Will teens, young adults embrace same-sex ‘marriage’?

BP News ^ | 3-5-04 | Michael Foust

[dayton law dude]

For example, rather than getting married to a woman... why couldn't me and another straight friend have a same-sex marriage just so we c ould save money on our taxes, meanwhile we could still be heterosexual and have relationships with women "no strings attached".

Do straight men-women do this now? Do couples get married simply for the monetary benefits of having a marriage, and in the meantime, they are free to go be as promiscuous as they please? I don't see that things like this will be any more/less likely to occur if gay marriage is allowed.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

So why not argue on the same terms? For example we could cite the likely result that companies, faced with rising health care benefit costs, will find this the straw that breaks the camel's back & deny extended benefits to worker's families. This could cost the average family thousands per year. Government & union employees will fight this, and their employers will fold. This will mean higher taxes, educational tuition costs, and utility costs.

But will it increase costs? Suppose it's a two-earner gay household. Under present set-up, they have to draw on their own separate jobs for benefits. However, if they were married, they would need the benefits from only one company. One company would save and the other would not take on only as much expense as adding a heterosexual spouse.

While the second company might have more expenses from adding the gay spouse, on the average, they would also save money from other gay spouses working for them choosing to go with the benefits from their partners' companies.

[MEGoody]

Kids who attend public school will 'accept' homo marriage much more easily, because they have been indoctrinated. That's why the NEA flips out about private schools and, in particular, home schooling. They can't indoctrinate 'em that way.

[Betaille]

"I have a friend who is married, it is his third and her second."

So because your freind has reckless habits.. that means we have to surrender the definition of Marriage? That makes little sense to me. The fact that Marriage has been in such decline over the past 30 years or so is a prime reason to be AGAINST gay marriage, not for it. The last thing we need is for marriage to be made a "Commitment between 2 people to share a household", as its proponents want it defined.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Wow! I never realized my college roomates and I were married.

Were you and your college roommates making what you planned to be a life-time commitment? That's what I mean by long-term.

[momfirst]

Just for a little historical perspective, would you read this one? I found it interesting - I was horrible in history in school....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093146/posts

[Celtjew Libertarian]

So because your freind has reckless habits.. that means we have to surrender the definition of Marriage?

When you accept easy divorce, you already have surrendered the definition of marriage. Marriage is a life-long commitment.

[MEGoody]

Society has a vested interest in marriage and family since those are the foundational building blocks of said society.

That foundation has been eroding for some time what with 'no fault' divorce and all. This just drives a great big old wedge into cracks that already exist.

[Betaille]

"Do straight men-women do this now?"

No, but again, you are assuming that a relationship between a man and a woman is equivelant to a relationship between a man and a man. If I married a woman just for tax purposes it would likely get much more complicated than that becasue of our families expectations and the fact that we would have a natural sexual attraction. If I got a same-sex marriage to a male buddy, there would be no such issues, and most people would probably think it was funny.

[biblewonk]

Will teens, young adults embrace same-sex ‘marriage’?

Not my kids. They are disgusted by such things.

[MEGoody]

"I think to a certain extent, this is a function of being close friends with a homosexual. As increased tolerance results in more people being on close (non-sexual) terms with people they know are homosexual, they are going to want homosexuals to have the benefits of a legally recognized marriage."

I would guess that your 'increased tolerance' has at least as much to do with your overall political bent than just with having been friends with a homosexual for years.

[dayton law dude]

I don't know...there are plenty of female collegues and classmates of mine who I am pretty sure that I can guarantee you that, even if I lived exclusively with them with no contact with any other females, I could not find myself being sexually attracted to them. I'd stick to the "self-gratification" method in that case.

But that is getting off topic. I think what my point in my original post was, is that I honestly do not see men defiling the (new gay-friendly) definition of marriage simply to get tax benefits. But then again, I may just be too trusting a character.

[MEGoody]

"Under present set-up, they have to draw on their own separate jobs for benefits."

Yes, as primary. However, the spouse's insurance kicks in as a secondary.

"However, if they were married, they would need the benefits from only one company."

Depends. Most spousal insurance now states that if the spouse also works and has access to health insurance through his/her employer, even if there is a charge for it, said spouse must use that insurance as a primary carrier.

When you add a 'secondary' coverage, the payouts from the insurance companies may well increase.

[Betaille]

"do not see men defiling the (new gay-friendly) definition of marriage simply to get tax benefits"
It wouldnt happen immediately, but due to the "anything goes" culture that this kind of moral dilution encourages... over time it would become socially acceptable for 2 straight men to use it for economic benefits. After what we've seen in the last 40 years, tell me honestly that you don't see that happening in the next 20?

[thoughtomator]

Too bad abortion has trimmed the ranks of these young naifs to such a degree that by the time they are able to significantly influence the system they will be majority conservative...

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Well.... I considered myself a moderate when I entered college in 1984 (if someone had answered the phone at my county Demoractic HQ when I called for registration info, I would've registered Democrat) and didn't care.

I considered myself a conservative (even considering myself pro-life for a while), when I graduated college in 1987 and didn't care.

I considered myself a Randian libertarian (save I was never Atheist) in 1990 and didn't care.

I considered myself a Republican Libertarian (I've long been rather interventionist on foreign and defense policy) in 1993, when I met my wife and her best friend... Sometime around then I started caring.

So being libertarian probably meant I was open to supporting gay marriage. But it didn't become an issue I seriously cared one way or another about, until I had a close gay friend.