Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:22 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,794,054 times
Reputation: 7020

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
That is normal for a gay man, not so much for a lesbian though. And if you still don't understand the rights that come with legal marriage, and insist upon believing it's all about "sticking a penis up another man's butt," I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Btw, they don't generally teach sex Ed in 3rd grade - and everything a gay couple does in bed, straight couples do too. You didn't realize that? So if gay people can be virgins and straight people can have anal/oral sex, how is that the issue? Get your mind out of the gutter, LOL.

P.S. How does legalizing gay marriage "endorse" or encourage gay sex? They still have sex with or without that piece of paper, and I thought sex usually stopped after marriage anyway.
I'm still amazed how much anti-gay bigots obsess over male/male anal sex. There has to be a psychological disorder there for them to bring the topic up every single time we have these discussions. I don't for one second believe Harrier is completely straight. He will deny he's gay/bisexual until hell freezes over, but no one secure in their sexuality preoccupies themselves with anal-sex to the level anti-gays do. 40-50% of gay men don't even try or involve themselves with anal sex, where as 40% of straights do.

And yet, gays are demonized to the point of apparently having anal sex 24/7/365. That must get tiring after awhile.

 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,054,697 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Are you are talking about revoking marriage licenses because a married couple is too old to produce children?

Marriage is also about the family.
Nobody is arguing this.

Just that having a family is irrelevant to current standing marriage law.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
38,065 posts, read 22,219,705 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
How did the court martial prove that they got married "only for the benefits"?
Because they were sleeping around, with each person having a separate boyfriend or girlfriend living in their four bedroom home.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,233,758 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Marriage is also about the family.
Where in writing in the law does it say this? Pretty sure gold diggers disagree with you. While *some* marriages are about family, not all of them are. Try again.

Quote:
The extended family is very important to any nation and society. When people fall on hard times, or need assistance, and strong family of cousins, aunts, grandparents will be there to care for and help each other out.

A nation with a strong and helathy extended family structure removes a lot of burden from the social welfare systems of government.
Through personal experience this a joke. Where is this utopia of families always being there for one another and helping each other out in the time of need? It certainly isn't here in America that's for sure.

Where you from again and where do you live now? In some fantasy land?
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:24 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,119,641 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
You''ll need to restate that, cuz i dont know which state you are referring to, nor what those rights are.
I'm asking for your personal opinion. You seem to think that marriage is only valid when procreation / child rearing is involved, so I want to know if you think that only couples with children should get the rights that come with a civil marriage. When a couple contracts a civil marriage in the US, they are endowed with some 1400 rights (well, heterosexual couples get these rights - even legally married gay couples in places like New York are denied them). For example:

When a spouse dies, the surviving spouse is exempt from estate taxes on inherited assets that were not joint marital property.

The right to sue for wrongful death (Do you remember that black man who was recently run over and killed for being black by a group of white teenagers - turns out he was gay and had a husband for over 17 years. Because he's gay, his husband is not allowed to file a wrongful death suit against the murderers).

If a member of a married couple is foreign, he automatically gets a spousal immigration visa.

If one spouse owns a business and employs the other spouse, then that business is exempt from paying unemployment insurance tax on the employed spouse's wages.

If one spouse is in the military, he is paid more. Also, his spouse gets to shop at the base commissary and PX.

If one spouse dies, the other gets social security survivorship benefits.

etc, etc, etc.


We already know you don't think gay people should get them, but, since in your opinion marriage is only valid when children are involved, should only couples with children get these rights?
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: WA
4,242 posts, read 8,784,172 times
Reputation: 2375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Are you are talking about revoking marriage licenses because a married couple is too old to produce children?

Marriage is also about the family. The extended family is very important to any nation and society. When people fall on hard times, or need assistance, and strong family of cousins, aunts, grandparents will be there to care for and help each other out.

A nation with a strong and helathy extended family structure removes a lot of burden from the social welfare systems of government.
You just made an excellent argument for gay marriage! These new family units can provide a lot of love and support to their extended family members. When their sisters, aunts, cousins, grandparents, need a place to stay, someone to babysit, or assistance when they're sick, the gay couple as a stable, loving family unit can take care of them.

Glad that you've figured it out!
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
38,065 posts, read 22,219,705 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinArmageddons View Post
Nobody is arguing this.

Just that having a family is irrelevant to current standing marriage law.
The whole reason for why there is marriage, is because of children.

You don't seriously think we are bending over backwards to help and subsidize married couples because we think it's neat the they love each other, or because we really, really want them to get hospital visitation rights?

Marriage is only about an institution to raise the children that we know men and women make.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,054,697 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
The whole reason for why there is marriage, is because of children.
Which is irrelevant to current standing law.

Quote:
Marriage is only about an institution to raise the children that we know men and women make.
Okay then.

Please point out where it says this in current standing law.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
38,065 posts, read 22,219,705 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinArmageddons View Post
The marriage contract doesn't care if you have babies.

How much clearer can that be?
It's for the babies we know they will most likely create. there are billions of examples of this, Google it even.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:27 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,794,054 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Link?

And let's be honest here, religious conservatives can buck trends. Otherwise, the Middle East would have evolved.
I already posted evidence proving him wrong. Most Jewish divisions are very accepting of gays, especially in North America. Orthodox Jews oppose the behavior, but even their views are evolving and they don't approve of gays marrying the opposite sex or being "cured", and believe they should be treated with respect and compassion.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top