|
|
On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear.
Incorrect.
Ofcourse you can claim that the loudest voice is religious, but quite a lot of people just thinks that marriage is exactly the creation of family between man and woman to make parenting easier and as such should be left as is, while the gay can manage their own business the way they want.
Again, marriage is a formal thing, that is done for specific purpose, by the state/community, and as such can be perfectly fine as it is, like Driver licenses, foreign passports, various licenses and documents, ex, ex, ex.
|
On May 10 2012 07:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On May 10 2012 05:42 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2012 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On May 10 2012 04:35 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote:
Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in. Romney and Obama are well-suited for each other. Two empty suits that can change their positions at any time depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I have a lot more respect for people like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Even if some of their ideas are ridiculous, at least they will stand behind them even though they will be hurt in the polls.
Bill Maher mocks Republicans by saying they live in a bubble for believing Obama is a radical when his policies have been centrist. But if you listen to both sides, the liberals believe it too. Whenever Obama takes a position like anti-gay marriage or anti-marijuana they say he is "forced into the position" and that he will have more flexibility in his second term. You can't mock the Republicans for fear mongering about Obama's second term while at the same time believing that Obama will be able to do a lot more in his second term. That would make one a hypocrite. Please explain why these two ideas do not go together, they seem rather complementary. You seem to assume that Romney and Obama are entirely alike, and yet you back this assertion up with very little in the way of concrete evidence. And if you look at their political platforms issue by issue, even historically, it becomes quite clear that both men have entirely different ideas of what political solvency means. Who exactly are you listening to? Of course the two ideas are complementary. That's why you can't support one and not the other without being a hypocrite, as I said. If you look at Obama's and Romney's records you will see that they are not much different. If you look at their rhetoric then you will think they are very different. But everyone knows their rhetoric is bull. The only winner in this election will be the status quo. You say that, but what have you in the way of evidence? They both come from very different places, with very different sentiments on a variety of policies/issues. Both have changed positions on certain things given issues of political climate, but that hardly makes them "not much different". In fact, I think a good case can be made for arguing that Romney's total 360 on a healthcare reform program that is almost the same as his Massachusetts initiative all in the name of Republican consensus puts him on a different level of flippancy. In any case, an insistence on the two being overtly similar is simply lazy, nothing is so simple, especially in politics. You don't have to convince me, you should convince his fans of that. It only took 3 years before his supporters went from "yes we can" to "hes the lesser of 2 evils." The kind of people that will never say a bad word about him in public but behind closed doors they will all yearn for something more from him. I think every fan base of his has been disappointed. Environmental crowd - We have more oil drilling under Obama than under Bush. A lot more permits have been approved and a lot more land has been opened to oil exploration. It took a ton of hand wringing just for him to do something about Keystone. Anti-war crowd - He's bombed 5 countries under his Presidency. That's more than Bush. He's ramped up the war in Afghanistan, failed to close Guantanamo like he promised. Anti-drug war crowd - He's raided more marijuana dispensaries than Bush and he went back on his promise that he wouldn't circumvent state laws regarding medical marijuana. Financial reform crowd - His rhetoric is much bigger than his record. Wall Street firms have given Obama more cash than the entire Republican primary field combined. The 1% have benefited more than anyone during the recovery. Still nobody in prison for causing the mess in the first place. Still many Dodd-Frank reforms that have not been implemented. Gun control crowd - Didn't do much of anything on this front despite high profile shootings such as the Gabby Giffords shooting. Gun ownership is at an all time high. Gay Rights crowd - Has been against gay marriage almost his entire presidency. He ended DADT so I guess that's something. Your decision to divide up the population into "crowds" is something someone with conservative leanings is far more likely to do, as the liberal party, by virtue of what it means to be a "progressive", emphasizes equality through acceptance rather than change. The hilariousness that is the Republican primary process this voting cycle is good evidence of how Republican candidates are effectively bullied into their platforms through a conservative interest group push and pull on the big issues, singling out Romney as the man most willing to adopt the most stances as his own. I think a perspective that overemphasizes the importance of issues in isolation doesn't do the interconnected political reality of today much justice, the fact of the matter is that well informed, reasonable voters will come to an internal decision in terms of which issues they care most about and vote pragmatically, much like a politician in todays system must do with their platform.
im kind of stupid so i can't really understand what it is that you're trying to get at here but im still gonna take a shot at discussing it.
i can't say much about crowds and such, because i tend to think of things on a different line. people got their own issues and they're gonna (largely) vote based on those personal issues and perceptions. even the people who are one-issue voters are usually going to have degrees within which they'll work with a candidate.
