<p>[ul]joint parenting;
[<em>] joint adoption;
[</em>] joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
[<em>] status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
[</em>] joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
[<em>] dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
[</em>] immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
[<em>] inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
[</em>] joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
[<em>] inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
[</em>] spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
[<em>] joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
[</em>] bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
[<em>] decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
[</em>] crime victims’ recovery benefits;
[<em>] loss of consortium tort benefits;
[</em>] domestic violence protection orders;
[li] judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; [/ul]</p>[/li]
<p>You’re not funding anyone’s “privileges” in marriage.</p>
<p>I see the arguments against gay marriage as such
"It goes against (insert religion)- religion should not determine our laws
“Gay couples cannot have children” - neither can infertile couples, will you stop them?
“It goes against tradition” - if tradition dictated our laws we’d still have slavery and women would be in the kitchen!
“Gay couples raise gay children” - first of all, prove it. Second of all, who cares?</p>
<p>I argue that gay marriage is simply expensive–in the form of reduced tax brackets from joint filings (assuming one works–otherwise they would file separately anyways). So is providing insurance to all that can’t afford it. So is providing social welfare.</p>
<p>There’s a limited budget, and I don’t know if allowing gay marriage should be a higher priority than other initiatives that will undoubtedly not go through as our budget crisis gets worse.</p>
<p>Especially since allowing gay marriage starts a necessary trickle effect: legalizing polygamy will be the next natural step.</p>
<p>I’ve removed several posts due to flaming, profanity and explicit discussion of sex acts, all of which violate College Confidential’s terms of service. It’s fine to disagree with other posters, but don’t insult people whom you disagree with. Confine your comments to posters’ ideas, not their characters. </p>
<p>Further TOS violations may result in the closure of this thread.</p>
<p>I don’t have time to address everything, so I’ll just stick with one point for now:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The catch here is that “nature” doesn’t always say that homosexuality is “dead wrong.” I can understand the argument that male and female sex organs were made for each other, but gay animals occur in nature all the time. Case in point: I work at a pet store. We have two lovebirds who live as a mated pair. Both are female - we jokingly call them our “lesbian lovebirds.” They produce (unfertilized) eggs and incubate them, which are the definitive signs of being a mated pair. Just one example of an instance where homosexuality is, in fact, “natural.”</p>
<p>That’s childish. Other human beings shouldn’t be allowed full insurance with no deductibles when they can’t afford it themselves just because it would be an inconvenience to you?</p>
<p>I would love to do it all. There’s only so much a federal budget, and my income, can do.</p>
<p>@justtotalk:I don’t see how it’s childish. The fact is that’s what he was saying. I honestly don’t see how much this could affect the average person, though.</p>
<p>1) If one man in the relationship makes most of the income (it would be coincidence if both earned about the same–in which case they could still not wed and file as singles just like any heterosexual couple), the newlyweds file jointly and pay less taxes</p>
<p>I should add that a counterargument is that married filing separately could actually have a reverse effect (that is, if they decide to marry even if they both earn similar income, they may actually hurt themselves). The problem is that this is now their choice: it creates a method for couples to actually minimize their income tax beyond what the government planned. It’s not technically a loophole, since it would be intentionally legalized, but it would lower federal tax revenue and alter future budget forecasts.</p>
<p>2) employment benefits – can use sick days for taking care of partner, etc., </p>
<p>^^above is for non-married; the price goes up when these benefits are extended, as they are for heterosexual couples.</p>
<p>Is this a reason not to allow gay marriage? No more than money is a reason not to allow full government-funded insurance or social welfare. But you can’t do it all–so what is more important?
I argue that social welfare trumps gay marriage, considering a gay couple can still live together and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle together.</p>
<p>The real thing that should be addressed is acceptance of gay couples so that they can be welcomed into society. Marriage would be nice; but it’s not feasible.</p>
<p>But you’re not making any sense here. So we shouldn’t let homosexuals marry because keeping them single makes them pay more taxes? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They can also use sick days for personal purposes. </p>
<p>Your points on the whole have no weight, because you haven’t shown how you are funding their marriage privileges, which was your original postulation.</p>
<p>What? When one partner earns all the money, filing jointly lowers your taxes, thereby lowering federal revenue without affecting its expenditures. </p>
<p>This deficit will be funded (assuming no bankruptcy which is even worse) by borrowing–usually from China or by issuing T-bill, yes? These bonds pay interest, and this interest is funded by our tax dollars. This leaves less money in the federal budget for other expenditures, and this cycle continues (we need to borrow more and therefore pay even more interest next year).</p>
<p>By funding gay marriage, the government is paying investors long-term interest that could have gone towards other social projects. We fund the government. So we are funding gay marriage at the expense of social projects.</p>
<p>This doesn’t even begin to skim the surface. It’s not as if our expected expenditures are going to remain constant, as I’m sure we’re all aware. We’re in a fiscal jam as it is–taxes will undoubtedly rise–and funding gay marriage only worsens the situation because projected future tax revenue assumed we wouldn’t allow gay couples to file jointly. Now that they can, we have less money.</p>
<p>well maybe we should stop giving tax breaks to couples just cause the woman has a Mrs. in front of her name? I don’t really buy the idea that it encourages production of children. Plenty of kids being had out of wedlock, especially in poor areas.</p>
<p>After reading this thread, this is my personal conclusion.</p>
<p>I do not believe because of my religious beliefs that gay marriage should be allowed.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, if the majority of people today want gay marriage and believe it is a basic right, I will not protest and accept the law as it is. I will vote against it because of my beliefs but I will not act in any way to show my displeasure if gay marriage is allowed. I will not bear any hatred towards or treat anybody differently because they are gay since they are human beings just like me.</p>
<p>So I guess I’ll say that I am not for gay marriage but if gay marriage is allowed in my state or country, I have no problem allowing that to stand if people believe that is a civil right.</p>