San Francisco Logic- same sex marriage

[mayfly]

San Francisco Logic.... ( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco ) "Next." "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license." "Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones." "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance." "Yes, we're brothers." "Brothers? You can't get married." "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?" "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!" "Incest?" No, we are not gay." "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?" "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects." "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman." "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim." "And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next." "Hi. We are here to get married." "Names?" "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wants to marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other." "But there are four of you!" "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples." "So you're discriminating against bisexuals!" "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples." "Since when are you standing on tradition?" "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!" "All right, all right. Next." "Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names" "David Deets." "And the other person?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return." "That does it! I quit!!

[stking]

Ya, I think that is part of the problem, once you start, where do you draw the line?

I heard a story on the radio that is similar to this. A woman worked at a company where same-sex partners got benefits such as medical coverage, etc. This woman lived with her mother and shared the household expenses with her mother and was planning to do so the rest of her mother's life but could not get the same benefits her gay and lesbian co-workers were. It makes no sense!!

[Pipanella]

Originally Posted by stking

Ya, I think that is part of the problem, once you start, where do you draw the line?

I heard a story on the radio that is similar to this. A woman worked at a company where same-sex partners got benefits such as medical coverage, etc. This woman lived with her mother and shared the household expenses with her mother and was planning to do so the rest of her mother's life but could not get the same benefits her gay and lesbian co-workers were. It makes no sense!!

Ooooh, I never thought of a situation like that. Yeah, where DO you draw the line?

[Twinplets]

Originally Posted by stking

I heard a story on the radio that is similar to this. A woman worked at a company where same-sex partners got benefits such as medical coverage, etc. This woman lived with her mother and shared the household expenses with her mother and was planning to do so the rest of her mother's life but could not get the same benefits her gay and lesbian co-workers were. It makes no sense!!

At least if it's her mother, if one of them were in the hospital, seriously ill, the other would be allowed to visit, to help make medical decisions, etc. But as I understand it, a same-sex couple could only do this if they had the correct medical proxy forms written up.

[luvmetender]

Here's another scenario: You live with a same sex roommate (hetero) and one of you has no health insurance but the other has company paid health insurance. I can imagine some in that situation taking advantage of same sex marriage to get the insurance benefits.

[chippers21]

Yes. Pretty soon we will be "marrying" roommates so that they can get all the benefits of a couple. Why not?

[monkee]

Originally Posted by Twinplets

At least if it's her mother, if one of them were in the hospital, seriously ill, the other would be allowed to visit, to help make medical decisions, etc. But as I understand it, a same-sex couple could only do this if they had the correct medical proxy forms written up.

That's true, but that's what these forms are for. Same with a power of attorney, living wills, and wills. If a same-sex couple knows this, why wouldn't they do all the paperwork "just in case"? Just to prove a point?

[mcshelll]

Wills and other provisions, have been overturned in court when family memebers challenge them. Also family memebers are often the ones to insist that same sex partners not be allowed in hospital rooms etc.
Yes some people MAY take advatage of this, but some poeple will take advantage of ANY situation. Different sex people can marryjust for insurance now, but how often does that happen? I suspect not very often. If people marry just for insurance, they will have to divorce later to really marry someone they fall in love with.Who wants to explain to their kids they were married before, but just for the insurance benefits???
BTW co-habitating partners of different sexes, can sometimes get insruance converage(depends on the comapny they work for and what insurance company they have), just not same sex couples. Do people take unfair advantage of that? I do not hear of abuse of that. Those people are allowed to marry (different sexes living together) but they choose not to for some reason. yet they are allowed some of the benefits as if they had married. How fair is that, just because they are a man and a woman?

[monkee]

Originally Posted by mcshelll

Wills and other provisions, have been overturned in court when family memebers challenge them. Also family memebers are often the ones to insist that same sex partners not be allowed in hospital rooms etc.

I can only speak for Pennsylvania, but no one has the right to challenge provisions in a will unless you are married and don't leave anything to your spouse. Children do not have a "right" to inherit over anyone else. As for family members not letting partners in the hospital room, personally if my family was likely to act that way, they would be barred from my room and that would be in writing.

