Posted on 07/27/2006 12:18:29 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
When you marry for money, you earn every cent....
Also, if this isn't satire...what kind of idiot exposes her own scheme? I still feel that it may be satiritcal, to promote her new "comedy about pensions".
If any of this is incorrect, I heartily welcome correction. Come one, come all to verify or refute. (Anecdotes are OK, but statistics weigh more as evidence.)
Those are my sentiments exactly.
Too many of us have gone from having hearts full of gratitude for the rich blessings we receive, to demanding a free lunch because we are nice people with good intentions and therefore the world owes us.
It's very striking.
My personal experience, along with those of everyone else I know, could all be anomalies, but I'm very skeptical of these "studies" that are usually promoted by groups with an anti-gay agenda. I should just learn to avoid this topic on FR...it's just a very personal issue for me as I have many gay friends and family, all of whom I think are good people and deserve respect.
However, since you're not claiming anything TOO rediculous, as I have seen on many other threads, I am open to discussion. Regarding point #3, I don't think anyone would dispute that - that's the whole point of a civil union, that a gay couple should be treated like a straight couple. This thread is about people marrying people they're not really in a relationship with as a scam.
Regarding point #1 - First of all, I am curious of your source, but I have my own reasoning why it may be lower in Massachusettes. Since as soon as the MA Supreme Court made that ruling, there have been several efforts on the state and federal level to thwart gay marriage in MA, so people don't necessarily want to get a marriage license only for it to be void soonafter. As for the Netherlands...who knows. Could be a cultural thing - what's the marriage rate of straight people there?
Point #2 - Again, I'm skeptical, but let's assume it's correct. First of all, we don't have the numbers for straight people, so there's no basis for comparison. The number of straight men who cheat on their wives is also probably disturbingly high. Another factor is that I'm sure there's a few sex fiends out there who are really dragging up the average; the median is likely much lower than the mean (I'm guessing - if anyone has numbers, I welcome them to post a link). Finally, the question arises as to whether its relevant or not. If two people (gay or straight) live together, share a home and other assets, have kids together, etc. that to me would qualify as a domestic partership. The fidelity of the people in the relationship isn't really relevant.
Just my two cents.
I'm going to wait for other people to respond. Like I said, I'm pressed for time right now.
One thought: If you're for civil unions etc., why is there any reason they should share a home? Why should they be having sex? Why should it be just two?
save
They don't HAVE to share a home - depending on the conditions in the civil union (which could basically be treated like any other legal contract), they don't necessarily even have to merge all their assets - it's just likely that if they're a "married" couple that they will. I certainly never said they had to be having sex, so I don't know where that assumption came from. As for just being two, any number of individuals can enter a property-sharing arrangement, but obviously no company would extend benefits to more than one other person.
No, truly you didn't say that. Forgive me: I didn't intend to misconstrue you; I was referring to gay activists and their various rationales for civil union. It's never explained why e.g. I can't have a civil union with my son. We love each other! Don't we deserve some benefits?
Sorry if this argument is kinda choppy. I don't have time. (Maybe I should abstain from the keyboard in that case, eh?) Bye for now.
The reason that the "benefits" of marriage are (and should be) limited to hetersexual couples is that children are the natural product of such unions.
There is no denying that stable two-parent households biologically related to the chilren living in them provide the healthiest most normative environment for the least social cost.
That is the only reason the state has an interest in subsidizing hetero marriage. From a purely functional utilitarian point of view, there is no state interest or social gain in subsidizing (through various "benefits") other types of unions that will NOT produce new citizens at anything like the rate and cost ratio that traditional marriage does.
Anything else is nothing less than social re-engineering on a scale that Libertarians should find to be anathema.
If this scam was eminently profitable, you'd see numerous May to December marriages...which you don't.
As a Gen-X'r, this just makes me want to vomit. Not only do socialist not really contribute much of anything, they have to 'pass on' that spirit of 'screw you, here's to me' to somebody in their 20's so that we can support that waste of cell growth for the rest of their life.
I hope this is a joke, and if it isn't, then its a loophole in need of shutting.
Because all hetero unions have the natural potential for children. Sorting/grading unions for reproductive cability would be cost prohibitive. Blanket recognition is cheap and easy.
The state does "subsidize" hetero marriage through any number of benefits extended to married persons only, otherwise gays really truly would not be interested in it. Claims to the contrary are blowing smoke. Follow the money.
To the extent that the state has harmed marriage (no fault divorce, repealed adultery laws) society has hugely increased costs both as a group (taxes for welfare) and as individuals (mostly men paying child support).
Like all the other "social fairness" fads of liberals, gay marriage will just increase taxes to pay for the social disfunctions that result from their addled thought processes.
Garson is talking about 50-ish boomers who were Flower Child drop-outs or eco-peace-type volunteer activists all their lives who now could marry into the Geriatric Left and collect SS. Also useful: certain private pensions and insurance plans benefitting widows.
In this class of people--- sure it happens.
A left=wing woman a little older than me( I'm 54) who did organizing and agitating for United Farm Workers and anti-nuke and stuff like that, with odd jobs and off-the-books income, mostly, all her life, is the one who clued my attention to this article to begin with. She's been involved with several basically fraudulent marriages before, to help people with immigration and parole; this will be a situation in which she will be the beneficiary, for once, she says.
But as I've pointed out, there are ways that homosexual parents can have children. I agree we shouldn't sort - I think the state should be staying out altogether.
I still don't understand what you mean by "subsidize". What state benefits are there for married couples? Private companies often offer benefits to a worker's spouse, but now a lot of them are changing their policies to include homosexual couples - this does not involve the state.
Why are you cynical to think that gay people only marry for the supposed benefits? Is that the only reason straight people marry?
Yes, and damn the state for not getting MORE involved in our personal lives. How dare they not dictate the rules of personal relationships!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.