One question only--How would allowing gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?

[ngdawg]

Keep in mind that this is merely playing devil's advocate and that I, personally DO support same-sex marriage.

I have a theory and/or theories about why this is a sticky subject in Washington and a fervent issue with GW. It all boils down to economics.
Currently, there are 298, 947, 481 people in the US. Of these, married people number approx. 57,000,000. Married couples are entitled to: reduced health care costs, reduced income tax, spousal pension and life insurance benefits.
Now, consider that estimates state approx 10% of our population is gay. That would number 29.8 million. If the same number, percentage-wise gets married, that would be about 5 million. Those couples also would reap the benefits of reduced healthcare costs, reduced income tax, spousal pensions and life insurance benefits.
This would mean that employers of these gay people would have to pay out for their spouses, a 'perk' they have had in terms of pensions, healthcare and life insurances.
Who does our president most cater to? The hard-working? The struggling? Nope....CEO's....for example: Say old Bob dies. He's gay, no spouse. So, no pension. Old Bill dies, married, she gets his pension. Had old Bob been married to Harold, there's 2 pensions now being paid out, not one....see where this is going?
There is NO logical reasoning other than financial for big-money CEO's as to why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Does it affect a hetero marriage? Only if CEO's(and the Internal Revenue Service) change the game rules midway....
To all other questions, no, it would have NO effect on anything.

 

[Pen]

Married couples are entitled to: reduced health care costs, reduced income tax, spousal pension and life insurance benefits.
Now, consider that estimates state approx 10% of our population is gay. That would number 29.8 million. If the same number, percentage-wise gets married, that would be about 5 million. Those couples also would reap the benefits of reduced healthcare costs, reduced income tax, spousal pensions and life insurance benefits.

Good post Ng, because "who has to gain or lose" should always be asked first.

There are a couple items you mentioned that I am not sure hold true. To my knowledge, we still have the "marriage penalty" (higher taxes as a married couple v. a single couple) and it doesn't look like it's going to be changed any time soon. I suspect there is big money there.

Based upon my business's insurance, it costs more to cover a spouse than the employee. The SO would be better off economically to insure from his/her own employment.

The beneficiary for life insurance of any kind is not limited to a spouse. You may choose to leave your money to the parakeet if you wish.

Company pensions are subject to marital community status in the case of divorce. I'm not sure how this would impact anyone other than the couple involved.

I do have to question the assumption that 29.8 million homosexuals would marry, if there were recognition of civil unions. Wouldn't the same be true of a much larger number of single heterosexuals? My current experience with gay young men is that they are primarily interested in dating, rather than making a life long commitment. Older same sex couples in a committed relationship don't pose an economic hardship to anyone that is obvious to me.

The devil's advocate position actually reveals the imaginary boogie man in my opinion. Like you, I believe that same sex marriage/union is just and not a threat to anyone.

 

[FallingPianos]

Keep in mind that this is merely playing devil's advocate and that I, personally DO support same-sex marriage.

I have a theory and/or theories about why this is a sticky subject in Washington and a fervent issue with GW. It all boils down to economics.
Currently, there are 298, 947, 481 people in the US. Of these, married people number approx. 57,000,000. Married couples are entitled to: reduced health care costs, reduced income tax, spousal pension and life insurance benefits.
Now, consider that estimates state approx 10% of our population is gay. That would number 29.8 million. If the same number, percentage-wise gets married, that would be about 5 million. Those couples also would reap the benefits of reduced healthcare costs, reduced income tax, spousal pensions and life insurance benefits.
This would mean that employers of these gay people would have to pay out for their spouses, a 'perk' they have had in terms of pensions, healthcare and life insurances.
Who does our president most cater to? The hard-working? The struggling? Nope....CEO's....for example: Say old Bob dies. He's gay, no spouse. So, no pension. Old Bill dies, married, she gets his pension. Had old Bob been married to Harold, there's 2 pensions now being paid out, not one....see where this is going?
There is NO logical reasoning other than financial for big-money CEO's as to why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Does it affect a hetero marriage? Only if CEO's(and the Internal Revenue Service) change the game rules midway....
To all other questions, no, it would have NO effect on anything.

given what the governments fiscal policy tends to be, I highly doubt this.

