Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
The original social contract of marriage was to make sure resources went to the offspring, not your BS as stated " loving and dedicated couple". If you do so with the intent to adopt, then there is a social benefit.
If anything I would deprive such late marriages of any benefit as well since quite clearly no one's career was crippled and no resources went into said offspring.
If it does pass I would content to end social security all together. The fraud will be endless.
The fraud is that only straight people get the rights with marriage and marriage is and never was contengent on procreating, nor are or were those 1049 rights for the children, those rights are for the protections of the couple. Children wether adopted or procreated are not required of marriage and there are gay people who adopt and have reproduced children who all deserve to be treated equally under the law. Again, us gay people are tax paying citizens too and all the laws and protections of the United States of America belong to all of its citizens, tax paying or not, gay or straight, black or white or religious or non religious. Rights are not based on ones sexual orientation with straight being the majority rule. My spouse fought in Viet Nam, got shot and wounded, nearly left for dead. He was left disabled, as many vets have been. If I were a wife, not a husband, he would get coverage for me under VA health, benefits that I can partake of, benefits that he nearly paid for with his life and all straight vets get to partake of, even for a new wife. But because of the moral majority and DOMA we are denied those spousal benefits that no where say they are for the children of a married couple. A senior citizen can marry another senior citizen of the opposite sex and they can enjoy the protections and benefits afforded by the federal government, all 1049 plus or minus givens, those freebies that you take for granted, those freebies paid for in taxes by everyone and should be enjoyed by everyone, not just straight people.
My spouse fought in Viet Nam, got shot and wounded, nearly left for dead. He was left disabled, as many vets have been. If I were a wife, not a husband, he would get coverage for me under VA health, benefits that I can partake of, benefits that he nearly paid for with his life and all straight vets get to partake of, even for a new wife.
You are an illustration of why I believe in marriage equality.
Your spouse served his country and he's treated like a second class citizen by the government and the people he fought for.
Makes me want to take every anti-gay, full-of-themselves, moralizing bigot, make them look your spouse full in the eye and tell us all, "What part of him was not good enough to serve in Vietnam?" (They will have no answer.) "Please tell us why you are denying him full rights as a citizen when he was considered good enough to fight in combat in a God-forsaken hell hole of a jungle in the United States military?"
Then I'd tell them to get over themselves and let you and your spouse live your lives. With full benefits.
The fraud is that only straight people get the rights with marriage and marriage is and never was contengent on procreating,
Baloney. The history of Western civilization is clear. Now since I was accused that I just made it up as I went along, and have since provided witness to the position, we can see which foot the shoe is on.
In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.
That was a society very tolerant of homosexuality.
It lost that concept in the US because in a free, pioneer state there was no social contract . So marriage was all about "love". If we are going to bolt on social benefits to it we need to review its purpose entirely. I have no desire, as I have said, to give people the right to pass on their social benefits as an inheretence. What is the basis for it under the social contract? I can certainly see one when in marriage someone takes on a liability of adopting children which is where the basis of the social contract lies. If one decides to marry a single parent but they don't adopt, does that mean they collect the benefits and the children become wards of the state? That it?
So again it has nothing at all to do with "equality, love or acceptance". It has to do with money and going on the public nipple, like everyone else it seems these days.
You are an illustration of why I believe in marriage equality.
Your spouse served his country and he's treated like a second class citizen by the government and the people he fought for.
Makes me want to take every anti-gay, full-of-themselves, moralizing bigot, make them look your spouse full in the eye and tell us all, "What part of him was not good enough to serve in Vietnam?" (They will have no answer.) "Please tell us why you are denying him full rights as a citizen when he was considered good enough to fight in combat in a God-forsaken hell hole of a jungle in the United States military?"
Then I'd tell them to get over themselves and let you and your spouse live your lives. With full benefits.
Thank You DewDropInn. We even applied a few years ago for spousal medical at the VA hospital, just for check ups etc that any spouse of a vet would receive. We got a letter back saying that we were denied due to DOMA and until DOMA is repealed, they would only recognized marriages between a man and a woman. Oddly, regardless of DOMA I can go to school full time, books, tuition and all on his GI bill as his spouse, and sexual orientations does not matter one bit. The sexual orientation and reproductive status of a married couple, nor their ages as long as they consent, are reasons for denying any of the 1049 plus or minus Federal rights, protections or benefits. As it is now, if he should die, he is 15 years older, before me, the house and everything he owns would be taxed as if we were not a couple.. We are married in California, but because of DOMA, the federal government discrinates against us and so do most states. There is no reason to object to gays getting married or the rights associated with that marriage other than the morality that the majority wants to impose upon us homosexuals. They set standards for which they think we should attain, yet fail to attain those themselves. That is why the divorce rate is well above 50% for straight people, marriage is becoming nothing more than a legitimate shaking up for sex and if they get tired of each other, just divorce and move on to another spouse. I know marriage and its troubles are difficult, been there and done that that most straight couples moan and groan about or even divorce over. I applaud anyone that gets over the first 10 year hump in any relationship, married or just living together.
