Being Gay Is Like a Handicap

[tod evans]

Someone has to their legal guardian, if not then it would be legal for a 10 year old to run away and live with a stranger without any parental right to get their child.

I agree with the bolded parts but even if we got away with those there would still be plenty of divorce.

But without a legal recognition who owns the property that is gained while they were both married?

That will end up with the ex-spouses taking their children and disappering with many parents that won't see their children for a long time because their ex-spouse took them.

So it should be legal for a husband/wife to disappear with the children and never inform their spouse according to you.

No time to address the misconceptions voiced herein......Maybe later.

 

[erowe1]

I kinda realised the stupid so I edit it.

Gotcha. See my response to your new version below.

But what if they don't make a contract and suddenly divorce?

Divorce only happens when there's a marriage (i.e. a contract) in the first place.

 

[pcosmar]

I don't want married couples to get benefits, I just want that legally recognized marriages should be limited to a man and a wife.

I don't want marriage to be legally recognized. Period.
I don't want the government to have any say in the matter. For or against.
No license,, no benefits,, no restrictions,, nothing.

It is none of their business.

 

[tod evans]

Someone has to their legal guardian, if not then it would be legal for a 10 year old to run away and live with a stranger without any parental right to get their child.

Joint guardianship is not a new or even rare legal concept, there is no reason to give one parent sole authority over a childs life and well being unless the other parent agrees. (I'm ignoring the concept of runaways because it's irrelevant.)

I agree with the bolded parts but even if we got away with those there would still be plenty of divorce.

"Plenty" is subjective but I hope you'd agree that the instance of divorce would be greatly reduced...

But without a legal recognition who owns the property that is gained while they were both married?

Current law in most states provides for an "equitable distribution" of marital property, were this to actually be enforced by jury I could see it proving sufficient.

That will end up with the ex-spouses taking their children and disappering with many parents that won't see their children for a long time because their ex-spouse took them.

You're making assumptions greatly divorced from reality here, with a level playing field I can see a child benefiting from both parents good points more than hampered by their bad ones...

So it should be legal for a husband/wife to disappear with the children and never inform their spouse according to you.

According to me?! WTF dude? How can you twist and misinterpret my typed response to mean something so diverse from what it actually spells out?

 

[tod evans]

Let's drop this propaganda about straight people getting state and federal benefits that gay people don't.

My total exposure to the homos position is from right here on RPF, if in fact I am being fed "propaganda" and they're able to reap the same benefits from the system as a heterosexual couple then I stand corrected.

I am not qualified to argue their position due to lack of knowledge but giving what I've read here over the years it is you who are promoting "propaganda" and not the homos....

Of course I'll be interested to read any discourse you may have with members of the married homosexual class....

 

[heavenlyboy34]

For the millionth time, gays and heterosexuals have the same rights. The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is that gays don't get a state license of marriage, which, last time I checked, was not a right. A straight person can't marry someone of the same sex just as much as a gay person can't marry someone of the same sex. NEWS FLASH: They both can! Just don't bother getting the license and you're good to go.

Nobody's going to stop gays from getting married. They just can't get a license, and the benefits of getting one of those are questionable at best. We really should be fighting against the state, but dannno, you seem to want to phrase it as a gay vs. straight paradigm, when really we need to try to shift the focus away from that. What's worse, is that many of you realize this is a false paradigm and yet you keep on pushing for "gay rights" because you want the government to oppress people equally. Why don't we just focus our energy on getting the government out of the way? Get them to stop giving marriage licenses to straight people, not start giving them to gays. That doesn't help liberty at all.

It's not about rights, it's about government privileges funded by taxpayers.

+rep

 

[erowe1]

Of course I'll be interested to read any discourse you may have with members of the married homosexual class....

I don't have any discourse to share. But he's definitely gay, and definitely happily married to a woman. There are plenty of gay people in the same situation.