 

[Pen]

given what the governments fiscal policy tends to be, I highly doubt this.

I'm not clear about your meaning in this statement, star. Would you clarify it for me?

 

[FallingPianos]

I'm not clear about your meaning in this statement, star. Would you clarify it for me?

I mean that the people in power dont care how much the government spends. they might use fiscal policy as an excuse to cut programs they dont like, but that is all.

 

[ngdawg]

My best friend works for the DoD and while it would seem that the government doesn't care how much it spends, I assure you there are many penny counters who failed math....they make cuts that are impossible to employ, lay off or move people around willy-nilly so that on paper, it looks like cost-cutting, question every dime, the list goes on.
To answer about the various costs that I mentioned earlier: Spouses and families are covered in many cases under discounted deductions to the employee, they are not necessarily discounted to the employer and may incure additional cost passed onto the employee, which is why sometimes it's encouraged to go separate with coverages.(ex: While it cost me $37 a month to cover only me, it was only $53 a month to cover the family, but the differences were not the same for the employer. Separate coverages would have cost $148 ($37x4 in my family))
The marriage penalty mostly applies to 'married, filing separately'. It also applies to couples not filing itemized and while two married people filing maybe would not get as much as two singles filing separately, all things being equal, the tax advantages to married couples are there.
Pensions are only payable to surviving spouses and maybe in some cases, dependent children. They are not payable to even common-law partners in many states. Social Security as well is only payable to surviving spouses and minor children.
I don't follow the ideaology that many gay people would stick to dating as a preferred lifestyle in any case any more than I think the population as a whole would, should the mentality of this country change. They've been lead to believe they have to live the single life; those that really want a stable, long-standing relationship probably just have a harder time finding someone of like mind because of some false ingrained idea.

 

[aps]

Here aps, in the sporting nature of debate I'll sterilize my responses and give it another go.

*I reject the idea that my marriage must be effected in order for me to care about this issue. That is a moral-relativism reasoning, which I do can not shear since I do not subscribe to moral-relativism.

*I do not oppose same-sex 'marriage on the basis that my marriage is in danger, but on my experiences as to what constitutes "a compelling state interest" in the metal health of it's citizens.

"Would it affect your commitment?"

The acceptance of same-sex 'marriage is society trying to tell me that mothers are irrelevant to the family. My family experiences have taught me that 1. a mother is a critical element to the family, and 2. no man can be a mother; so I can not agree with that claim.

The issue of same-sex 'marriage has helped place gender roles more clearly in my mind, and this has helped me understand where my wife is coming from and how women interact more clearly.

"Would it affect your sex life?"

Society trying to tell me that my wife is irrelevant to our children reinforces my position that she is a sacred piece of our family, and that mothers are irreplaceable, unduplicateable benefit to mankind. This attitude has inspired me to be more thoughtful and considerate toward her, which she reciprocates

"Would it affect how you feel about your spouse?"

As above.

"Would you fight more?"

As my mother in-law disagrees with me, my wife and I may experience tensions as a result of her various attitudes in this regard. That could lead to more fighting. Should the state require some kind of underlying theme in the curriculum which devalues the unique qualities of the differences in gender, Kristin and I would fight allot more. She and I would be fighting the state, that is.

"Would you communicate less?"

Perhaps.
With my working a fulltime job and attending full-time school, and with her home schooling our boys, as the challenges of countering communist/socialist propaganda increase there would likely be a greater demand for sleep from each of us. However, we are determined to make time just for each other each day.

"Would it affect your relationship with other people?"

As it does with people I meet here, yes. Some people hear that I oppose same-sex 'marriage and automatically assume that I'm some sort of holier-than-thou evangelical radical fundi who believes "god hates gays" (which is totally false, BTW).

Some people stop, listen, and are open to an exchange of ideas, even if in the end we still do not agree. Some people jump to stereo-types.

