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.
When those or any other formerly-persecuted minority react by reviling any and all representatives of mainstream culture (yes, I said mainstream), then you're damn right that's my attitude.
"Reviling any and all representatives of mainstream culture"? Oh, the delusion. I've known people like this - people who believe that "the other" is out to get them and their families, and destroy everything they stand for. It's not only delusional, it's paranoid thinking. I feel sorry for these folks sometimes. It's like they have a mental illness.
Quote:
Naturally, you'd characterize an insistence on civilized behavior as homophobic oppression.
Why will the fraud be endless?
Maybe it's because the government gives legal and tax benefits to marriage, which is the real reason why this is a political issue.
Right so lets stop pretending that was what the benefit was about. It would about channeling resources to the offspring in particular so that they would not become a burden to the state. When we so casually introduced no fault divorce, that is exactly what happened. Now we have child support. If homosexual's decide to form a parent union of the same kind, then that fulfills a social contract. Otherwise why is someone going to be used as a proxy for social welfare?
Soon as we allowed easy divorce, marriage we knew it was already breaking the social contract and so now we chase "dead beats" based on offspring.
Quote:
If the government simply had a standardized system where all people were entitled to the same rights regardless of marital status, nobody would care about gay marriage.
I agree which is why the real purpose should be stated which is to legally attach resources to the care of the offspring.
Quote:
Some churches already conduct gay weddings (like the Unitarian sect), and some are indefinitely going to keep them banned, like Islam. Legalization of gay marriage has nothing to do with forcing Catholics to accept gay Catholic weddings and everything to do with giving committed homosexual couples the basic human rights which were entitled to Kim Kardashian and Kris Humpries during their loving and lasting 72 day marriage...
If you people actually cared about the sanctity of marriage, you'd be fighting against the people like Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears and not wasting your time with the gay couples who have already proven their love to each other for decades and simply want to be able to visit one another in the ICU.
I don't care about the sanctity of marriage because what I care about might not be what you care about. Children on the other hand do require some protection of the state and a law that allows a legal unification of resources and benefits is consistent with it.
All I hear from the pro-inequality crowd is "I DON'T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO PLAY IN MY SANDBOX BECAUSE I CAN'T HANDLE CHANGE".
You don't like gay people? Boohoo. You want to treat them like second-class citizens that aren't good enough to share the exact same benefits and protections that heterosexuals enjoy/abuse because you personally don't like them (or your religion says it for you)? Good job on being an uneducated twit.
Fact: Whether it's called marriage or a civil union, the federal government does not grant any protections or benefits to a same-sex couple.
I challenge any heterosexual married person here to get a legal divorce and live the exact life that they feel homosexuals should. No being claiming married on any legal forms. Unless your state provides medical coverage to same-sex partners, you can't put your spouse on yours (or be on your spouse's). Let's see how you cry when your spouse dies and you get treated like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
When those or any other formerly-persecuted minority react by reviling any and all representatives of mainstream culture (yes, I said mainstream), then you're damn right that's my attitude.
Naturally, you'd characterize an insistence on civilized behavior as homophobic oppression.
Mainstream culture is what created segregation. From things like schools to fountains. Mainstream culture is what created slavery. So what you're really saying here is that you would have sided with keeping segregation, slavery, etc, etc... all because that's what mainstream culture celebrated?
So what you're really saying here is that you would have sided with keeping segregation, slavery, etc, etc... all because that's what mainstream culture celebrated?
Among the various very-bad, no-good, icky things mainstream culture celebrates is the institution of marriage, you may recall. That same institution which I presume you would like mainstream culture to widen by reform so as to allow same-sex couples to enjoy. Either because you feel that same-sex couples would benefit from inclusion in this aspect of mainstream culture, or else for the simple mercenary motive of providing them the financial and other benefits of the institution while still standing outside the mainstream of our culture. Is the effort to secure same-sex marriage an embrace of mainstream culture, or a raiding mission to plunder it - intellectual honesty demands you clarify the point.
For my part, I've already made my position clear on the previous page: no state-sanctioned marriage, civil benefit contracts for all. And disapprobation for anyone who characterizes an entire class of people as "pigs".
I challenge any heterosexual married person here to get a legal divorce and live the exact life that they feel homosexuals should.
If it were not for children, I am not sure why I would bother declaring my relation to the state at all. Many people wonder way bother with marriage for that reason. On the other hand if I could get social security benefits after someone dies, then I might be more interested in a "union".
As to this:
Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold's possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.
Perhaps we should talk about the legal profession and the complexity involved in transfer of property. And perhaps again we should wonder why the state should involve itself at all with inheretence since only an entity of the state should be subject to taxes, not anything truly owned. . If anything marriage exposes the corruption in the rest of the legal landscape including this kind of state sanctioned thuggery.
If it were not for children, I am not sure why I would bother declaring my relation to the state at all. Many people wonder way bother with marriage for that reason. On the other hand if I could get social security benefits after someone dies, then I might be more interested in a "union".
Ah, but what makes you, your spouse, and your child(ren) different from a homosexual set of parents and their children? Both have a set of parents. Both have a child involved. Until you can point out to me a difference between the households (that doesn't involve gender discrimination or pointing at genitals), then there's no reason that the two households should be treated differently by anybody.
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.
And you are qualified to define legal marriage HOW again?
social benefit is subjective, it is a personal issue. Government and, agenda pushers/lobbyists need to step out.
Propaganda is the forte of government. You seem to be promoting it.
The social freebies that all married straight people collect for just being married, the 1049 federal rights, privileges and protections that they get for free, the right to inherit their loved partners property with out undue taxation??? Those are not social freebies, those are givens with marriage that any loving and dedicated couple regardless of sexual orientation should receive without the intervention of the moral majority. Why should I or my same sex spouse of 34 years have to be penalized for being a gay couple? Why did my friend Barbara inherit her husband George's social security and get survival benefits from the VA when he passed away. They had no children together and got married when they were both past child bearing age and were together half the time my partner and I have been together? If anything it is us gays and lesbians that are being punished and taxed so that you can enjoy those 1049 plus/minus Federally granted rights and protections that you call social freebies. Last time I checked, I am a US citizen too and I have been granted the same rights and protections you get. That should and will include the right to marry the person I love and have the protections our relationship deserves. WE ARE TAX PAYERS TOO
You're also misinformed as to how social security works for a spouse. In order for the spouse to benefit from claiming their spouses social security, they have to be lacking their own or have half of their spouses social security be more than their entire social security benefit.
For example: My dh and I have been married for 34 years. He's retiring this year but he will get no benefit from my social security. Why? Because he has his own benefit. I will get no benefit from his social security because I have my own benefit. I could opt to take half of his benefit instead of mine but why would I do that when I'm entitled to a larger sum if I just collect based on my own work history.
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.
