quote:

Originally posted by funnymech:
Who would want to marry more than one person?

This. One is more than enough!

Ahh, yes. Where life is one big fish story. The race to create the biggest whopper out of reality. Once EBT and "guaranteed minimum income" exceed 2x McDonald's wages, their world will be perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by Slippery Pete:
Me and my non gay friend could theoretically apply for the same status even though we aren't "married." And I can't explain the depth of what the benefits might be. Taxes, medical, etc.

I don't think this argument holds any water.

A man and woman who have no romantic or sexual involvement could go down to the courthouse and get married for the benefits.

Stop giving MA and CA all the credit. You're not giving cities like Seattle or Portland a fair shake here !!

quote:

Are we for smaller government, or not? Because this sounds like a fantastic opportunity to divorce government from marriage altogether.

I'm not married but have been with the same woman for 19 years. We may have to do things a bit differently, but to the best of my experience I have yet to encounter a single "benefit" that a married couple has that we do not.

I was against "gay marriage" for the same reason. It wasn't because I have a problem with gays and their relationships. It was because I believe none of this is any business of the government. Their further arguments of "benefits" also held no water with me based on my real life experience, and their failure to also support polygamists, incestuals, and those who wished to marry trees showed that it wasn't really about "equality".

New laws don't appear to be much different than new security. For every new "improvement" which is made, new avenues are created to manipulate them to the advantage of those who would wish to do so. Think of all of the tax advantages, especially as it relates to estates and inheritance. Nothing will change a government's attitude towards a subject more than cash flow (or lack thereof).

I got enough problems with 1 wife. 2 wives would likely be quadruple the problems. It's exponential...

quote:

Think of all of the tax advantages, especially as it relates to estates and inheritance. Nothing will change a government's attitude towards a subject more than cash flow (or lack thereof).

Bingo.

For the record, I'm married and file a joint tax return. This is mostly for convenience not for any tax savings, although there may or may not be some. I don't know; I haven't run the program both joint and filing separate. I don't seek or expect different tax treatment because I'm married.

For me, marriage is defined by my church. It's a sacrament. The government has no business defining what my marriage is.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Honestly, who gives a shit anymore?

I work at a small company. We offer health insurance for our employees and their families. When people start showing up saying they want to add their eight wives and thirty-five children to the plan, the plan will no longer be affordable. What will happen is we will drop coverage for families.

Suddenly I give a shit about this because it will affect many more than just those living in the big love.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Honestly, who gives a shit anymore?

I work at a small company. We offer health insurance for our employees and their families. When people start showing up saying they want to add their eight wives and thirty-five children to the plan, the plan will no longer be affordable. What will happen is we will drop coverage for families.

Suddenly I give a shit about this because it will affect many more than just those living in the big love.

That was exactly the point I was going to bring up, especially because that was the purported reason for the policy change.

quote:

A man and woman who have no romantic or sexual involvement could go down to the courthouse and get married for the benefits.

I'd venture there are millions of these arrangements going on, everyday, they may not have started out that way but that's where they are today.....

Otherwise, hookers would be out of business...

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by Slippery Pete:
Me and my non gay friend could theoretically apply for the same status even though we aren't "married." And I can't explain the depth of what the benefits might be. Taxes, medical, etc.

I don't think this argument holds any water.

A man and woman who have no romantic or sexual involvement could go down to the courthouse and get married for the benefits.

I hear you. Back then I think the guy telling me this was saying it's always been between a man and woman. And opening it up to same sex, allows virtually everyone the benefits that had historically been reserved.

Honestly this is not something I've thought all the way through or know all the angles. Just recalling part of what was explained to me back then.

Far as I'm concerned, "Marry" whatever you want but in the eyes of the law I'm not sure we should be going down this road.

And dam right who the hell would want 2 wives? Drive you straight to crazy.

Expecting multiple domestic partners to get health and other benefits will put this into the courts. What is to stop one person who has "good" benefits (from employer or government) from signing "partnership agreements" with everyone that lives in the same apartment building (for example) and then providing them all with said benefits, for a price that is much lower than they could get on their own?

This was a primary reason for opposing gay marriage by the government and businesses in the past - more people added to their benefit systems, increasing cost. Once things got to the point that businesses would extend benefits to domestic partners of any sex (because they need to be competitive in the market for employees and due to pressure from activists), it became irrelevant to cost. But that was only one domestic partner. I would think with gay marriage being legal, many companies would return to restricting benefits to just spouses.

Anyway, the answer to this problem will be - "if we had universal government healthcare they wouldn't need to do this". Hmmmm, remember the rules for radicals and the tactic to "overwhelm the system". Here we go...

I do not see this becoming a huge problem for the health insurance industry.