) is similar to one against ending slavery because ending slavery will cost business a lot of money (wages, for example). I am of the mind that even if the cost is high, the right thing to do, at least right as far as the constitution goes, should still be done.

There is no constitutionally-founded reason to prohibit polygamy except the tenth amendment which allows states to decide. And states can decide by putting such measures on the ballot.

Exactly, states have the right to self govern in any matters not related to Federal control, and one of them is the definition of marriage within that state. The California State Constitution also allows the voters to make a State Constitutional amendment with 50% of the vote, which they did with prop 8 defining marriage. Prior to Prop 8 the issue went to the State Supreme Court and it ruled that becasue of the Civil Union laws, and the allowing of parters to be listed as dependants, allowed to live togather, and additional workplace laws protecting gays from discrimination, they were not being discriminated against. Any comparison to slavery is ridiculous, for obvious reasons the gay population is neither owned or property of others, nor are they in bondage with no human rights.

So, in the end, there is no good legal reason why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.