Here's the SSA's list of what documents you need and what they ask you when applying for spousal benefits. Notice that sexual orientation is nowhere to be seen.
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-2.html

Documents you may need to provide

We may ask you to provide documents to show that you are eligible, such as:

Birth certificate or other proof of birth;
Proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful alien status if you were not born in the United States [More Info];
U.S. military discharge paper(s) if you had military service before 1968;
W-2 forms(s) and/or self-employment tax returns for last year.
Final divorce decree, if applying as a divorced spouse; and
Marriage certificate.
Important

We accept photocopies of W-2 forms, self-employment tax returns or medical documents, but we must see the original of most other documents, such as your birth certificate. (We will return them to you.)

Do not delay applying for benefits because you do not have all the documents. We will help you get them.
What we will ask you

Your name, gender and Social Security number;
Your name at birth (if different);
Your date of birth and place of birth (State or foreign country);
Whether a public or religious record was made of your birth before age 5;
Your citizenship status;
Whether you or anyone else has ever filed for Social Security benefits, Medicare or Supplemental Security Income on your behalf (if so, we will also ask for information on whose Social Security record you applied);
Whether you have used any other Social Security number;
Whether you became unable to work because of illnesses, injuries or conditions at any time within the past 14 months. If "Yes," we will also ask the date you became unable to work;
Whether you were ever in the active military service before 1968 and, if so, the dates of service and whether you have ever been eligible to receive a monthly benefit from a military or Federal civilian agency;
Whether you or your spouse have ever worked for the railroad industry;
Whether you have earned Social Security credits under another country's social security system;
Whether you qualified for or expect to receive a pension or annuity based on your own employment with the Federal government of the United States or one of its States or local subdivisions;
Whether you are currently married and, if so, your spouse's name, date of birth (or age) and Social Security number (if known).
The names, dates of birth (or age) and Social Security numbers (if known) of any former spouses;
The dates and places of each of your marriages and, for marriages that have ended, how and when they ended;
The names of any unmarried children under 18, 18-19 and in secondary school or disabled before age 22;
The name(s) of your employer(s) and/or information about your self-employment and the amount of your earnings for this year, last year and next year;
Whether we may contact your employers for wage information;
The month you want your benefits to begin; and
If you are within 3 months of age 65, whether you want to enroll in Medical Insurance (Part B of Medicare).
Depending on the information you provide, we may need to ask other questions.

 

[tod evans]

I don't have any discourse to share. But he's definitely gay, and definitely happily married to a woman. There are plenty of gay people in the same situation.

Here's the SSA's list of what documents you need and what they ask you when applying for spousal benefits. Notice that sexual orientation is nowhere to be seen.

Um-hum.........

I knew there was a "twist" or misrepresentation to your position.

Why would you do that?

 

[erowe1]

Um-hum.........

I knew there was a "twist" or misrepresentation to your position.

Why would you do that?

No there wasn't.

Was there a twist or misrepresentation in yours? You were the one asserting that there are laws that treat people differently according to their sexual orientation.

The laws that apply to heterosexuals regarding Social Security spousal benefits and everything else apply exactly the same way to homosexuals. There is no point at which they apply differently to one group than to the other. Do you know of any counterexamples? Care to share your evidence?

 

[tod evans]

No there wasn't.

Was there a twist or misrepresentation in yours? You were the one asserting that there are laws that treat people differently according to their sexual orientation.

If homos want to "marry" who are you or who am I to refuse them the same access to federal or state benefits that a heterosexual couple can extract from government?

This is completely silly and obviously bigoted.

I'd just as soon see nobody extracting anything from the taxpayer coffers but to exclude homos because of their sexual preference is no different than excluding Negros or Pollacks due to race or ethnicity...

The laws that apply to heterosexuals regarding Social Security spousal benefits and everything else apply exactly the same way to homosexuals. There is no point at which they apply differently to one group than to the other. Do you know of any counterexamples? Care to share your evidence?

