Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Massnative stated: "It's very simple, a same-sex household does not provide the same benefit to society that a nuclear family does. Therefore, it should not be treated as equal nor given the same reward."...
WOW! So by this logic, those single parent families should also be discriminated against. And those whose heterosexual spouses died, for whatever reason...perhaps in accidents, illness, serving the country etc, will also be "demoted" now and discriminated against because they no longer "provide the same benefit to society"?????? WOW WOW WOW!!!!!
Keep posting, Massnative, and you are doing your opponents a BIG favor!
I am simply dumbfounded by the idiocy! Once again....WOW!!!
Not a lot of sense spoken here. Single parent families do not receive marriage benefits, so I guess you could say they are currently being discriminated against? Social engineering since the 60s has encouraged single parent households and the results have been disastrous (the stats don't lie). A main reason for marriage benefits is let's say the father (or main financial provider) dies while leaving behind the mother who has been the children's caretaker. At least now she will have some kind of safety net. I actually do not think lifelong childless spouses should receive all marriage benefits (why do they need them?). Those laws are outdated now that women have equality in the workplace, I really don't know how to change the system though.
Let me ask you a question. Let's say you are taking care of your elderly mother who is dependent on you financially and every other way. Do you not feel it discrimination that married couples recieve protections that you don't? What about 2 elderly sisters living together who have nobody else to lean on? What about other non-recognized alternative "marriages" ie. polygamous households? They all face discrimination right? Why not just open "marriage" up to everyone and everything? Why should it mean anything anymore?
I appreciate your compliments and be rest assured that I will keep posting with truths that not all may be able to handle.
I also understand the WOW factor coming from some people. Opponents of SSM have been intimidated into silence for years now and hearing the "other side" can hit pretty harshly. Instead of responding to the issue (like explaining why they feel that a child doesn't need a father and mother), they respond with insults and enragement.
That's because you can get one for free with a very cheap, basic plan through various services. These services were developed for persons experiencing homelessness.
By your logic, massnative, people who can't/don't have children should be denied the right to legally marry as well. Do you support dissolving your parents marriage, if your mom is past child-bearing age?
Luckily, this is a moot point for Massachusetts. Same sex partners can legally marry here. The Commonwealth will be on the right side of history on this one. Feel free to whine about it online, though, if it makes you feel better. I doubt any married gay couple really cares too much.
They can always adopt then still provide a nurturing, normal family with a male and female role model. Like I said I do think that if they go through their childbearing years without having kids, some benefits should be scaled back. Times have changed, women are expected to work especially if they don't plan on kids.
Dissolve my parents' marriage, is that a serious question? My mother took years off from work, then worked part time for years after that in order to raise us kids. Having kids takes years of earning power/savings away from (usually the mother) which puts her at some disadvantages for life. That is the rational reason for providing all the benefits married couples are entitled to.
As far as the Commonwealth being on the right side of history, only time will tell. Proponents tirelessly compare this to the plight of woman and blacks earlier in our history. I equate it more to the failed experiment of fatherless babies. Wherever that first became mainstream, I wonder if we will be as proud to have invented this latest version of "equality".
Florida is one of the most violent states in the country (this article by HuffPo says it's the 4th most violent, although it ranks 9th in terms of violent crime). I wouldn't consider that a ringing endorsement of the stand your ground laws. In fact, many studies, including this one, show that those laws tend to increase the occurrence of violent crimes.
For the record, I fully support gun ownership (grew up with guns); but I'm not really a big fan of Stand Your Ground.
Article doesn't really make it clear whether the increase in homicides includes "justifiable" homicides. Of coarse there will be more "justifiable" homicides if more homicides are "justifiable". It also doesn't give breakdowns of each individual state which all may have different explanations. FL has for long been in the top 5 most dangerous states. A few years ago it was actully #1, to now be #4 I think that is some pretty good progress.
I would also like to see the methodology used in the study, and whether they used non-castle doctrine states as comparisons for that period?
EBT needs to be FAR more regulated!
No damn cookies, chips, soda, TV dinners, pizza, crab, lobster, steak, cakes, pies, muffins, candy, burritos, chicken nuggets, corn dogs...etc etc...
Article doesn't really make it clear whether the increase in homicides includes "justifiable" homicides. Of coarse there will be more "justifiable" homicides if more homicides are "justifiable". It also doesn't give breakdowns of each individual state which all may have different explanations. FL has for long been in the top 5 most dangerous states. A few years ago it was actully #1, to now be #4 I think that is some pretty good progress.
I would also like to see the methodology used in the study, and whether they used non-castle doctrine states as comparisons for that period?
btw I have mixed feeling on the law, I am actually for a happy medium between that and states like MA where you are expected to "fully retreat" into the back and hope for the best (and then still likely have problems in court).
EBT needs to be FAR more regulated!
No damn cookies, chips, soda, TV dinners, pizza, crab, lobster, steak, cakes, pies, muffins, candy, burritos, chicken nuggets, corn dogs...etc etc...
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2
Agree, if the state can break down each individual item to determine if it's taxable; then it can easily determine what items are EBTable. Patrick's argument is laughable at best.
The problem you present has nothing to do with whether gay people have the legitimate right to be treated equally or not. It has to do with the institution of marriage as defined legally and financially by our country. In that context, if a heterosexual couple can receive tax benefits due to their marriage status, then so can a homosexual couple. Heterosexual couples do not always make children together, yet they still receive the benefits that come with being married. I know of many heterosexual couples who do not and plan not to have children. I am in one such relationship! Do you wish to remove my right to being married because of my choice to be childless? What if we actually cannot have children? Does that mean you will deprive us of being married too? What a ridiculous position. Your understanding of marriage is stuck in the past, but if you care about the historical element of marriage, then why not go all the way back, and allow fathers to give away their daughters as property, and give polygomy the pride of place in our society. Marriage as a civil institution is an evolving thing that is moving with time and enlightened progress. You sadly will be left behind by history.
And a maximum period of 5 years for benefits over ones lifetime. Unless you work and still need it. Or are legitimately disabled and cannot work.
Being a fat ass does not make you disabled.
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2
That's what Clinton's welfare reform was supposed to do, but they just keep spitting out kids and find other ways of being on the dole. They will say that the "kids shouldn't be left to starve and be punished for their parent's mistakes", that is why I am for cashless benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