i can speak a bit about the Republican primary though. and to be honest, it's almost half what you say, but all opposite. it was more of an ascendency within the party of one wing over the older, traditionally dominant wing. it's especially interesting when you see how it all played out. basically (this is the condensed version), McCain got nominated as a kind of last-gasp of the establishment (for lack of a better term) republicans, and he got creamed. Obama wins the election, becomes president, republicans freak out, and everyone is talking about the death of the GOP and how it's gonna result in some kind of third party or something like that. well 2010 rolls around and the Tea Party kind of stops the "split" from happening. because we took a lot of power back, but we also started making the more establishment types worried so for the last two years it's kind of been this dance of who is in control of the party. the primary was supposed to be the teller.
Romney is more of an establishment guy, but his nomination is still the signal of the decline of the "establishment" republicans. someone like Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, or even Gingrich would have been a more "conservative" candidate, but Romney has been forced in some ways to move over to the right. his rhetoric and his eventual actions will almost certainly reflect the Tea Party a lot more than it will the more moderate republicans of the old guard. the Tea Party won and is now taking power within the GOP. so it's not that Romney was chosen because he was the most malleable, so much as he was chosen because he was malleable enough to recognize that he was riding a dying horse. honestly, he stepped up his game after the first couple of losses, and if he hadn't we might be seeing a totally different race right now. the other guys were and still are better fits, but we use the glove that matches, not the most comfortable.
i for one am happy that the more conservative, grassroots part of our party is dominating the agenda within the party (if you couldn't tell im a tea party sympathizing republican) rather than the more established and moderate part. they've had their chance and they didn't exactly do the best jobs of it.
|
On May 10 2012 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please?
Well, i looked at the election promises myself, and i don`t see it.
Then again feel free to contradict me by listing what he has accomplished.
|
On May 10 2012 08:35 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please? Well, i looked at the election promises myself, and i don`t see it. Then again feel free to contradict me by listing what he has accomplished.
Obama Fact Checker
|
On May 10 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote:
Ofcourse you can claim that the loudest voice is religious, but quite a lot of people just thinks that marriage is exactly the creation of family between man and woman to make parenting easier and as such should be left as is, while the gay can manage their own business the way they want.
Try backing that up with a citation. Oh, that's right, you can't, because every organization opposed to gay marriage is religious.
On May 10 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote:
Again, marriage is a formal thing, that is done for specific purpose, by the state/community, and as such can be perfectly fine as it is, like Driver licenses, foreign passports, various licenses and documents, ex, ex, ex.
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? Every single argument against gay marriage is either complete crap or relies on religion as its basis (though to be honest, the latter is really a subset of the former).
|
On May 10 2012 08:39 holy_war wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:35 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please? Well, i looked at the election promises myself, and i don`t see it. Then again feel free to contradict me by listing what he has accomplished. Obama Fact Checker
Nice. Also, I'm kind of tired of people making random, outrageous claims and then saying "but by all means, disprove me!" Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not to mention I don't like having to do other people's research for them -_____-
|
On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays?
If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents.
Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period.
|
On May 10 2012 08:39 holy_war wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:35 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please? Well, i looked at the election promises myself, and i don`t see it. Then again feel free to contradict me by listing what he has accomplished. Obama Fact Checker
and where exactly is the sum up?
And as far as i see thugh pages, he dosn`t come to 50%, so the argument kind of stands, it is not heavily dependent on the exact % anyway.
|
On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:
Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period.
I call BS. Marriage is not about having kids; plenty of marriages don't include children. On top of that, gays can adopt or opt for surrogacy like everyone else, and all of the benefits of marriage that you mentioned apply to their children just like everyone else's.
Are you going to ban post-menopausal women from getting married? How about men with low sperm counts? People who choose not to have children?
Like I said, this argument is complete crap.
|
On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period.
Gay =/= Sterile, my friend.
Sterile people do not have children.
Gay people can have children (just not with their same-sex partner). Note that even one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child!
Also, note that both gay and sterile couples can adopt.
What were you saying again?
EDIT: Please force all married couples to have children. That would be hilarious. And terrible for society, because most people would be shitty parents.
|
On May 10 2012 08:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:
Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. I call BS. Marriage is not about having kids; plenty of marriages don't include children. On top of that, gays can adopt like everyone else, and all of the benefits of marriage that you mentioned apply to their adopted children just like everyone else's. Are you going to ban post-menopausal women from getting married? How about men with low sperm counts? People who choose not to have children? Like I said, this argument is complete crap.