In this regard, my opinion on same-sex 'marriage is no different than my opinion on tax policy, war, abortion, education, etc. People will react how they will react. All sides of every issue have their fair share of jimmyjacks. In balance, all sides of every issue have their fair share of galenroxs too. (hay, it never hurts to kiss up to a Mod :mrgreen: )

"Would you look the other person differently?"

Oh yes, very much so. In high school I looked at my (now) wife as little more than a sex object. As I learn more about the world, of the powers and principalities at play, and watch as predictable events come to pass, I continually grow more and more respect and admiration for her every day.

"Would it increase the chances of your getting separated?"

Separation is not a matter of chance, but of choice. If anything same-sex 'marriage would be a force further bonding us together, not one that would encourage us to separate.

"Would it increase the changes of your getting divorced?"

Divorce is not a matter of chance, but of choice. The traditions of the personal value system that Kristin and I follow dissuade divorce. Divorce would only be an option of one of us became a danger to the family, and I do not see how the uniting force of "a common enemy" (ideologically, not literally) would influence either of us to become a danger.

***
I hope that run better met your guidelines, aps.
If you think of more questions please ask them. This thread is quite enjoyable.

Yawn. That's all I have to say.

 

[Gardener]

The changes in my life wrought by such a monumentous decision would be nothing less than profound. The consequences would be enormous. I mean, just think : when meeting a casual acquaintance or a stranger and informing them that I was married, I just might elicit the response "who's the lucky guy?".

I won't even get into all the repercussions were I not already married. The difficulty in paring down the list of potential life partners from three billion women down to one was bad enough, so I'd hate to think how tough it might have been with double that amount.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Jerry,

Originally Posted by Jerry
Here aps, in the sporting nature of debate I'll sterilize my responses and give it another go.

*I reject the idea that my marriage must be effected in order for me to care about this issue. That is a moral-relativism reasoning, which I do can not shear since I do not subscribe to moral-relativism.

*I do not oppose same-sex 'marriage on the basis that my marriage is in danger, but on my experiences as to what constitutes "a compelling state interest" in the metal health of it's citizens.

"Would it affect your commitment?"

The acceptance of same-sex 'marriage is society trying to tell me that mothers are irrelevant to the family. My family experiences have taught me that 1. a mother is a critical element to the family, and 2. no man can be a mother; so I can not agree with that claim.

The issue of same-sex 'marriage has helped place gender roles more clearly in my mind, and this has helped me understand where my wife is coming from and how women interact more clearly.

"Would it affect your sex life?"

Society trying to tell me that my wife is irrelevant to our children reinforces my position that she is a sacred piece of our family, and that mothers are irreplaceable, unduplicateable benefit to mankind. This attitude has inspired me to be more thoughtful and considerate toward her, which she reciprocates

"Would it affect how you feel about your spouse?"

As above.

"Would you fight more?"

As my mother in-law disagrees with me, my wife and I may experience tensions as a result of her various attitudes in this regard. That could lead to more fighting. Should the state require some kind of underlying theme in the curriculum which devalues the unique qualities of the differences in gender, Kristin and I would fight allot more. She and I would be fighting the state, that is.

"Would you communicate less?"

Perhaps.
With my working a fulltime job and attending full-time school, and with her home schooling our boys, as the challenges of countering communist/socialist propaganda increase there would likely be a greater demand for sleep from each of us. However, we are determined to make time just for each other each day.

"Would it affect your relationship with other people?"

As it does with people I meet here, yes. Some people hear that I oppose same-sex 'marriage and automatically assume that I'm some sort of holier-than-thou evangelical radical fundi who believes "god hates gays" (which is totally false, BTW).

Some people stop, listen, and are open to an exchange of ideas, even if in the end we still do not agree. Some people jump to stereo-types.

In this regard, my opinion on same-sex 'marriage is no different than my opinion on tax policy, war, abortion, education, etc. People will react how they will react. All sides of every issue have their fair share of jimmyjacks. In balance, all sides of every issue have their fair share of galenroxs too. (hay, it never hurts to kiss up to a Mod )

"Would you look the other person differently?"

