[Tekumze]

Also, if a couple is to have four children, giving them immediate tax breaks as opposed to significant breaks at the time of the fourth child's birth may be too slow.

If one wants to encourage child rearing, one wants to encourage marriages financially. Especially since children are very, very expensive.

I think you have a typo in the last line

Having children is not always tied to marriage unless state ties it itself. There are many children born to couples that are not officially married and don't intend to be. They should have benefits as well. That's why I'd tie benefits to children and their supporters (be they their parents or not just so we don't discriminate adopted children which carry the same costs with them).

There are many, many legal issues that are automatically resolved upon marriage, such as right to inheritance, the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, etc. Are these rights that single people need?

If these are not the sorts of things you are referring to, then please be specific so the 'benefits' you speak of can be examined.

In my case those are the benefits I am talking about. In some cases people that are otherwise single want to have this resolved by "aligning" themselves with another person(s) without implying(which marriage does) any sexuality or childbirth. Something like two people completely unrelated both already having children deciding to raise them together for practical purposes.

[Zyx]

I think you have a typo in the last line ;)

I am pushing twenty-nine hours awake. What's the typo?

Having children is not always tied to marriage unless state ties it itself.

From what I can remember, this is the sociological definition of marriage.

They should have benefits as well.

Though, there's no paperwork there. I'd agree that if the money is for the child then bastard or not the child should get money, but I can't see it reasonably being implemented if the couple is unofficial. One can say "give money to parents" but not everyone who has a child remains a couple.

I think that this is where practicality trumps. If you want to help a child, you must recognize an official person above the child.

[yiwahikanak]

In my case those are the benefits I am talking about. In some cases people that are otherwise single want to have this resolved by "aligning" themselves with another person(s) without implying(which marriage does) any sexuality or childbirth. Something like two people completely unrelated both already having children deciding to raise them together for practical purposes.

Many jurisdictions are in fact providing similar benefits as marriage to couples who are together, but not married. In my home province of Alberta, the 'common law' approach has been replaced by something more similar to what you've described. The Interdependent Adult Relationships Act creates a series of rights and obligations not tied to sexuality or childbirth...you can enter into one of these relationships with a family member, a room-mate, etc.

However, many of the so called benefits of marriage are put in place to quickly resolve certain issues that otherwise would create a lot of social friction because of the complexity and expense of creating contractual obligations/rights which are similar. While there are some circumstances where single people may need some of the same rights/obligations, those circumstances are limited and can be accessed through legal agreements.

If you are arguing that single people need ALL the rights/obligations as married people...you'd have to further explain why, and how that would be administered.

[Tekumze]

I am pushing twenty-nine hours awake. What's the typo?

Child rearing?

I think that this is where practicality trumps. If you want to help a child, you must recognize an official person above the child.

Agreed. The money should be given to the person listed as the child supporter. If they are single they use it as they want. If they are not I am sure they'll use it with consent of their spouse (mate) or they will become single really fast

If you are arguing that single people need ALL the rights/obligations as married people...you'd have to further explain why, and how that would be administered.

Depends on what rights and obligations you're referring to. Can you name one which should not be available to legally single people so I can formulate my answer better?

[Suska]

Child rearing

oh look it up

[Tekumze]

oh look it up

My bad. I guess I am not as fluent in English as I thought.

*Hides in shame*

[Zyx]

*Hides in shame*

Well that was new . . ..

The money should be given to the person listed as the child supporter.

Where I am from there is no such list. At best a child comes with a birth certificate wherein the parents usually have their names atop. There's no such list as 'child supporter.'

When one really thinks of it. There's no law stopping a child from living with a neighbor or total stranger. The social structure seems to just manage most children so that they voluntarily stay with the social unit that they identify as 'family.' That said, the family is recognized through marriages. There are unmarried couples with children but there are also couples with children where one partner has no biological relation. This partner then would play no part in deciding where the child goes should the other partner become unable to further raise the child.

[Pants-of-dog]

Depends on what rights and obligations you're referring to. Can you name one which should not be available to legally single people so I can formulate my answer better?

The right to visit your spouse in the hospital.

[yiwahikanak]

Depends on what rights and obligations you're referring to. Can you name one which should not be available to legally single people so I can formulate my answer better?

# right to enter into premarital agreements
# joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
# joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
# family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
# next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions, consent to organ donation, consent to autopsy
# family health insurance
# domestic violence intervention, including restraining orders and right to occupy home
# access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
# joint petititions to immigrate
# special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens re immigration
# right to take leave under Family Medical Leave Act (in US, and equivalent legislation in other nations) and funeral and bereavement leave
# insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society (i.e., health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, etc)
# access to medical records
# permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
# right to inheritance of property
# spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
# right to seek compensation for wrongful death, loss of consortium, or intentional infliction of emotional distress
# ability to roll over spouse's 401(k) (in US) or other retirement accounts
# joint filing of taxes



I don't see why single people need any of these things? And surely you can see the reason that these rights/obligations make sense for those who are married (or in a comparable relationship, as some of these rights/obligations are available to common-law spouses as well)?

[inquisitu]

Short summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and ... ted_States

[Agent Steel]

You already can "express yourself" by not having sex. You don't need to marry yourself to NOT have sex.

Yes, and you can already express yourself by entering into legal contracts. You don't need to marry each other to get tax exemptions!! Why do gays care so much about marriage?? Don't they know it's meant for a man and a woman???