I call that BS.
Adoption is covered by another program and is not covered by marriage at all.
The fact that many don`t have children doesn`t cancel the fact that it is about the childred.
But okay, of course you can obviously state in which way absence of gay marriage creates disadvantages for Gays other than inability to say that they are married?
The absence of mariage for Man-woman would mean, for example, that in case where one of the childs parrents is dead and his/her other parrent is not married, in case of death the child become parentless and goes to child-care house, while if the other parrent IS married, and dies, the spouse has the similar legal rights as parrent, and the child is wieved as "his/her" child despite not beigh biological parent.
|
On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period.
I am a gay man, and I certainly want children, whether through partial biological (with my partner), adoption, or even a technique that uses the sperm of both men. Does this qualify me for marriage? What about just wanting to be treated as an equal citizen (you know, with the equal taxes, equal responsibilities, equal draft card etc).
On a more on topic note:
I have never considered myself a single issue voter, but now that I can finally vote in a presidential election, I don't know. I am not an Obama fan, nor supporter. I believe very strongly in conservative fiscal and entitlement arenas of politics. But the social politics, the science, the marriage, the abortion, all these things that I don't even think government has a business in at all, I just cannot support the Republican ticket. I am at a cognitive dissonance here, on the one hand, I want to be able to support Romney, but on the other, I want to be treated as an equal citizen.
|
On May 10 2012 08:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. Gay =/= Sterile, my friend. Sterile people do not have children. Gay people can have children (just not with their same-sex partner). Note that even one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child! Also, note that both gay and sterile couples can adopt. What were you saying again? EDIT: Please force all married couples to have children. That would be hilarious. And terrible for society, because most people would be shitty parents.
Guesswhat, only about ~100 years ago virtually 100% married had children, and actually more than one. Was it awfull? Really?
Than, you failed on the point that marrieage is regulating the things about the children from these two persons, if persons can not have children from each other, there is no need for marriage.
|
On May 10 2012 08:50 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:39 holy_war wrote:On May 10 2012 08:35 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please? Well, i looked at the election promises myself, and i don`t see it. Then again feel free to contradict me by listing what he has accomplished. Obama Fact Checker and where exactly is the sum up? And as far as i see thugh pages, he dosn`t come to 50%, so the argument kind of stands, it is not heavily dependent on the exact % anyway.
But you stated "he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised", which is a flat out lie, and now you're simply backtracking on what you said. You gave a BS number out there, I just gave you the fact. Don't really want to argue with you.
|
On May 10 2012 09:04 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. Gay =/= Sterile, my friend. Sterile people do not have children. Gay people can have children (just not with their same-sex partner). Note that even one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child! Also, note that both gay and sterile couples can adopt. What were you saying again? EDIT: Please force all married couples to have children. That would be hilarious. And terrible for society, because most people would be shitty parents. Guesswhat, only about ~100 years ago virtually 100% married had children, and actually more than one. Was it awfull? Really? Than, you failed on the point that marrieage is regulating the things about the children from these two persons, if persons can not have children from each other, there is no need for marriage.
Again, what about adoptions, what about divorced men who have custody but come out as gay after the fact, what about people who use surrogates. All these things give permanent and legal custody of the child. It is /their/ child.
And marriage is actually a legal status of kinship that allows the two people to basically act, fiscally and in other areas, as one unified body. It also gives automatic power of attorney, automatic right to remains and belongings in the case of death, tax benefits, medical insurance benefits. A ton of things. Marriage is a LEGAL right, not an institution for the protection of children.
|
On May 10 2012 09:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. I am a gay man, and I certainly want children, whether through partial biological (with my partner), adoption, or even a technique that uses the sperm of both men. Does this qualify me for marriage? What about just wanting to be treated as an equal citizen (you know, with the equal taxes, equal responsibilities, equal draft card etc). On a more on topic note: I have never considered myself a single issue voter, but now that I can finally vote in a presidential election, I don't know. I am not an Obama fan, nor supporter. I believe very strongly in conservative fiscal and entitlement arenas of politics. But the social politics, the science, the marriage, the abortion, all these things that I don't even think government has a business in at all, I just cannot support the Republican ticket. I am at a cognitive dissonance here, on the one hand, I want to be able to support Romney, but on the other, I want to be treated as an equal citizen.
Look, the government is running a lot of programs to help people with disabilities.
Does anyone claims that inability to apply for program that is runned for people with disabilities by people without them is some sort of discrimination?
Again, I`m arguing that allowing marriage for Gays is needles, because marriage is the program(on the goverment`s side) that mostly intended to manage children of this two persons.