Oh yes, very much so. In high school I looked at my (now) wife as little more than a sex object. As I learn more about the world, of the powers and principalities at play, and watch as predictable events come to pass, I continually grow more and more respect and admiration for her every day.

"Would it increase the chances of your getting separated?"

Separation is not a matter of chance, but of choice. If anything same-sex 'marriage would be a force further bonding us together, not one that would encourage us to separate.

"Would it increase the changes of your getting divorced?"

Divorce is not a matter of chance, but of choice. The traditions of the personal value system that Kristin and I follow dissuade divorce. Divorce would only be an option of one of us became a danger to the family, and I do not see how the uniting force of "a common enemy" (ideologically, not literally) would influence either of us to become a danger.

***
I hope that run better met your guidelines, aps.
If you think of more questions please ask them. This thread is quite enjoyable.

Great post! while aPs may have went to sleep I assure you your words did not fall on deaf ears.

 

[Jerry]

Yawn. That's all I have to say.

Any more questions?

 

[Jerry]

The changes in my life wrought by such a monumentous decision would be nothing less than profound. The consequences would be enormous. I mean, just think : when meeting a casual acquaintance or a stranger and informing them that I was married, I just might elicit the response "who's the lucky guy?".

I won't even get into all the repercussions were I not already married. The difficulty in paring down the list of potential life partners from three billion women down to one was bad enough, so I'd hate to think how tough it might have been with double that amount.

Heh, you know.....all the loser geeks and momma’s-boys would finally have an acceptable prom date....each other :mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

Jerry,
Great post! while aPs may have went to sleep I assure you your words did not fall on deaf ears.

Thank you master,
I rather enjoy these sorts of opinion threads :smile:

 

[aps]

Any more questions?

Nope. I honestly don't care about your opinion on this topic.....at all. Buh bye.

 

[aps]

Jerry,



Great post! while aPs may have went to sleep I assure you your words did not fall on deaf ears.

Ivan, learn proper English. It's "may have gone to sleep." Sheesh.

 

[Jerry]

Nope. I honestly don't care about your opinion on this topic.....at all. Buh bye.

Sorry to hear that.
Talk to ya later then.

 

[Jerry]

Nope. I honestly don't care about your opinion on this topic.....at all. Buh bye.

Curious: I removed religious references and reasonings from my second set of responses, so why do you not care?

 

[aps]

Curious: I removed religious references and reasonings from my second set of responses, so why do you not care?

Jerry, I apologize for my harshness. I mean that.

I just have a hard time reading/listening to anyone who makes gay people out to be diseased individuals. To me, we are all equal, and I really cannot stand people who say that allowing gay people to marry would cause any decrease in morality or mankind, etc. I am not gay, and I am happy in my heterosexual marriage, but I would like to think that my gay friends would be able to experience the same sort of joy that I experience. That pretty much sums up how I feel.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry, I apologize for my harshness. I mean that.

I just have a hard time reading/listening to anyone who makes gay people out to be diseased individuals. To me, we are all equal, and I really cannot stand people who say that allowing gay people to marry would cause any decrease in morality or mankind, etc. I am not gay, and I am happy in my heterosexual marriage, but I would like to think that my gay friends would be able to experience the same sort of joy that I experience. That pretty much sums up how I feel.

I accept your apology. No hard feelings.

I make the argument elsewhere that 'not all homosexuality is created equal'.

Legitimate forms of homosexuality are those which come from genuine degrees of Gender Identity Disorder: from the extreme 'woman trapped in a man's body', where the individual is born anatomically one gender yet is physiologically another, to the mild 'I've been attracted to the same gender since puberty', where the individual identifies with their anatomical gender yet is also physiologically wired to be attracted to the same gender.

Illegitimate forms of homosexuality are those who are born heterosexual and choose a sociopathic-sexiest lifestyle (Lesbian Feminists), the expression of homosexual tendencies as the result of sexual abuse (I use my ex-homosexual sister and a family friend as an example), or sexual immaturity (not having a father-figure or male role-middle around).

