|
Norway28695 Posts
On March 07 2004 09:45 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Meat, by your rationale, accidentally killing someone is clumsy and wasteful, but killing them for fun has a purpose, so its good.
Nice logic, I like that.
HOLY SHIT
THIS IS THE WORST POST I HAVE EVER READ WHAT THE FUCK
seriously dude.. killing someone and spilling a drink.. yeah they're the same. I _really_ wasn't expecting anything THAT moronic from you, the self-appointed smartest member of the forum.
seriously dude, that was so insanely stupid I can't even begin to comprehend you posted it.
|
The issue of adoption isn't really an issue at all. If they want to adopt then so be it
well shucks, i thought the last x number of pages had defined the gay marriege debate around the idea that gay marriege would ultimetly allow gay couples to adopt, and that would somehow be bad. i think people are just scrapping to rationalize there prejudices.
gay marriege IS a civil rights issue. simple as that. the bible endorses a marrige between "a man and a woman", but it also endorsed slavery, and a generally unequall society. so if people want to stick to there anti-relativism arguments, then go ahead and endorse slavery, and stop the hypocrisy.
maybe people just have not had experiences with gay people. i have had several friends, neighbors, shool and work mates, that have been gay. all were great people and would make great parents. people make the argument that adoption is a privilage, not a right. agreed. but basing the standards of that priviliage based on sexual orientation is discrimination.
|
On March 07 2004 16:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On March 07 2004 16:04 Liquid`Meat wrote: On March 07 2004 16:00 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
i have already said this, but maybe i should again. in many places, gay couples can ALREADY ADOPT, so why is this an issue when it comes to marriege? yes i dont understand that either.. they dont want it recognized by the church but by the law, so imo anything that comes from the bible is irrelevant in this discussion. Second time marriages are also not allowed by the church, but it is by law and this should be too. It's not irrelevant at all. The issue of adoption isn't really an issue at all. If they want to adopt then so be it. However what you must realize is that marriage has religious roots, and there are also civil unions which, by government standards, are exactly the same. So why do gay couples want to get married (which is religious) when religion condemns homosexuality? That is the real question. They could always go for a civil union but that is apparently not good enough (even though it's the same thing). By the way, according to the Bible, second marriages are allowed if one partner was unfaithful. Otherwise the previous marriage cannot be cancelled and it is a sin. [.........]
According to what i read in the article i linked above you dont have the same rights:
Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher
taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married couples. Among them:
> Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the
hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or
injured loved one in the hospital.
> Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a
spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor
benefits – resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
> Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses
of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and
lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay
federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
> Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased
spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on
property inherited from a deceased partner.
> Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an
IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up
to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
> Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an
ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
> Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because
they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last
days living together in nursing homes.
> Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay
high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
> Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal
spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
"By the way, according to the Bible, second marriages are allowed if one partner was unfaithful. Otherwise the previous marriage cannot be cancelled and it is a sin."
Yes, but you can remarry also if the partner wasnt unfaithful right? Only not for the church, so that's why i say homo's should be able to do that too.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
On March 07 2004 16:00 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
i have already said this, but maybe i should again. in many places, gay couples can ALREADY ADOPT, so why is this an issue when it comes to marriege?
its not an issue when it comes to marriage. its a side tracked conversation as we discuess gay rights.
|
the thread has been about marrige. adoption became an issue in its relationship to gay marriege. debates generally go no where becuase people dont follow the arguments and stick to the point. if people can all agree that adoption and gay marriege are seperate issues, than i suppose we have to wait for people to make up more reasons why they should deny people there civil liberties.
|
Norway28695 Posts
personally I wouldn't really care if gays were banned from marrying and had to unite in a civil union or something similar instead. but only if the civil union provided the same privileges as marriages provide. would probably make some people renounce their faith, which I consider a good thing.
I think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though.
|
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: personally I wouldn't really care if gays were banned from marrying and had to unite in a civil union or something similar instead. but only if the civil union provided the same privileges as marriages provide. would probably make some people renounce their faith, which I consider a good thing. I think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though.
Not really. The marriage penalty that Bush has been trying to get reversed is a big tax hit to married couples. Gay and live-in couples don't get hit with the marriage penalty.
http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html
There's some brief info for you on it.
|
On March 07 2004 16:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though. nah because if it was extend to just "couples" it would becomse so abusive tta
|
On March 07 2004 16:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: personally I wouldn't really care if gays were banned from marrying and had to unite in a civil union or something similar instead. but only if the civil union provided the same privileges as marriages provide. would probably make some people renounce their faith, which I consider a good thing. I think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though.
Yeah, but they care. They care more about the terminology than the rights. They want to be able to get married even if they can have the same rights through a civil union.
|
United States12237 Posts
Yes but the underlying question is this (in a nutshell): why do they want to get involved in a religious institution when religion rejects them, if not to pervert the intention of marriage?
|
Marriage isn't a religious institution. Atheists get married all the time. It's no different.
|
are u saying that the goals of gays in long term relationships is to pervernt marriege? i have no problem with the church rejecting gay marrieges. the church can do whatever it likes, i have a problem with the laws that discriminate against gay marrieges. the idea that religion "rejects" them is debateable. there are 1000's of gay catholics, and that only includes the preists(not trying to take a cheap shot, just a fact)
|
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:58 Bill and Bill wrote:
Marriage isn't a religious institution. Atheists get married all the time. It's no different.
Of course it's a religious institution! You are getting married under God, by a pastor/priest/minister/what-have-you, and that's the whole point. By definition an atheist would want no part of that.
|
On March 07 2004 17:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On March 07 2004 16:58 Bill and Bill wrote:
Marriage isn't a religious institution. Atheists get married all the time. It's no different. Of course it's a religious institution! You are getting married under God, by a pastor/priest/minister/what-have-you, and that's the whole point. By definition an atheist would want no part of that.
Ok, so if homosexuals dont marry in church its not a problem ?
|
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:59 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
are u saying that the goals of gays in long term relationships is to pervernt marriege?
That is my guess, and it's the only possible explanation if you think about it. They have no reason to get married because according to religion, God does not approve of homosexuality, and they cannot be allowed to marry. So, essentially this becomes a leftist anti-religious movement to pervert marriage by creating a paradox where those who are not eligible to marry, can marry.
|
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 17:19 Liquid`Meat wrote: Show nested quote +On March 07 2004 17:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: On March 07 2004 16:58 Bill and Bill wrote:
Marriage isn't a religious institution. Atheists get married all the time. It's no different. Of course it's a religious institution! You are getting married under God, by a pastor/priest/minister/what-have-you, and that's the whole point. By definition an atheist would want no part of that. Ok, so if homosexuals dont marry in church its not a problem ?
Right, because the only eligible presider is a justice of the peace, which is not a religious position. However in that case it would not be marriage, it would be a civil union.
|
Braavos36379 Posts
excalibur_z, obsoletelogic, favorite unit in game, zealot.
|
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 17:25 Hot_Bid wrote:
excalibur_z, obsoletelogic, favorite unit in game, zealot.
Your ignorance is showing =(
|
Eri, here I thought you were bright enough to pick up on sardonicism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
