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.
No it is not. What is sensible about saying it is for progeny when it is not. Tell me why sterile couples are allowed to marry, or senior citizens and why are the benefits denied gay couples that have kids? Try and makes some sense.
Congratulations, and I mean it.
34 years definitely takes a commitment to a relationship to make it work so long.
In my family, I was one on six children. Adding my parents makes 6 marriages within my immediate family - And there's not a single divorce. Statistically, we must be doing something very different than you will find in the average American family*.... Or maybe we have actuallty learned a bit about what it takes for a successful marriage. ANd I would say you have too after 34 years.
There are many financial predators who prey upon the fantasies that have grown up around marriage. And my fear is that these days, many Hetero marriages are prone to unharmonious Unions driven by a financial predator, and my own anecdotal experience suggests that Gays are even more prone to such imbalanced relationships.
Why?
Because there is a "critical reason" missing in a gay "marriage." The principle rationale for a tradition marriage is to have children, and raise them within a stable environment. If gays are going to to have a family, they have to have something "unnatural" or "tragic" (like a death or divorce) must happen to make that possible.
These few sentences summarise up my objections to gay marriage reasonably succinctly.
If gays want to have a "civil partnership" to give a more official status to their relationship, so others can be put on notice that it is intended as a lifelong partnership. I have no problem with that. And would see such a relationship as something to celebrate. But I do not think it needs all the same financial support as a family unit designed to produce and raise children.
=== ===
If 55% of AMerican families end in Divorce, then the odds of a family of six having no divorces is (45%)^6, which is 0.8% - less than 1% - that could be more than good luck.
Why lie, Huh? The principle reason for marriage is not children, many straight couples do not have children, I do not think it is even 45% anymore. And that does not explain why gay couples with kids do not get the benefits and rights when they marry. Come up with some bigotted reason why that is so? Do you also object to straight couples and senior citizens getting the benefits and rights when they do not have children?
THis Brief EXCERPT comes from another thread about ALIMONY, now CLOSED:
"Currently, men are the alimony payers 96% of the time, which is shocking. How can women be the higher earners in almost 40% of marriages, yet are only 4% of the alimony payers? Couldn't be any bias there, could there?"
Possible Answer:
Females are more successful Financial Predators, while men rarely have that motivation, or are thwarted in it by the courts.
How's this for stereotyping:?
(Is it possible that):
Gay males are better at deceipt than average males (since they may have gone through years of hiding their sexuality), and so they will be more successful at hiding predatory reasons behind pressing for marriage with a more successful partner.
Well, how about this. Maybe since uber religious people who want to force their bible on everyone are good at creating fantasy, since they so blindly have faith in a book with no proof and in a god with zero evidence of its existance. You know we would not have had to hide if all the bigots would just lead their own lives they way they want instead of forcing their ideology on every one. You are dillusional.
05-21-2013, 07:56 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
I am against Gay Marriage - and many more will be too, when they get past the fog in the MSM,
and see what gays are really asking for - IT IS ABOUT MONEY
(If not, then please explain why not - instead of attacking the sanctity of real marriage)
You know what, to some extent it is about the money.
I pay into social security, yet if I'm with a guy for 50 years, he will get nothing when I die, while some sham straight marriage will entitle the widow to a check. It's absolutely absurd that I'm expected to fork over an extra $10,000/year in income taxes just because I'm not legally married. Why should I have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more over my lifetime and end up receiving fewer benefits? You're asking me to fund entitlements that you'd like, but that you don't want to pay for.
Of course, it's also about a lot of other things like hospital visitation.
Quote:
But I do not think it needs all the same financial support as a family unit designed to produce and raise children.
This argument rings a bit hollow.
Producing children isn't a requirement or even a suggestion for many of the benefits straight couples enjoy. And if they do choose to have children, they get a whole bunch of extra benefits specifically for that.
So for you:
+ Two people who are "just friends" can marry, and so can:
+ Three person and larger marriages work
How about a union with a pet?
Do they get the same rights?
Did I call it or did I call it? Somebody owes me a gold star.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
I am for equality. Polygamy is fine with me, as is polyandry. You aren't going to try and start arguing gay marriage will cause people to turn to beastiality and incest are you?
Did I call it or did I call it? Somebody owes me a gold star.
Well I tried to rep you, but have to spread it around first. Of course he had to bring up that wonderful slippery slope that people like him use. Here are your GOLD STARS*****
So for you:
+ Two people who are "just friends" can marry, and so can:
+ Three person and larger marriages work
How about a union with a pet?
Do they get the same rights?
Stop with the foolishness. Allowing gay marriage will not lead to people marrying their damn cats.
As things stand now, yes, two different sex people who are just friends can marry. And they will be entitled to the same benefits that I have enjoyed for 30+ years of marriage. I know a gay guy who married a straight woman because she didn't have health coverage. Perhaps if he had been able to marry his partner of 15 years that marriage of convenience would not have taken place. Instead there would have been a marriage between two people who loved each other. Are you against that?
The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are
numerous. Marriage can affect a person’s eligibility for federal benefits such as
Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities
than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has
counted 1,138 statutory provisions—ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners’ eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease
with the Secretary of Labor)—in which marital status is a factor in determining or
receiving “benefits, rights, and privileges.”1
In some cases, recognizing same-sex
marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the
opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net,
those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less
than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That
result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.
Stop with the foolishness. Allowing gay marriage will not lead to people marrying their damn cats.
As things stand now, yes, two different sex people who are just friends can marry. And they will be entitled to the same benefits that I have enjoyed for 30+ years of marriage. I know a gay guy who married a straight woman because she didn't have health coverage. Perhaps if he had been able to marry his partner of 15 years that marriage of convenience would not have taken place. Instead there would have been a marriage between two people who loved each other. Are you against that?
oh, I can guarantee that he is not against that. They have often said that we should just find some poor woman and lie to her and marry her, just to satisfy them. They do not mind us having a bogus lie of a marriage to a straight person that we have to dupe, but have a problem with us marrying the one we love. They make zero sense and that is why DOMA will be abolished and gay marriages will become legal in all 50 states. END THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAY PEOPLE
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.
