Most homophobes I know aren't even religious (statistics, deaths, government)
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.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Honestly, you have not read the responses from the gay people. we need the protections of marriage to protect our property we own together, our lives we have built together, the families that many of us have and raise. The 1049 rights and benefits granted by the US federal government with a civil marriage contract are not dependant on reproduction, nor do they require reproduction for them to be established. If family is so important for children, why deny them a healty and loving family just because they are gay. Children need the support and love of a family, does not have to be soley a mom and a dad, it can be two moms or two dads and the support and love is there for them. Denying them that because the parents are gay, hurts those families, affects their children, but I guess that is okay because only straight people are allowed to have families
In nature children/families were a direct product of SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, which requires both a male and a female to raise a children that is both theirs.
I'm not saying that ONLY a biological parent should raise their child, there are circumstances where that is not possible.
Know what...might want to clean your language up, its un-necessary and this is a public forum where any youngster can look at this stuff...Plus, this always happens and then we hear this talk about adaption and all that argument....so
There was nothing wrong with his language, I have seen much worse from the straight people on here talking about gay sex between men. You just got your underwear in a bunch and had to attact this poster. Stop whining and squeeling, if you do not like this thread, do not post on it.
No, you need a lawyer. You can give rights of survivorship to anyone you want. And yes, I've looked into this. Dh and I will be divorcing for tax reasons next year when he retires because I no longer need to cover him on my health insurance. However, we will keep each other as legal heir to the other one's estate. Everything is set up in trust.
As to gays and children, read my previous post. The only way that happens is by agreement. Hence there is no reason to have protections in place before a child, unintentionally, arrives. They're already in place because there is no biological risk of a gay couple producing a child.
However, I really don't care who, legally, marries. As far as I am concerned they should pay the marriage penalty too. As things are, gays enjoy a tax advantage. Here they have the right to cover each other on medical insurance without being married so they don't pay the marriage penalty. If dh and I could do that, we'd save about $4k/year.
Does not matter how you say it. The 1049 rights and benefits that come with secular marriage are not about the children, they are about the marriage itself. People in their 80's can marry and get the same exact full set of rights and benefits, reproducing is not required. Gays who marry are denied those benefits, even if they do have kids. Gays are being denied the same access, yet we pay more in tax, we are expected to hire legal help to attain what you get for free. that is discrimination and unfair practice. We are taxed, but not equally represented.
No, you need a lawyer. You can give rights of survivorship to anyone you want. And yes, I've looked into this. Dh and I will be divorcing for tax reasons next year when he retires because I no longer need to cover him on my health insurance. However, we will keep each other as legal heir to the other one's estate. Everything is set up in trust.
As to gays and children, read my previous post. The only way that happens is by agreement. Hence there is no reason to have protections in place before a child, unintentionally, arrives. They're already in place because there is no biological risk of a gay couple producing a child.
However, I really don't care who, legally, marries. As far as I am concerned they should pay the marriage penalty too. As things are, gays enjoy a tax advantage. Here they have the right to cover each other on medical insurance without being married so they don't pay the marriage penalty. If dh and I could do that, we'd save about $4k/year.
So, instead of sharing the 1049 rights, straight people feel we should have to try and pay for those rights> Rights and benefits cannot be bought. Why should we have to hire an attorney to get tax breaks if one of us should die? The rights and benefits granted with a federal secular marriage license are not incluslive of child rearing, they have nothing to do with child production. they are there for every legally married couple regardless of their age or if they have any intention of having kids. It is not as if the government inforces a rule saying you must have kids or the rights will be taken back.
In the U.S. population would be growing very slowly and in some cases declining if not for immigration, so the idea that more children can help our society, has potential value.
In places like India and China, Bangladesh, they don't need more people, except to care for their elders in old age.
Regarding what is beneficial for society...Earth doesn't need more people, on average. The healthiest thing for human society, on average, would be for many, many more homosexuals to form, which would lead to much less procreation, and for as many of them as possible to adopt children.
Poverty seems to increase the number of children being given birth to in many nations. (If most may not live to adulthood, you'd better have a lot to care for you into your old age...also less access to birth control.) These same impoverished nations probably won't have best orphanages.
Thank a homosexual for helping to preserve humanity for awhile longer
Haha! I win! You lose! (lots and lots of smug snickering)
With your logic, a society would also be offering a benefit to a company which eliminated people to meet your preferred and explained objective..... practice problem solving can help.
edit...lots of smokescreens coming in today.
Last edited by stargazzer; 12-23-2012 at 12:43 PM..
With your logic, a society would also be offering a benefit to a company which eliminated people to meet your preferred and explained objective..... practice problem solving can help.
edit...lots of smokescreens coming in today.
Could you further specify your intended meaning? At this time I will answer in the following way, unless your intended meaning is specified:
Yes, all societies assist companies by providing potential employees. They assist those companies which eliminate people to meet my preferred objective, and those that do not as well.
I'm just seeing this now and on my way out until later tonight, Your idea wants to downsize the population by replacing sex with homosexuality. Why not just create a company that can reduce more efficiently by random bomb dropping, both are immoral. Or spread a virus...IOW....the depopulation objective correcting an opinionated or whatever wrong, in your view outweighs the wrong in homosexuality....if you want to argue whether or not the homosexual act is or is not an outright virtuous intentional( moral) act, then that is another argument. Something is either moral or it is not, right course of behav or wrong. You would have hetro immoral, and gay a moral virtuous act.
Last edited by stargazzer; 12-23-2012 at 02:37 PM..
You know what, the "deranged left" accepts all people whereas the right is still a racist bunch....blacks, gays, whatever. You only have to read the posts here to realize that. If you don't agree with the gay lifestyle then yes you are a homophobe. What would you call it?
I agree. The sole purpose of marriage was to protect women and children. Also, it is beneficial for children to have their father in their home. Marriage ties the family together in a legal and societal bond that comes with expectations.
Nope.
I don't buy that argument at all. It is nonsense in my view.
Marriage has many purposes. Period. Non-fertile couples are afforded the right to marry. Couples who are fertile but choose not to have children are afforded the right to marry. Same sex couples can legally marry in many countries and in some states in the United States.
Marriage, throughout the centuries, has had different rules, purposes, and meanings.
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.