[mcshelll]

Laws vary by state. In Lousiana, you are not allowed to disinherit children.When my mother died, all of us kids had to sign to allow our Stepfather to sell her car, their house, etc.
Families have challenged same sex partner wills. Sometimes it is just plain greed, sometimes it is that they do not accept the same sex spouse. Even if they lose, many battles are fought over this and it brings heartache to many.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by mcshelll

Laws vary by state. In Lousiana, you are not allowed to disinherit children.When my mother died, all of us kids had to sign to allow our Stepfather to sell her car, their house, etc.
Families have challenged same sex partner wills. Sometimes it is just plain greed, sometimes it is that they do not accept the same sex spouse. Even if they lose, many battles are fought over this and it brings heartache to many.

Then maybe it's these laws that need to change? As I said I can only speak for PA, but I know that you can also have the deed to your property put into joint names with "right of survivorship" which means if you die, your half goes to the other person on the deed, not to your heirs. It would be helpful if all states had the same kinds of laws so people wouldn't have to worry about these issues if they move from state to state.

[Rockabillie]

LOL. Funny that you think this is logical. Why allowing 2 unrelated adults would lead to sanctioning 3-somes and incest.

Just a scare tactic.

I gotta say, as often as conservatives are bringing up 3-somes and incest, I gotta wonder why they're so obsessed. "me thinks she doth protest too much"
Why are they SO obsessed with it, keep mentioning it, bringing it up? Some kind of excuse to rent porno videos and 'research the issue'? LOL

Move on to something realistic and substantive, not just the titalating and vouyeristic.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

LOL. Funny that you think this is logical. Why allowing 2 unrelated adults would lead to sanctioning 3-somes and incest.

Just a scare tactic.

I gotta say, as often as conservatives are bringing up 3-somes and incest, I gotta wonder why they're so obsessed. "me thinks she doth protest too much"
Why are they SO obsessed with it, keep mentioning it, bringing it up? Some kind of excuse to rent porno videos and 'research the issue'? LOL

Move on to something realistic and substantive, not just the titalating and vouyeristic.

Why is it so illogical to you? These relationships exist right now, today. It's the idea that changing the definition of marriage to suit a "minority" group's lifestyle could, logically lead to changing it to suit another "minority" group's lifestyle. Why are gays entitled to more rights than bigamists?

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

LOL. Funny that you think this is logical. Why allowing 2 unrelated adults would lead to sanctioning 3-somes and incest.

Just a scare tactic.

I gotta say, as often as conservatives are bringing up 3-somes and incest, I gotta wonder why they're so obsessed. "me thinks she doth protest too much"
Why are they SO obsessed with it, keep mentioning it, bringing it up? Some kind of excuse to rent porno videos and 'research the issue'? LOL

Move on to something realistic and substantive, not just the titalating and vouyeristic.

Speaking of logic, ever heard of Argumentum ad Hominem? Perhaps you may want to stick to the subject at hand instead of hurling personal insults...

[twonky]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

LOL. Funny that you think this is logical. Why allowing 2 unrelated adults would lead to sanctioning 3-somes and incest.

Just a scare tactic.

I gotta say, as often as conservatives are bringing up 3-somes and incest, I gotta wonder why they're so obsessed. "me thinks she doth protest too much"
Why are they SO obsessed with it, keep mentioning it, bringing it up? Some kind of excuse to rent porno videos and 'research the issue'? LOL

Move on to something realistic and substantive, not just the titalating and vouyeristic.

It's pretty funny when an obvious point just flies over someones head.

Let's make it easy here.

Why do you think it's wrong for 2 related men to get married?

They can't have children for obvious reasons, so the genetic makeup can't be an issue. Because they are related? What about being related makes it 'wrong?' Why should we deny them rights just because they are related? Are you for denying rights to these types of couples? Why and where do YOU draw the line?

These are the arguments you have to answer. Simply crying 'foul' and ignoring it doesn't further your point or lead to a healthy debate.