Marriage

[S O F I]

Does the government benefit more from those that are married or those that are not married? For example, when you're married, you pay less federal and property taxes as an individual, health insurance is cheaper, and there are more benefits as well. So, I was thinking about gay marriage. Being that gay marriage is not allowed in the United States as a whole, does it have anything to do with that it might be more benefitial for the people and less for the government? I am not making a statement, but more so, asking for insight on this matter.

 

[Duke]

Interesting question. I don't agree with your "conclusion" however. If that was the case, the government would rather prohibit all forms of marriage than just the select group of homosexuals. It's got more to do with most Western countries, and i think in particular the US, being still mostly Christian, and as Christianity promotes marriage and children (which I'm sure I don't need to explain) but discourages (to put it mildly) homosexuality, I think it's obvious that the anti-gaymarriage stance comes mostly from (religious) convincements than governmental interests.

 

[Jokerman]

Marriages produce oil and gay marriages don't. That's the only reason Bush is against gay marriage.

 

[S O F I]

Interesting question. I don't agree with your "conclusion" however. If that was the case, the government would rather prohibit all forms of marriage than just the select group of homosexuals. It's got more to do with most Western countries, and i think in particular the US, being still mostly Christian, and as Christianity promotes marriage and children (which I'm sure I don't need to explain) but discourages (to put it mildly) homosexuality, I think it's obvious that the anti-gaymarriage stance comes mostly from (religious) convincements than governmental interests.

I did not mention Christianity or the "Western" values because that is too obvious. I was just merely asking if there is more to it than just that. I mean, being that the country is as "free" and liberal as countries get, you'd think they'd realize that gay marriage should be allowed. I mean, in my opinion, homosexuals are sort of facing the same problems that Blacks were facing in the 50s and 60s. Most people knew deep in their heart that denying Blacks rights was wrong, but did not want to do anything about it or just hated them out of blind prejudice. It's obvious that gay marriage will become normal in the future as the world progresses, and people that were against it will seem as foolish as bigots of today.

 

[Katarina]

Well of course the legal system is different everywhere, but over here if you're married and your partner dies, you automatically inherit them, whereas if you aren't married, that person would have to have written in their will that they wanted their partner to inherit them. Otherwise, if the person who dies has no one who inherits theim, the government gets the money. So in that case, the government benefits from people not being married.

 

[_carmi]

i think if you're married, like you pay less taxes or stuff like that or whatever than if you're not. but i'm really not sure of that tho. so its more befeficial for gay people to not get married.

i feel this thread is gonna turn into a " are gay people allowed to get married or not"

 

[Illuminattile]

On the contrary, the government encourages people to get married. Well, straight people. The Bush Administration wanted to spend $100m in programs to encourage poor people to marry. Why? Because poor people drain the economy. If you take poor people and marry them off, then the government doesn't have to provide for them any more. The government wants people to get married because married couples spend more money.

The financial benefits you mentioned are incentives designed to encourage marriage. The government wouldn't put these incentives in place and then discourage people from taking advantage of them because they thought it would cost them too much money. If married couples were costing them too much then they'd get rid of the tax breaks.

 

[Duke]

I did not mention Christianity or the "Western" values because that is too obvious. I was just merely asking if there is more to it than just that. I mean, being that the country is as "free" and liberal as countries get, you'd think they'd realize that gay marriage should be allowed. I mean, in my opinion, homosexuals are sort of facing the same problems that Blacks were facing in the 50s and 60s. Most people knew deep in their heart that denying Blacks rights was wrong, but did not want to do anything about it or just hated them out of blind prejudice. It's obvious that gay marriage will become normal in the future as the world progresses, and people that were against it will seem as foolish as bigots of today.

No, there is nothing more to it than simple narrowmindedness i think. And yes, it is indeed like the struggle for civil rights for black people. And a struggle for civil rights for homosexuals right now.