Response to Arcanus - "Do Homosexuals have equal rights"

[Demonaura]

It's a contract - meaning that you gain some things, and you lose some things. You can have property tax benefits, but you lose the ability of having sex with another person for the rest of your life, as this would be a breach of contract in most cases. This is one example. It's not a lottery, it's a give and take situation.

I very much doubt people "lose the ability" to have sex with another person, as a lot of people do go on to have affairs, etc.

Yes, but this would be a breach of contract. I'm not talking about losing physical abilities, I meant losing the ability for you to have sex with others and not incur legal penalties. Also note I said "in most cases". I know about open marriages and accounted for them.

In any case, there are such things as open marriages, which are perfectly legal. Nobody has yet presented one valid reason why a couple who decide to get married should gain any rights over a couple who do not get married.

I wasn't advocating anyone should gain rights as a result of marriage. I said that since they enter a contract, they have benefits, as well as risks. Much like paying a cell phone under contractual obligation, you have restrictions. Having extra rights is not my argument.

The only right I was advocating at all was the right for gays TO get married.

---

Again, I've yet to hear why being a couple means you should be given anything, what makes married people special?

Did you not read my first paragraph?

"A marriage is a legally binding contract. It can have religious and social roots, but in the eyes of the law, that's all it boils down to. If you engage in such a contract, you are entitled to benefits. If you breach this contract, you can be fined/reprimanded. "

It's a contract - meaning that you gain some things, and you lose some things. You can have property tax benefits, but you lose the ability of having sex with another person for the rest of your life, as this would be a breach of contract in most cases. This is one example. It's not a lottery, it's a give and take situation.

Since when is the government supposed to be in the business of setting up trades like: screw less women, pay less taxes?

None of their business.

It has nothing to do with screwing women.

The contract of marriage is a legally binding one, it's not setting up a trade, it's establishing a household as one legal entity. It's easier to file one tax return than it is to file two, cutting administrative costs. The incentive for doing so can be (not necessarily) reflected on the couple's taxes. The same way a single mother can claim 10 dependents on her taxes and receive government aid and reduced taxes, a dual-earner household where the filing individuals are married and have a disparate income can get tax breaks.

The government doesn't ask you who you have sex with, but it does need to know if you have contractual obligations legally. Understand?

You are starting to make more sense to me and I suspect I may have been misunderstanding what you were saying.

To clarify, while I am not gay I intend on moving in with a friend of mine mostly to split the cost of rent. Neither of us have any intention of marrage and plan on taking advantage of a single household. We also have no intention of marrying each other obviously.

However, marrage or not we will fall under Commonlaw. Commonlaw basically provides the benefits of marrage to any two people who live in the same house long enough (a few months). Why is marrage nesessary in this situation? Why not simply do as we already do (At least in Canada) and allow any two people to do these things?

Also fyi there are downsides to commonlaw, if I decide that other guy is a jerk and we have been using commonlaw to merge taxes and such up until this point the results are essentially the same as a marrage divorce.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The argument about gay marriage is real and serious. Marriage is now and has always been more about property and inheritance than any other single issue. In many countries,including mine, illegitimate offspring had no rights of inheritance until recently.Primo genitor is still the the law for royal succession and inheritance of titles(IE the first legitimate male offspring).

My gay sister had a partner for seven years. The poor girl died of cancer.My sister had no rights under the law.She had no say about the funeral and NO RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE. In this country, if a person dies intestate,everything goes to the legal spouse (who is legally next of kin) by default. Marriage invalidates any pre-existing will.

Fortunately for sis they had taken steps to protect each other. The house was in joint names. Here that means if one owner dies the survivor gets the house by default unless specifically stated otherwise in a will. They had also each made a will naming the other sole beneficiary.That covered all personal possessions, bank accounts, investments and superannuation.

Same same sex marriage* remains unrecognised here .However,over the last few years OVER 200 laws in this state have been amended to give gay couples many of the same rights as hetero couples.My state, South Australia was the firsts in Australia to legalise homosexual activities between consenting adults. (1972)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Marriage is solemn contract by two people. No ritual or legal process of any kind is needed,regardless of what religious bigots and too-clever-by-half apologist sophists seem to think The laws relating to gay marriage are about LEGAL RECOGNITION of the fact, which is achieved by allowing registration of the marriage.

[tavarish]

I'm convinced most of the staff on The Aristophrenium have shit for brains.

[Autumnlicious]

I'm convinced most of the staff on The Aristophrenium have shit for brains.

Come now - everyone produces shit. It takes a very special kind of shit, however, to substitute for brains.