I could support same-sex 'marriage for those who really have Gender Identity Disorder, but I can not support same-sex 'marriage for those who choose a sociopathic-sexist lifestyle, are the victims of sexual abuse of subject to sexual immaturity; because to do so is to condone genuine mental illnesses and sweep these problems 'under-the-rug'.

Since the mainstream pro-GM movement makes absolutely no effort to distinguish between someone who genuinely has GID and someone in need of rape counseling, I am forced to oppose the entire thing.

As things stand right now, if same-sex 'marriage is blanketly legalized it would deny groups their fundamental right to mental health. I can't support that.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

aPs,

Ivan, learn proper English. It's "may have gone to sleep." Sheesh.

Your lack of man juice betrays you.

Jerry,

As things stand right now, if same-sex 'marriage is blanketly legalized it would deny groups their fundamental right to mental health. I can't support that.

This gives me something to think about. The knee jerk reaction is to support same sex marriage. I still haven't made up my mind on the issue.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah, I left out lesbian couples because I thought my post was long enough as it was.

What is your question?

errrrrrr....yea I meant to ask that. :lol:

"Do you agree that two parent households are generally better than one-parent households, and if so, how do you reconcile that with opposition to gay marriage?"

Or put another way, is it really worse for a child to be raised by two men or two women than by one man or one woman?

 

[Jerry]

errrrrrr....yea I meant to ask that. :lol:

"Do you agree that two parent households are generally better than one-parent households, and if so, how do you reconcile that with opposition to gay marriage?"

Or put another way, is it really worse for a child to be raised by two men or two women than by one man or one woman?

All things being equal, 2 parents are better than one.

I reconcile this with my opposition to the modern mainstream pro-GM movement by making a distinction between a homosexual person who has a degree of genuine Gender Identity Disorder and someone who is born heterosexual yet chooses a sociopathic-sexist lifestyle (Lesbian Feminists), or one who is sexually underdeveloped.

The key is in stability.
Someone who has an extreme degree of GID (Transsexual) should, IMO, get the sex change operation that they likely seek and fully identify with their physiologically wired gender.

Someone who has chosen to shun a gender out of hatred and choose a sociopathic-sexist lifestyle should not have children at all, IMO. The same goes for racism, etc., but that may be for another discussion.

Those who exhibit homosexual behavior due to sexual immaturity should receive counseling and fully mature before raising children.

Those who exhibit homosexual behavior due to sexual abuse should receive counseling and come to a state of general mental health before raising children.

*All things being equal:
People who have mild degrees of GID, in that they identify with their anatomical gender yet are physiologically 'wired' to be attracted to the same gender, IMO, are just as stable as me (okay, that's not saying much, LOL) and can provide for the needs of children.

Take jallman, for example. In so far as I have seen he is a completely stable, rational person. I would have no foreseeable problem with him and his same-sex 'partner, assuming he chose someone as stable and rational as he, marrying and adopting some children.

My view on this extends to opposite-sex 'couples as well. Any couple who is not loving and stable should not have children, regardless of sexual orientation.

***
I realize that there is a certain sensitivity regarding my referrals to Gender Identity Disorder. I apologies if I have in any way appeared to be judgmental. What I say from myself is my opinion on the matter, and people are, of coarse, free to dismiss it if they find offence.

Yes, I see GID as a sort of flaw, yet I do not ignore the fact that I am also flawed. I'm just flawed in a way that does not relate to same-sex 'marriage, so I can understand why some could easily see me in a negative light.

To be fair I will tell everyone my relevant flaws: Lust and Control.

Though I have kept my actions in check so as not to violate my marital covenant, Lust and Control are the names of my demons, and it is quite a struggle.

I imagine that reasonable homosexual people such as jallman would have an easier time being faithful to their spouse then I do mine.

 

[RightinNYC]

All things being equal, 2 parents are better than one.