Baloney. The history of Western civilization is clear. Now since I was accused that I just made it up as I went along, and have since provided witness to the position, we can see which foot the shoe is on.
In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.
That was a society very tolerant of homosexuality.
It lost that concept in the US because in a free, pioneer state there was no social contract . So marriage was all about "love". If we are going to bolt on social benefits to it we need to review its purpose entirely. I have no desire, as I have said, to give people the right to pass on their social benefits as an inheretence. What is the basis for it under the social contract? I can certainly see one when in marriage someone takes on a liability of adopting children which is where the basis of the social contract lies. If one decides to marry a single parent but they don't adopt, does that mean they collect the benefits and the children become wards of the state? That it?
So again it has nothing at all to do with "equality, love or acceptance". It has to do with money and going on the public nipple, like everyone else it seems these days.
Marriage between same sex partners was frequent among most American aborigines, aka Native Americans. Women used to be property and could not vote, blacks were called less than human and so were native Americans. Bull, the social contract of a federal civil marriage is not and does not exist for the children, BALONEY. A single parent who adopts, is the parent, their non married spouse is not and does not get any rights or benefits, that is how most same sex marriages and unions are treated, only the legal parent is parent. So it is okay for you straight people to suckle at the nipple paid for by all people, gays included. That makes people like you nothing more than suckling pigs pusing away the weaker ones, just so you can get fat on the hog. OINK, OINK.
It lost that concept in the US because in a free, pioneer state there was no social contract . So marriage was all about "love".
I was just about with you right to that point. Of course there was a social contract in the U.S. - just because a Frenchman invented the idea doesn't mean it only exists there. More to the point, the traditionally-understood family was just as central to the mediation of man and society in the U.S. prior to about 1970/80 than anything the Code Napoleon imagined for France.
So it is okay for you straight people to suckle at the nipple paid for by all people, gays included. That makes people like you nothing more than suckling pigs pusing away the weaker ones, just so you can get fat on the hog. OINK, OINK.
In the midst of your juvenile scorn, you might recall that we piggy straight people are still the vast majority in this society, and if it were not for some number of us porcine egoists deciding to extend age-old privileges to you, for no better reason than a sense of justice and fairness, you'd still be lurking in back alleys and dodging sodomy charges. Try and keep that broad brush of yours in your back pocket, together with your colored hanky.
I guess since the probability of Gay marriage in the US is near we will get a bunch of nut threads looking for all sorts of reasons for wanting to get married like wanting to collect SS payments! Those gay scammers!
I object to expanding the definition of "Marriage". It is what it is and it's far more than a religous idea. I just don't believe that anything other than one man one woman meets the definition and to expand or change that definition is to actually subtract from what marriage has always ment in law and in fact.
If these same sex couples want something akin to marriage what don't they just make up their own term and rituals for what ever it is they desire and then seek to have that recognized in law and accepted in society.
I don't buy their civil liberties arguement at all. It's a strawman arguement and it really does not apply as an equality issue at all. Why so the gays desire to have what the heteros have in the first place. Do they want their relationships to be seen as the same as straights when it clearly is totally different?
If , as they claim it is not fair they can not be married in the traditional sence then it would also be true of any other nontraditional relationships. There are culture in SE Asia where one woman would be shared as a wife by two or more brothers, two sisters would be shared amound a number of brothers and there are other nontraditional arraingments out there.These people could use the very same arguements and reasoning the gays do to try to force the expansion of the definition of marriage to suit their particular culture.
It all boils down to the desire of the gays to be seen and accepted as the "Same" as everyone else. If that were nt the case then a legally binding union that affordd all the same benefits as a traditional marriage would be good enough for them and as we have seen it isn't.
In the midst of your juvenile scorn, you might recall that we piggy straight people are still the vast majority in this society, and if it were not for some number of us porcine egoists deciding to extend age-old privileges to you, for no better reason than a sense of justice and fairness, you'd still be lurking in back alleys and dodging sodomy charges. Try and keep that broad brush of yours in your back pocket, together with your colored hanky.
Is that also your attitude toward Jews, blacks, and other minorities who have been persecuted throughout the years? Piggy, indeed.
The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd is really beginning to panic. They clearly see that they're losing this fight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
