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.
Back when gay marriage was being debated some people were claiming absurdities like it would lead to interspecies marriage. I guess that has happened!
This is how mass Acceptance begins - small and benign, seemingly unnoticed by the majority. In time, we'll hear more of this, as people begin to ponder and defend the "why nots" and the "who does it hurt?" aspect of the issue.
Consider our history. 70 years ago, living together (shacking up) was a societal horror, as was out-of-wedlock pregnancy and many other things fully accepted as normal today.
This isn't just a laughable, tucked-away news story. It's the beginning. It's the planting of the Seed.
Last edited by Javacoffee; 04-29-2022 at 06:00 AM..
That's barbaric. It this day and age of freedom we should be able to marry cats. If I could marry my cat I could put her on my health insurance. And I have to correct you on something. Cat's are not people's pets. It's the other way around.
This is how mass Acceptance begins - small and benign, seemingly unnoticed by the majority. In time, we'll hear more of this, as people begin to ponder and defend the "why nots" and the "who does it hurt?" aspect of the issue.
Consider our history. 70 years ago, living together (shacking up) was a societal horror, as was out-of-wedlock pregnancy and many other things fully accepted as normal today.
This isn't just a laughable, tucked-away news story. It's the beginning. It's the planting of the Seed.
I think that's silly. She didn't "marry" her cat because she was in love and wanted to be married to it. She did it in hopes of being allowed to keep it after her landlord told her she had to get rid of it. There are zero larger societal implications to what she did.
This is how mass Acceptance begins - small and benign, seemingly unnoticed by the majority. In time, we'll hear more of this, as people begin to ponder and defend the "why nots" and the "who does it hurt?" aspect of the issue.
Consider our history. 70 years ago, living together (shacking up) was a societal horror, as was out-of-wedlock pregnancy and many other things fully accepted as normal today.
This isn't just a laughable, tucked-away news story. It's the beginning. It's the planting of the Seed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I think that's silly. She didn't "marry" her cat because she was in love and wanted to be married to it. She did it in hopes of being allowed to keep it after her landlord told her she had to get rid of it. There are zero larger societal implications to what she did.
Maybe so, ocnjgirl. Maybe this is a one-off. But Javacoffee is right. Things that would have been unthinkable 70 years ago are commonplace today. Somone had to "think" of those things and then act on them, and then someone else had to do so, and so on and so on. And you can be sure that there's someone right now who's thinking that it would be fine and dandy to marry their pet, for real, and live together as husband and wife, and demand societal acceptance and governmental approval of their union.
Maybe so, ocnjgirl. Maybe this is a one-off. But Javacoffee is right. Things that would have been unthinkable 70 years ago are commonplace today. Somone had to "think" of those things and then act on them, and then someone else had to do so, and so on and so on. And you can be sure that there's someone right now who's thinking that it would be fine and dandy to marry their pet, for real, and live together as husband and wife, and demand societal acceptance and governmental approval of their union.
I really think you're concerned about nothing. It is not a legal marriage anyway. Do you really think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because it might lead to people marrying animals? Again I think that's silly. My niece is married to a woman. Why shouldn't her partner have the same inheritance rights, health insurance rights, etc as anyone married to an opposite sex partner?
Maybe so, ocnjgirl. Maybe this is a one-off. But Javacoffee is right. Things that would have been unthinkable 70 years ago are commonplace today. Somone had to "think" of those things and then act on them, and then someone else had to do so, and so on and so on. And you can be sure that there's someone right now who's thinking that it would be fine and dandy to marry their pet, for real, and live together as husband and wife, and demand societal acceptance and governmental approval of their union.
And things that were commonplace 70 years ago are unthinkable today (mostly, for good reason). Social change never stops. The exact same thing was true in 1952, looking back then 70 years in the past, to 1882.
I have no problem with someone marrying their pet, so long as the pet consents. And therein lies the rub of the fanciful notion that expanding the rights of persons in marriage is going to somehow lead to pets marrying. Consider the same question in terms of suffrage. In the history of the United States, limits on voting have been gradually swept aside. One no longer has to be male to vote, white to vote, Christian to vote, a property owner to vote. Do you see how that's going to lead to cats voting? I don't. How, exactly, can a cat indicate its preferred candidate? Of course, it cannot, any more than it can enter into a marital contract. It cannot sign a marriage certificate, it cannot say "I do". Indeed, it cannot even conceive of such an agreement, just as it cannot even conceive of voting in an election. Expanding marital rights as a gateway to cat marriage is about as likely as expanding voting rights (which, again, we've been doing all throughout the history of this country) being a gateway to cat voting. Because "I married my cat!" is as meaningless a statement as is "My cat and I formed a limited partnership!" or "My cat applied to Yale!", not because those things are not permitted but because a cat lacks the mental capacity to do any of those things.
I'm also on SSDI. You do not get SS in addition to disability, it is one or the other, disability is a reduced rate of social security from everything I've seen written on the subject plus posts by others in the retirement section. Even mine is reduced compared to what I'd get at age 62, 65 or 67 FRA.
It is possible he is getting welfare benefits that make it more. He would be entitled to welfare, probably EBT cash and food stamps. That would make it more.
mybe I'm not explaining right but yes you do get more money when you file for social security disability. As I said go to social security website and see what you get if you file for social security disability before you file for regular disability.
It makes no difference if you made a decent salary it's offered to everyone who qualifies for disability. The disability amount that you would get if you were approved for disability gets added to your regular social security or you just get a higher amount every month. Makes no difference it the amount is calculated with regular social security because you/we still get more money if we qualify for social security disability.
We must qualify as disabled and it takes a lot of Doctors to prove it. Either way it's very clear on the website before we file.
Why was yours reduced? Did you have the amount of time you had to have worked full to qualify? It's not just the disability medical reason it's also the time you put into the job you worked when you file. Take a look on the social security site ssa.gov?
also no welfare benefits the people and site I looked in I didn't check in welfare benefits because it was listed in the section where I and people worked. Welfare benefits are for people who didn't work and didn't qualify under the amount of hours necessary to even bother to file. Now if a person wants disability and didn't work the hours of their guidline the say we need then guess what? we don't qualify, yep. So people must qualify under different and certain guidelines. I have no clue why I Gods name you got a lesser amount than you would get when you were approve for disability unless your hours were not enough.
If you got less on disability than you would get on regular social security then you would have been better off just filing for regular social security
Everything is different now. I know I called up and I checked before I filed for social security. I even used their calculator to estimate how much social security I would get if I qualified for disability and let me tell you I was stunned to see the social security disability amount was higher than the regular social security. Keep in mind I was not 66 retirement age at that time that I put in for social security.
Another thing I saw was that if I died and had a spouse or children they get a hell of a lot more than I do on regular social security. Also an ex spouse who didn't work on the books can get social security too. I know someone who was shocked to find her ex husband got social security but at least they didn't take it from her.
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.
