|
|
Marriage should just be done by the churches anyway. That way everyone can be happy. Now, can we get back on topic please?
|
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.
First off, a group like http://www.logcabin.org may be right for you.
I'm not going to try to persuade you to vote for Romney, or any other candidate. Voters have to make personal decisions as to what is most important to them and then look at the candidates and decide which one is best represents your opinions on those issues. Also, the best way to take control or change the GOP on social issues is to be involved with the party and help it change from within.
I personally always found the way that the President and his campaign handled the gay marriage issue to be very cynical. His position is "evolving" was just terrible and the way that they obviously looked at some polling data and then made the decision to come out and say that he's for gay marriage I found to be very shallow. If gay marriage is such a fundamental human rights issue why not be out for it in the first place? You might lose an election but aren't some things (like civil rights) bigger than that?
As for the claims that all oppostion to gay marriage is religous, you are just misinformed. There is also a fundament debate as to what the true purpose of marriage is. Is the true purpose procreation or is the true purpose a life long commitment that two people choose to make to each other? Some think the first some the second.
I've always been of the opinion that the state should not be in the business of marriage in the first place (for straight or gay couples. Legally, all marriage really is is two people signing a contract merging their future material goods and as long as they are of legal age to enter a contract, have at it.
That being said, marriage has been an issue that is handled at the state and not federal level and I'd like to see it stay that way. Gay marriage really isn't centuries off (even in the most conservitive states) and the lifestyle has become more and more acceptable as time goes by. If you really want to be married, then moving to a state that allows you to do so is always an option.
|
On May 10 2012 09:23 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:11 drshdwpuppet wrote: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.
Again, you aren't wrong, you aren't even wrong. You are completely ignoring the fact that hospital visitation rights, assumption of debts, ability to joint file for bankruptcy, protection in domestic violence incidences and TAX FREE TRANSFER OF BELONGINGS are about children. They aren't, and most of those, and many others, cannot be gotten through any other legally binding contract than one of marriage.
|
On May 10 2012 09:25 1Eris1 wrote:
Marriage should just be done by the churches anyway. That way everyone can be happy. Now, can we get back on topic please?
On that note, I don't think today's announcement really does anything to help him pick up or lose really anything and they really botched the whole thing. If the election comes down to social issues, then this may help him. I really don't think that's going to happen though. It will likely be a referendum on his record that the economy and this really doesn't change many people's minds.
|
On May 10 2012 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall 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. 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: Show nested quote +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
So this is just a quest of american gays for more wallfare?
Okay,I see your point, and wash my hands,
after all there is always a frame to expand wellfare.
|
On May 10 2012 09:23 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:11 drshdwpuppet wrote: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. "Marriage is a LEGAL right, not an institution for the protection of children." BS. It is exactly the later.
You realize that children that live with gay parents are just as happy as any other kids?
|
@naastyOne: its a quest for equality because if straight couples get ceirtan tax breaks then it goes against the charter of rights to deny those same benifits to a gay couple simply because of sexual orientation. Is this really so hard to understand?
|
On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote: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. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect.
OK, so let me amend my statment.
99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so.
|
On May 10 2012 09:34 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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 So this is just a quest of american gays for more wallfare? Okay,I see your point, and wash my hands, after all there is always a frame to expand wellfare.
I didn't realize you get to decide who gets property rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and inheritance rights... and who doesn't. Just because of a person's identity.
If you don't like welfare, that's fantastic. But this about consistency, equality, and fairness. Nice dodge though.
|
On May 10 2012 09:28 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:23 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:11 drshdwpuppet wrote: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. Again, you aren't wrong, you aren't even wrong. You are completely ignoring the fact that hospital visitation rights, assumption of debts, ability to joint file for bankruptcy, protection in domestic violence incidences and TAX FREE TRANSFER OF BELONGINGS are about children. They aren't, and most of those, and many others, cannot be gotten through any other legally binding contract than one of marriage.
You think so.
I think it is about helping create a better link between man and woman, which usually results in having a child.
Then, this kinds of benefits are kinds of fertility-encouragement program, thus only individuals elliable for the program can apply.
Again personally am not against Gay-relations at all, i have some lesbian friends and such, but the way i see marriage, it is perfectly fine, and certanly doesn`t put gays at disadvantage/discrimination, well, as any wellfare program.
Does anyone argues that state-help to woman that just gave birth to child, is sexist, because man can not give birth?
