Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

Should I be allowed to marry my roomate so he can get on my health insurance plan? Can I marry both of my roomates so they can both get on the plan? Do we even have to be living together? What about my brother, should we be allowed to get married?

What I'm trying to understand is what people want to turn marriage into. If any union should be considered a marriage then I think some of those statutes should remove marriage from them to prevent the roomate healthcare example in he message I'm replying to. Otherwise, I think we should use a different word than marriage, like SuperNintendo Chalmers said in Message 16, and then we can incorporate that word into the statues that we think they should be in and leave them out of the one's that we think they shouldn't.

I don't think I should be allowed to get my roomate on my health insurance plan. Extending all the provisions that apply to marriage to any civil union sanction by the state is a bad idea, IMO. We should limit which provisions will be extended or limit which unions will be sanction. All provisions to all unions would fuck shit up. I think it protects the law from being ripped open and exploited.Its all in how you look at it and I think you try to see these people in a bad way. Throwing words like hate and attack in there is poisoning the well, don't you think?

Pre-nup.There are ways around the ramifications that will allow the benefits to be exploited. I think its the core issue. hmmm, I'm against universal health care too, why is having both positions amusing?But yeah, if we had universal health care, I agree that the issue would probably go away. I disagree, too bad the reasons are off topic What about gay incest? heh, God didn't make them that way, they choose to be that way {/joking}

You think it doesn't?How about if I write up a contract that gets people on my plan for less money than it would cost them to get their own plan but for more than it would cost me to add a person to my plan, or change to a family plan. I could make a lot of money and I think it would be exploiting the system.That's one reason why the contractual relationship between the parties on a family health care plan makes a difference. This reason above would fuck up the healthcare plan for other people, IMO. Because we've vowed to remain married for the rest of our lives. If the contractual relationship is one that is purposefully temporary to exploit the benefits then it shouldn't be allowed. I think the gay marriage issue opens up the laws for exploitation. For me, the issue is not about the homosexuality.

Your saying that because men and women don’t have ”bogus’ marriages then men and men won’t have ”bogus’ marriages either. For me, I would not enter a bogus marriage with a girl but I would with a guy. The problem I have with letting guys marry each other isn’t because of homosexuality, its because it opens the laws up for exploitation. Sure, its possible for men and women to do that now, but we don’t see it happening much and, personally, I wouldn’t do it either. However, if marriage, and those benefits, were opened up for two guys then I’d be more willing to enter a bogus marriage. I think that there will be more bogus marriages if same sex marriage is allowed. I’m not for the bill to ban them but I think they should be defined as something other than marriage and the benefits should be allocated accordingly.

I wouldn't marry a girl with the intention of it being temporary to exploit some benefit of being married but I would with a guy.I think that allowing those benefits of being married to same sex marriages is opening the laws up for exploitation. I think it should be done some other way. Calling same sex civil unions "marriage" is a bad idea IMO.

Message 51I think you missed this one.I clarified a little in Message 164 and Message 165.

/nod /nod /nod. I don't think we should deny gay people benefits.My point is that me and my roomate shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of marriage if we have no intention of anything but said reaping.

I think that opening up marriage to same sex unions allows it to become a one way street. The responsibilities can be taken care of with a pre-nup so that were left with only privileges. This is possible today with regular marriages but we don't really see it that much (although immigration was mentioned), and personally I wouldn't do that with a girl. But, I would do something like that with a guy so I think we'll see more of it if we "redefine marriage". Thats why I think it should be called something else and the priveleges and responsibilities can be sorted out afterwards to prevent me, or make it so I would no longer want to, from entering a marriage of convience with one of my friends to reap the benefits.

What? Didn't you link to them in the OP. hereeh...Can't you just argue assuming the benefits are there. I mean, aren't the benefits the whole reason for problem in the first place, that the gays will be denied benefits? I don't know.Now that I read that DOMA letter again, it says:

quote:

---

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of "marriage" and "spouse" that are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.

---

I don't think we should deny rights to gay people, or anyone. But, I do think that the laws around marriage should be well defined to prevent exploitation. I'd say if DOMA is sincere then I'd have no problem with it, however if it is a way to cover up true intentions of denying rights then I'm against it.

I'm not interesed in arguing the size of the issue, lets just agree that it does exist.ABE: I don't want to argue about whether or not this is true. Let it be a premise. Nah, lets not stray away from the point of my argument.If we include same sex unions in the definition of marriage it opens up the laws for exploitation. I think we should keep the laws tighter than that but we don't have to limit the rights of gays. We need a new form of commitment to be invented (civil union or something) and then we can incorporate those into the existing laws. I don't like the idea of loosening up the laws to include gay marriages as literally "marriages". Its gonna screw shit up.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : to include quote from PaulK

You say that if poeple don't oppose DOMA then they are hateful bigots and there is no reason to oppose it other thatn being hateful. I've provided a reason and you are dodging it.Good day sir.

I've already gone over this but here it is again.We don't really see straight people doing this, do we? I, personally would not enter a bogus relationship with a girl but I would with a guy. If its allowed I think its gonna happen.

Well, basically the issue is health care.Gay people want to be covered on their partner's plan. At least thats what they've been telling me.They need some kind of union for the current plans so they want to be able to get married. Of course there is child custody and legal decisions and such, but like you said, they can be taken care of in other ways.