Gay marriage solved

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 88888accountant, Oct 9, 2006.

Does this solve the problem?

  1. Yes, it makes perfect sense, that's why it'll never happen

    1 vote(s)
  2. No, it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard

    3 vote(s)
  3. It solves it, but it creates a whole new problem by taking power from the church

    0 vote(s)
  1. Okay so here's the solution,

    We leave the act of getting married performed solely by the church of the couples choice. If the two people are gay and the church allows it, then they get married, if the church doesn't allow it they get a new religion.

    We then completely eliminate the term marriage from government. Marriage is something based on mutual trust and sometimes a supernatural being called god. It will have no "legal" binding at all.

    Then we introduce a new type of standard contract called a "merger contract" where ANY two legal entities can merge for tax purposes etc.. this includes, college roommates, gays,married people, etc...

    So gay people will have all the rights as others and church goers won't feel that they are shaming marriage.

    This seems to completely solve the problem.

    What do you guys think?
  2. What about Social Security benefits?
  3. LT701


    the problem lies in an over socialized, over regulated society, where marital status has so many system wide consequences

    if people worked mostly for cash, not benefits, and were taxed a flat amount on their income, gays would be free to make agreements amongst themselves they called 'marriage', and non gays would also be free to choose *for themselves* whether they recognized it as a marriage or not. (The only remaining issue would be adoption, on a case by case basis, which would still go against the gay couple)

    and everyone could go about their business

    politicians of both parties love this issue, it gives them the distinction without the difference
  4. They remain the same, previous marriage contracts become ratified merger contracts.
  5. Great post. IMO the majority of Americans are not so much opposed to the ideal of gay marriage on religious or moral grounds but instead feel resentful at subsidizing a same-sex partnership with their own tax dollars. Sort of like abortion. If pollsters ask the question, "do you favor your tax dollars being spent to help a women get an abortion who can't afford one?", the number of yes respondents will fall to about 33%. The I don't want the blood and/or expense on my hands philosophy.

    Social Security and private pensions/health benefits are a stumbling block here. Gays love to talk about childless hetero couples "beating the system" but the idea, antiquated perhaps, was the assumption that mothers didn't work, husbands died relatively young and widows who'd devoted their life to family should have a stipend. Affluent gay couples would help bleed a system that's ultimately headed to means testing anyway.
  6. I am all for same sex marriage. Why should they be exempt from the misery?
  7. Mr. Terminator said it best, "I believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

    That's the best solution of all - allowing gay marriages AND keeping with the tradition.