Nope. Does it gives advantage to certain gender? Yes.
|
|
|
On May 10 2012 09:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:34 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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 So this is just a quest of american gays for more wallfare? Okay,I see your point, and wash my hands, after all there is always a frame to expand wellfare. I didn't realize you get to decide who gets property rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and inheritance rights... and who doesn't. Just because of a person's identity. If you don't like welfare, that's fantastic. But this about consistency, equality, and fairness. Nice dodge though.
In most countries you have the right to write the will, which will determine.
But you do not argue that the goverment-funded programs to help disabled, seniours, that fund education of minors are not fair for ones who can not apply?
Maybe you would argue that guverment runned fertility-boost programs are unfair for one`s that don`t want to have children?
Also it looks suspiciously close to that "other person has wallfalre program coverage to which i can not apply, but i also want the benefits" kind of whinkage, covered up by the usual "equality-fairness" buss.
But i digress.
|
On May 10 2012 09:47 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 09:34 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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 So this is just a quest of american gays for more wallfare? Okay,I see your point, and wash my hands, after all there is always a frame to expand wellfare. I didn't realize you get to decide who gets property rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and inheritance rights... and who doesn't. Just because of a person's identity. If you don't like welfare, that's fantastic. But this about consistency, equality, and fairness. Nice dodge though. In most countries you have the right to write the will, which will determine. But you do not argue that the goverment-funded programs to help disabled, seniours, that fund education of minors are not fair for ones who can not apply? Maybe you would argue that guverment runned fertility-boost programs are unfair for one`s that don`t want to have children?
LMAO, oh great, a will will cover all those benefits given to heterosexual couples right? Keep running in circles.
|
On May 10 2012 09:47 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 09:34 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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 So this is just a quest of american gays for more wallfare? Okay,I see your point, and wash my hands, after all there is always a frame to expand wellfare. I didn't realize you get to decide who gets property rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and inheritance rights... and who doesn't. Just because of a person's identity. If you don't like welfare, that's fantastic. But this about consistency, equality, and fairness. Nice dodge though. In most countries you have the right to write the will, which will determine. But you do not argue that the goverment-funded programs to help disabled, seniours, that fund education of minors are not fair for ones who can not apply? Maybe you would argue that guverment runned fertility-boost programs are unfair for one`s that don`t want to have children?
In most countries? In most countries, they don't discern between gay marriage and straight marriage. They just call it marriage.
And don't change the subject by talking about other programs. We're talking about gay marriage- not the other countless programs that people apply to for aid. I don't like red herrings, and I'm not talking about my position on any other platform at the moment.
|
Lol, I don't understand how it's a "fertility encouragement program" when sterile people can get married. How does that argument even hold water?
|
On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote: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. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so.
Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so."
|
On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote: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. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so."
While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society".
|
Normally the reason they beleive that gay marriage is destructive to society is because of their religious traditions. Their holy book doesnt have to say anything about gay marriage as long as [insert religion here] traditions involve condemning non heterosexual relationships for whatever reason.
|
On May 10 2012 09:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:47 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 09:34 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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 So this is just a quest of american gays for more wallfare? Okay,I see your point, and wash my hands, after all there is always a frame to expand wellfare. I didn't realize you get to decide who gets property rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and inheritance rights... and who doesn't. Just because of a person's identity. If you don't like welfare, that's fantastic. But this about consistency, equality, and fairness. Nice dodge though. In most countries you have the right to write the will, which will determine. But you do not argue that the goverment-funded programs to help disabled, seniours, that fund education of minors are not fair for ones who can not apply? Maybe you would argue that guverment runned fertility-boost programs are unfair for one`s that don`t want to have children? In most countries? In most countries, they don't discern between gay marriage and straight marriage. They just call it marriage. And don't change the subject by talking about other programs. We're talking about gay marriage- not the other countless programs that people apply to for aid. I don't like red herrings, and I'm not talking about my position on any other platform at the moment.
You can probably list countires that allow gay marriage without running of fingers.
You touched the topic that marriage gives social benefits, and it is not "fair" that some persons can not apply for the program.
Which is the kind of argument i can not agrue against, because there is no ratioanlle other than what person in respect thinks about fairness. Which is so far the only reasonable argument for gay-marriage.
I think it is the priority of goverment to figure out the wellfare distribution, and the absence of gay-marriage doesn`t create any kind of specific disadvantage, greater than any other that is created by the wellfare program and inability to apply.
Which is why i think gay-marriage(mind you gay relationships are fine) is needless.
But i respect your disagreement.
Then again, my country has less marriage-related bonuses not directly linked to children of said persons.
|
On May 10 2012 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote: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. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society".
Here you go.
http://d.scribd.com/docs/1glhgznbt2rt6rjlmfji.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