I reconcile this with my opposition to the modern mainstream pro-GM movement by making a distinction between a homosexual person who has a degree of genuine Gender Identity Disorder and someone who is born heterosexual yet chooses a sociopathic-sexist lifestyle (Lesbian Feminists), or one who is sexually underdeveloped.

The key is in stability.
Someone who has an extreme degree of GID (Transsexual) should, IMO, get the sex change operation that they likely seek and fully identify with their physiologically wired gender.

Someone who has chosen to shun a gender out of hatred and choose a sociopathic-sexist lifestyle should not have children at all, IMO. The same goes for racism, etc., but that may be for another discussion.

Those who exhibit homosexual behavior due to sexual immaturity should receive counseling and fully mature before raising children.

Those who exhibit homosexual behavior due to sexual abuse should receive counseling and come to a state of general mental health before raising children.

*All things being equal:
People who have mild degrees of GID, in that they identify with their anatomical gender yet are physiologically 'wired' to be attracted to the same gender, IMO, are just as stable as me (okay, that's not saying much, LOL) and can provide for the needs of children.

Take jallman, for example. In so far as I have seen he is a completely stable, rational person. I would have no foreseeable problem with him and his same-sex 'partner, assuming he chose someone as stable and rational as he, marrying and adopting some children.

My view on this extends to opposite-sex 'couples as well. Any couple who is not loving and stable should not have children, regardless of sexual orientation.

***
I realize that there is a certain sensitivity regarding my referrals to Gender Identity Disorder. I apologies if I have in any way appeared to be judgmental. What I say from myself is my opinion on the matter, and people are, of coarse, free to dismiss it if they find offence.

Yes, I see GID as a sort of flaw, yet I do not ignore the fact that I am also flawed. I'm just flawed in a way that does not relate to same-sex 'marriage, so I can understand why some could easily see me in a negative light.

To be fair I will tell everyone my relevant flaws: Lust and Control.

Though I have kept my actions in check so as not to violate my marital covenant, Lust and Control are the names of my demons, and it is quite a struggle.

I imagine that reasonable homosexual people such as jallman would have an easier time being faithful to their spouse then I do mine.

I'm not going to take offense to your characterization of different types/degrees of homosexuality, because while I might disagree with you, I don't think the evidence out there is conclusive enough to prove anything as of yet. But assuming that you do believe there are different "classes" of homosexuals, if you will, do you think that legally, those whom you would classify as fit to marry/raise children should be allowed to, while those who are not should be barred?

 

[Jerry]

I'm not going to take offense to your characterization of different types/degrees of homosexuality, because while I might disagree with you, I don't think the evidence out there is conclusive enough to prove anything as of yet. But assuming that you do believe there are different "classes" of homosexuals, if you will, do you think that legally, those whom you would classify as fit to marry/raise children should be allowed to, while those who are not should be barred?

Yes.

I would also apply similar requirements to heterosexuals if I had my way.

For example: Hyper-Masculinisation is a form of Gender Identity Disorder wich comes from the lack of a proper male role model, and I would argue that a heterosexual man who has HM should receve the apropriet treatment, if it exists, and overcome his HM before raising children. IMO, Hyper-Masculinisation predisposes one to an unstable personality.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes.

I would also apply similar requirements to heterosexuals if I had my way.

For example: Hyper-Masculinisation is a form of Gender Identity Disorder wich comes from the lack of a proper male role model, and I would argue that a heterosexual man who has HM should receve the apropriet treatment, if it exists, and overcome his HM before raising children. IMO, Hyper-Masculinisation predisposes one to an unstable personality.

Who decides? Who diagnoses, creates the restrictions, etc? And when it comes down to it, you cant actually stop someone from bearing a child.

 

[Jerry]

Who decides?

The Legislature would decide the law.

Who diagnoses

A licensed psychotherapist, neurologist or similar.

creates the restrictions, etc?

Law would be set by the Legislature.

And when it comes down to it, you cant actually stop someone from bearing a child.

Yup.
I suppose nothing would change there.