Word games to attempt to exclude a segment of society from the privileges enjoyed by the majority.

This is outright discrimination due to personal beliefs and as a Christian I find it shameful, as an American I find it unrepresentative of the separation of church and state, and as a hillbilly/biker I find it abhorrent that you'd get me arguing pro-homo anything just to expose your bigotry.

 

[pcosmar]

No there wasn't.

Was there a twist or misrepresentation in yours? You were the one asserting that there are laws that treat people differently according to their sexual orientation.

The laws that apply to heterosexuals regarding Social Security spousal benefits and everything else apply exactly the same way to homosexuals. There is no point at which they apply differently to one group than to the other. Do you know of any counterexamples? Care to share your evidence?

You miss one thing..
Spouse..

If you are not legally married.. you have no spouse..

Also compare taxes. Single,, or married.

and then what happens when your partner is hospitalized.
NO ONE but family is allowed.. Blood relations or Legally Married.

 

[erowe1]

If homos want to "marry" who are you or who am I to refuse them the same access to federal or state benefits that a heterosexual couple can extract from government?

Are they being prevented from getting married? When you apply for a marriage license, is there a question you have to answer about whether you or your spouse is gay?

 

[erowe1]

You miss one thing..
Spouse..

If you are not legally married.. you have no spouse..

Of course. And that applies exactly the same whether you're gay or straight. The distinction the law makes isn't based on sexual orientation, it's based on whether you're married or not. If you're married, whether gay or straight, it treats you as married. If you're unmarried, whether gay or straight, it treats you as unmarried.

Obviously, the definition of "married" does not include same-sex couples, and some would like to expand the definition to include them. But even then, the exact same distinction would exist. There would still be married people, both gay and straight, and there would still be unmarried people, both gay and straight. And there would still be laws and benefits that apply differently to people based on whether they're married or unmarried.

But neither in the current situation, nor in that alternative, are there laws or benefits that apply differently to people based on their sexual orientation.

 

[otherone]

I don't have any discourse to share. But he's definitely gay, and definitely happily married to a woman. There are plenty of gay people in the same situation.

It was my understanding that being gay is a choice. If your gay friend is poking some guy on the side, then he's not happily married. If he only participates in heterosexual congress with his wife, then he isn't gay, he's heterosexual, right? Can someone be homosexual and heterosexual concurrently?

 

[pcosmar]

Are they being prevented from getting married?

Yes,, that is what the todoo is about. In most places they have been prevented.

or perhaps more accurately, their "marriage" is not legally recognized.

 

[specsaregood]

and then what happens when your partner is hospitalized.
NO ONE but family is allowed.. Blood relations or Legally Married.

I'm pretty sure private contracts, such as giving power of attorney and whatnot can get past that restriction.

 

[tod evans]

Are they being prevented from getting married? When you apply for a marriage license, is there a question you have to answer about whether you or your spouse is gay?

Look dude I'm done with you......

There's no amount of internet doublespeak that can cover up your agenda.

Be a man and admit that you personally don't want homos to have the same rights or privileges as hetros because of your own bigotry..

 

[oyarde]

I say let 'em all fight over the scraps of America. I intend to ignore them and eat steak . When I see people outraged about the gubmit keeping Social Sec pd in by deceased people, I may pay attention.....

 

[erowe1]

If your gay friend is poking some guy on the side, then he's not happily married.

I shouldn't have said "happily," since I don't know all of the private details about how he and his wife negotiate that. But, given that you don't even know who I'm talking about, how could you know this?

 

[erowe1]

Look dude I'm done with you......

There's no amount of internet doublespeak that can cover up your agenda.

Be a man and admit that you personally don't want homos to have the same rights or privileges as hetros because of your own bigotry..

I have used no doublespeak here. I have been precise and clear this whole time. You were the one who claimed that laws and benefits treat people differently based on their sexual orientation. You have been utterly unable to support that claim.

Be a man and admit you were wrong.