Originally posted by whodey
Unmarried couples are not afforded the same rights.

That is not what we were talking about at all.

You agree that people have a choice to get married, get the benefits that come along with marriage but also the responsibilities.

And yet you were trying to make the 90 year old man into a victim.

Of his own choice.

And you want to take that choice away.

You are clearly not in favor of freedom.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
That is not what we were talking about at all.

You agree that people have a choice to get married, get the benefits that come along with marriage but also the responsibilities.

And yet you were trying to make the 90 year old man into a victim.

Of his own choice.

And you want to take that choice away.

You are clearly not in favor of freedom.

Don't be obtuse.

I am saying that people should make their own legal arrangements verses having the state do it for them unbeknownst to them in many cases. You should not need a lawyer to understand it all, but it is arranged so that you do.

In addition, people should not have state perks based upon whom they want to have sex with while others are denied. You have no answer for this so you choose to ignore it altogether.

Originally posted by whodey
Don't be obtuse.

I am saying that people should make their own legal arrangements verses having the state do it for them unbeknownst to them in many cases. You should not need a lawyer to understand it all, but it is arranged so that you do.

In addition, people should not have state perks based upon whom they want to have sex with while others are denied. You have no answer for this so you choose to ignore it altogether.

Repeating a lie over and over and over again does not change it into a truth. There is no "perk" for " based upon whom they want to have sex with", One can safely ignore this lie except to point out it is a lie.

Sure one could go to a lawyer and have them write up a detailed contract covering the many and various circumstances where they would like their spouse to exercise control in their stead or other matters. But the State, at the request of the People, has made it a lot easier for everyone by simply encapsulating these normal preferences in one contract called "marriage". You can enter that contract if you want to, but are not required to. You may alter most terms of that contract by getting a lawyer and drawing up a contract, but you are not required to.

Where exactly is the lack of freedom part?

Originally posted by whodey
Unmarried couples are not afforded the same rights.

Name one.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
That is not what we were talking about at all.

You agree that people have a choice to get married, get the benefits that come along with marriage but also the responsibilities.

And yet you were trying to make the 90 year old man into a victim.

Of his own choice.

And you want to take that choice away.

You are clearly not in favor of freedom.

How is raising a kid in a committed single relationship different than a committed married relationship? Does getting married make you a better couple?

What responsibilities do the married couple have over the couple that decides not to get married?

Originally posted by Eladar
How is raising a kid in a committed single relationship different than a committed married relationship? Does getting married make you a better couple?

What responsibilities do the married couple have over the couple that decides not to get married?

The tax exemptions and credits for children are available to both married and unmarried couples. And to single parents as well.

So what exactly is the point being made?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The tax exemptions and credits for children are available to both married and unmarried couples. And to single parents as well.

So what exactly is the point being made?

I was responding to the post that I quoted. I was wondering how married people have more responsibility than single people.

My question for you is that if married gives you no advantages, then how is preventing gays from getting married causing them harm?

Originally posted by Eladar
I was responding to the post that I quoted. I was wondering how married people have more responsibility than single people.

My question for you is that if married gives you no advantages, then how is preventing gays from getting married causing them harm?

It gives the advantages I already mentioned; it avoids the necessity of making long, involved individual contracts to cover situations that the marriage contract implicitly covers by law.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The tax exemptions and credits for children are available to both married and unmarried couples. And to single parents as well.

So what exactly is the point being made?

How about just plain single people who make the decision not to breed? Why should they support those who do choose to breed?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It gives the advantages I already mentioned; it avoids the necessity of making long, involved individual contracts to cover situations that the marriage contract implicitly covers by law.

So one size fits all?

Originally posted by normbenign
How about just plain single people who make the decision not to breed? Why should they support those who do choose to breed?

Since you're in "hold your breath until you turn blue" mode, I'll simply repost what I said two pages:

People having children is necessary for the continued existence of society. So this and most other societies have decided to decrease the financial penalty that having a child almost always incurs by granting a tax deduction and sometimes tax credits to partially offset that cost. Society doesn't have to, but where a democratically selected legislature makes such an obviously rational decision to do so I don't see it as some kind of invidious discrimination against people who don't have kids.

Originally posted by normbenign
So one size fits all?

You can always write your own contract if you don't like the generally approved one. Why make it harder for the vast majority who are satisfied with the general contract to appease a few complainers like you and whodey when the abolition of the general wouldn't even make it easier for them?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You can always write your own contract if you don't like the generally approved one. Why make it harder for the vast majority who are satisfied with the general contract to appease a few complainers like you and whodey when the abolition of the general wouldn't even make it easier for them?

But... but... gays are icky!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But... but... gays are icky!

Gays are living a sinful lifestyle and if they continue their rebellion unto death, they will receive their just reward.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It gives the advantages I already mentioned; it avoids the necessity of making long, involved individual contracts to cover situations that the marriage contract implicitly covers by law.

Why should the government be handing out special 'rights' to married people over single?