Straights Will Gay Marry to Get Tax Breaks and Health Insurance!

If we allow gays to marry, straight people will gay marry in order to get health benefits and tax breaks.

 

This is kind of the point: equality for everyone. This woman should probably kill herself.

 

Well, duh!?!?!?

Straight people already straight marry just for the tax break and health insurance... and green cards, etc. etc. "Marriage of convenience" has been "a thing" since loooooong before anyone thought of gay marriage.

 

Those aren't the most common reasons for marriage, though. To think that they are is pretty cynical.

Hell it's probably more common for guys to get married to prove they aren't "infected with teh gayness" (see: Poodle).

 

People have been gaming the marriage system for years.Why should we expect any less if another marriage option becomes available? Shouldn't be a consideration on gay marriage either way.

 

... not being suggested?

I don't get it.

 

Chad and Ron Paul cannot be married until it's fully legalized!

 

SLIPPERY SLOPE!!1!1!!

 

Legalize it!

 

"Equality for everybody, except for people who don't think like I do!"

You don't ever think about the shit you post, do you.

 

Where's the slippery slope? On what particular point is the woman incorrect?

 

And, by the way, I'm for people gaming the system in exactly the way the woman describes. Fuck it. The government is opening a massive loophole. I say we all fuckin' exploit the living shit out of it.

Hey, Dickynoo, will you be my bride?

 

I'm more worried about the potential dowry issues.

 

I guess she thought "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" was a documentary.

 

good lord. what would make a straight person want a fake gay marriage over a fake straight one? and how in the world does one come to the conclusion that it's not about equality? whatever. every stupid argument that someone like this comes up with only helps my case, so i suppose i should be happy she's saying it out loud.

also...

i'm guessing she's not too sexually adventurous.

 

Well, yes, that would certainly explain why she has sex on the brain. Or... not really.

 

what other explanation could there be for thinking that gay people aren't equipped to have a sexual relationship?

 

Obviously, the dumb broad misspoke. It's pretty clear that she meant that they're not characteristically equipped to have a procreative relationship. Would that assessment be incorrect?

See, your thinking above is sorta twisted and tangled. You assume that she's one kind of idiot when it's perfectly plausible that she's an entirely different kind of idiot.

 

Also,



So to answer Mrs. Albert's question, for the purposes of television.

 

Meh. I knew a couple when I was in the Navy who were both gay, but they got married just to get base housing. This ain't a new idea.

 

she's flailing. The more that thinking people see that there's no solid rational argument against it, the more the rest will try to put forth irrational arguments.

 

I think she watches too many Adam Sandler movies.

 

If anything, this illistruates the arguement for government getting out of the marriage business and rewarding people for pairing up.

But this woman is clearly a 'tard of Poodle proportions if she actually thinks straights will be running in droves to get gay married for bennines when they can just marry other straights.

Yanno, like what's been happening since forever.

I swear all the females at my lastest command must have done this, because I've yet to find another female under 25 that isn't married. In Japan, there was a shit ton of paperwork involved to get married there, and getting leave to the States was next to impossible even for legitimate reasons like emergency leave and the birth of one's child. So not much shacking up and waiting out till the E-5 advancement divorce.

But some folks have hilarious stories about folks getting married for bennines and being stupid about it...like a Mexican girl (born and raised in the states) marrying a man she met in Tijuana the week before....to a man who spoke no English.

 

The problem with the government getting out of the marriage business is that you wind up with all kinds of haphazard shit and no standardization. Seriously, folks like to point out that without recognition of gay marriage, the partner of someone in the hospital has no say in the care of their loved one. I know that some folks will pull out the "Let the market decide!" argument, but we quite often don't have a choice when it comes to things like hospitals. If you're in a life and death situation, nobody is going to be thinking, "Gee, I wonder if the closest hospital is 'gay friendly' or not?" They're just going to be concerned that their loved one gets the necessary medical treatment as quickly as possible.

Having the government involved in marriage creates ground rules which block assholes from doing really stupid shit based on personal biases. It wasn't all that long ago (at least in my lifetime), when judges in divorce cases tended to give the wife the shaft. That's a recognized institution, imagine what it must be like for a gay couple, trying to disentangle themselves in a relationship where neither party has any kind of legal standing as being the partner of the other person and the judge, potentially, is inclined to despise both parties because they've had an "unnatural" relationship.

What should happen, is that parties (same sex couples, hetero-couples, polyamorous groups, etc.) can enter into a legal agreement with the same benefits as being married, but that aren't necessarily seen by society as "marriage." The term marriage would be reserved for ceremonies performed in a church, and would have no legal standing, while the civil union would have legal standing, regardless of the gender, or number of parties involved, so long as everyone was of legal age. Thus you could have straight couples in a civil union, but not married, while you could have gay couples married, but not in a civil union.

 

For the sake of consistency it would make more sense to have those arrangements called marriage and if the religious want to have their ceremonies they can get Holy Married or whatever.

 

This is bullshit! Where is the equality and benefits for single people? All this discussion of marriage. What about those who will never marry?! What do I get?




LoL I am only kidding. That lady's argument is the dumbest I've heard yet.

 

If we're looking historically, the concept of a marriage based out of mutual love is far more alien than one based out of a mutually beneficial economic arrangement.

 

Geez, what a dumbo.

 

That's the essence of the Maryland law as I understand it. The state regulates the legal issues surrounding marriage without regard to sex...wanna have a ceremony? Find a church that's willing to do it. Church's can do it or not do it as they see fit, which suits me.