The other forms, as adoption, are covered by other types of programs, and as such the absence of gay marriage doesn`t put gays at any disadvantage.
Than again i`m looking from perspective of atheistic post Soviet Union, were marriage indeed was a formality, runned by state.
|
On May 10 2012 08:50 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:39 holy_war wrote:On May 10 2012 08:35 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please? Well, i looked at the election promises myself, and i don`t see it. Then again feel free to contradict me by listing what he has accomplished. Obama Fact Checker and where exactly is the sum up? And as far as i see thugh pages, he dosn`t come to 50%, so the argument kind of stands, it is not heavily dependent on the exact % anyway.
I kept clicking on the failed ones to see if I could understand why and it was interesting how a lot of them are ones that require action by congress which can basically be chalked up to thats not going to happen.
|
On May 10 2012 09:11 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:39 holy_war wrote:On May 10 2012 08:35 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please? Well, i looked at the election promises myself, and i don`t see it. Then again feel free to contradict me by listing what he has accomplished. Obama Fact Checker and where exactly is the sum up? And as far as i see thugh pages, he dosn`t come to 50%, so the argument kind of stands, it is not heavily dependent on the exact % anyway. I kept clicking on the failed ones to see if I could understand why and it was interesting how a lot of them are ones that require action by congress which can basically be chalked up to thats not going to happen.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Promise Kept 180 (35%)
Compromise 58 (11%)
Promise Broken 69 (14%)
Stalled 63 (12%)
In the Works 136 (27%)
Not yet rated 2 (0%)
|
On May 10 2012 09:04 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. Gay =/= Sterile, my friend. Sterile people do not have children. Gay people can have children (just not with their same-sex partner). Note that even one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child! Also, note that both gay and sterile couples can adopt. What were you saying again? EDIT: Please force all married couples to have children. That would be hilarious. And terrible for society, because most people would be shitty parents. Guesswhat, only about ~100 years ago virtually 100% married had children, and actually more than one. Was it awfull? Really? Than, you failed on the point that marrieage is regulating the things about the children from these two persons, if persons can not have children from each other, there is no need for marriage.
I think your problem stems from a misunderstanding of the institution of marriage. Perhaps you should be living 100 years ago, when plenty of other social and civil rights issues were also not accepted yet.
There are over a thousand benefits given to a couple when they marry- it's not all about raising kids. To think that this had anything to with 100 years ago (by the way: as if sterile, old, and gay couples didn't exist back then... lol) is completely missing the point.
Here:
Since same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in America, gay couples cannot take advantage of the 1,049 benefits awarded to heterosexual couples when they marry. According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:
Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
~ http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm
|
On May 10 2012 09:11 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:04 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. Gay =/= Sterile, my friend. Sterile people do not have children. Gay people can have children (just not with their same-sex partner). Note that even one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child! Also, note that both gay and sterile couples can adopt. What were you saying again? EDIT: Please force all married couples to have children. That would be hilarious. And terrible for society, because most people would be shitty parents. Guesswhat, only about ~100 years ago virtually 100% married had children, and actually more than one. Was it awfull? Really? Than, you failed on the point that marrieage is regulating the things about the children from these two persons, if persons can not have children from each other, there is no need for marriage. Again, what about adoptions, what about divorced men who have custody but come out as gay after the fact, what about people who use surrogates. All these things give permanent and legal custody of the child. It is /their/ child. And marriage is actually a legal status of kinship that allows the two people to basically act, fiscally and in other areas, as one unified body. It also gives automatic power of attorney, automatic right to remains and belongings in the case of death, tax benefits, medical insurance benefits. A ton of things. Marriage is a LEGAL right, not an institution for the protection of children.
Again there is a difference in regulating relations between persons that are both perents of this child.
As you listed that, you can clearly see that all the listed by you is very much related to taking care of the children.
see yourself.
"And marriage is actually a legal status of kinship that allows the two people to basically act, fiscally and in other areas, as one unified body." That doesn`t really meter for two adults, because one can just represent the other, thus no disadvantages there. Than, IF there are children involved, the marriage allows one of the parrents to manage the child from the name of the familly, which speeds up the proces by not needind explicit agreement of the other parent.
"It also gives automatic power of attorney, automatic right to remains and belongings in the case of death, tax benefits, medical insurance benefits." again, because of family and children/potential children involved.
The will allows transfer property otherwise, and one can represent another anyway, with some paper which is required to sign once anyways.
"Marriage is a LEGAL right, not an institution for the protection of children."
BS. It is exactly the later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