If you're gay, you can already get the same benefits as marriage, and you can already have a private ceremony if you'd like. Isn't that good enough? There's nothing you wouldn't be getting from this deal. Why do they need to declare themselves married? It's an attempt to mock and tarnish the sacred holy institution of marriage. They just want attention that's all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, and you can already express yourself by entering into legal contracts. You don't need to marry each other to get tax exemptions!! Why do gays care so much about marriage?? Don't they know it's meant for a man and a woman???

If you're gay, you can already get the same benefits as marriage, and you can already have a private ceremony if you'd like. Isn't that good enough? There's nothing you wouldn't be getting from this deal. Why do they need to declare themselves married? It's an attempt to mock and tarnish the sacred holy institution of marriage. They just want attention that's all.

Except that a hetero couple gets all these rights in a neat little bundle for the price of a marriage contract, while other people would need to sit down with a lawyer and bang it all out, costing them several thousands of dollars.

Moreover, the hetero couple would never have to prove they have this contract or otherwise fight for the rights given by the contract, while other people would constantly be asked to provide evidence that this contract exists and is legal.

[Lightman]

If you're gay, you can already get the same benefits as marriage, and you can already have a private ceremony if you'd like.

This is simply false in the United States; the benefits granted (if any) to homosexual civil unions are not the same as the benefits granted to married couples.

It's an attempt to mock and tarnish the sacred holy institution of marriage. They just want attention that's all.

You're a virulent atheist.

[Suska]

It varies state to state. The tax breaks vary depending on income. In any case the larger benefits come from having a dependent, not from marriage unless the incomes of the couple are drastically different (one job households).

[Suska]

The United States Supreme Court has recognized traditional male-female marriage as “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Justice Holmes observed that “some form of permanent association between the sexes” is one of the rudimentary characteristics of civilization. The “structure of society itself largely depends upon the institution of marriage [which is founded upon the] joining of the man and woman....” In “every enlightened government”, marriage “is pre-eminently the basis of civil institutions, and thus an object of the deepest public concern.”

No state has legislatively authorized same-sex marriage. In addition to the general laws and longstanding public policy of the states and territories banning same-sex marriage, 41 states since 1996 have enacted specific Defense of Marriage Acts (hereinafter “DOMA”), expressly limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

[yiwahikanak]

quote, "Mathew Staver"The United States Supreme Court has recognized traditional male-female marriage as “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Justice Holmes observed that “some form of permanent association between the sexes” is one of the rudimentary characteristics of civilization. The “structure of society itself largely depends upon the institution of marriage [which is founded upon the] joining of the man and woman....” In “every enlightened government”, marriage “is pre-eminently the basis of civil institutions, and thus an object of the deepest public concern.”

No state has legislatively authorized same-sex marriage. In addition to the general laws and longstanding public policy of the states and territories banning same-sex marriage, 41 states since 1996 have enacted specific Defense of Marriage Acts (hereinafter “DOMA”), expressly limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Since you're arguing USian law (gay marriage is legal everywhere in Canada):

Perry v. Schwarzenegger dealt with many of the common arguments against homosexual marriages. The court found that:

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state:

a. Facilitating governance and public order by organizing individuals into cohesive family units. Tr 222:13-17 (Cott: “[T]he purpose of the state in licensing and incentivizing marriage is to create stable households in which the adults who reside there and are committed to one another by their own consents will support one another as well as their dependents.”);

b. Developing a realm of liberty, intimacy and free decision-making by spouses, Tr 189:7-15 (Cott: “[T]he realm created by marriage, that private realm has been repeatedly reiterated as a —— as a realm of liberty for intimacy and free decision making by the parties[.]”);

c. Creating stable households. Tr 226:8-15 (Cott: The government’s aim is “to create stable and enduring unions between couples.);

d. Legitimating children. Tr 225:16-227:4 (Cott: Historically, legitimating children was a very important function of marriage, especially among propertied families. Today, legitimation is less important, although unmarried couples’ children still have to show “that they deserve these inheritance rights and other benefits of their parents.”);

e. Assigning individuals to care for one another and thus limiting the public’s liability to care for the vulnerable. Tr 226:8-227:4 (Cott: Marriage gives private actors responsibility over dependents.); Tr 222:18-20 (“The institution of marriage has always been at least as much about supporting adults as it has been about supporting minors.”);

f. Facilitating property ownership. Tr 188:20-22 (Marriage is “the foundation of the private realm of * * * property transmission.”).

56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

So sure, some people make arguments that 'omg the family/civilisation relies on male-female marriage only!'. However, this is far from a settled 'fact', and the research simply doesn't support the claim that same-sex marriage is somehow harmful to families or children.

[yiwahikanak]

As well the Supreme Court of the United States has emphasized that the Constitution "afford[s] ... protection to personal decisions relating to marriage" and that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for [this] purpose[], just as heterosexual persons do." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003). The Supreme court also affirmed that "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1974) (emphasis added).

[Demosthenes]

Just get over yourself and go Gay already and spare us all the angst Agent Steel.

Really. No one gives a damn if some random e-dude is gay. Really.

[anticlimacus]

To the OP: if you're going to apply the slippery slope dilemma to homosexuality, then why stop there? If we are going to have heterosexual marriage then what's going to prevent us from having gay marriage and the rest of the other combinations?--that is except for social parlance...

[Headache]

Just read on the Drudge Report that Agent Steel was spotted in Chile with a local 19 year old male prostitute. Whoda thunkit?