OMG. Someone needs to get some buttresses for this guy's head before he falls over, buttress over basket.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The use of the phrase " so easy, so trivial for me" leads me to suspect that you just aren't doing it right. It's not about YOU. Or HER. But the two of you together. Maybe if you stopped using sports analogies for interpersonal relationships ...
Think of it as a way to achieve a "personal best" performance.
posted
I used to work with a guy whose sister was gay. She was in a long term relationship and they wanted a child, so her partner gets herself knocked up. (my friend said they used the turkey baster method, but I wasn't there so I don't know anyway the biological father was aware he was "helping" he ladies out). When the child was born the partner listed "unknown" for biological father. The sister was the provider in the relationship and her partner stayed home with the baby. To get the baby insurance they went down to the welfare office and signed the baby up for medicaid. Since the sister was "just" the roommate to the "mother" of the baby her income did not figure in to the calculations for state aid qualification, therefore not only did they qualify for medicaid but also food stamps, WIC, AFDC and whatever else they could get.
I don't agree with all that these ladies did and I did not know them personally so I can't tell you what wonderful mothers they were but I do know the baby was loved by the entire family. My friend always had new pictures of his niece and was ALWAYS doting on her.
Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I please request that if you all decide to kill half of Europe, you will first place me somewhere safe in America?
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
(to clarify, I felt that I had made an emotional post about personal things, and it barely made a blip on the hatrack radar. I know this happens, but it still feels sad when it does.)
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
babager, why do you disagree with what those people did? I mean, if society is going to deny them the right to marry, why shouldn't they take advantage of whatever society WILL offer them?
Seems like they're just seeking compensation for the stupidity of society, IMHO.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: babager, why do you disagree with what those people did? I mean, if society is going to deny them the right to marry, why shouldn't they take advantage of whatever society WILL offer them?
How did that Quote go...
Ask not what your county can spend on shoes?..
Ask hot chicks to take necklaces and show their ...
Ask not what your Country can do for you...
That last one cannot be it can it, was that a Democrat that won?
Don't worry, get what you can you might as well, after all they are oppressing you. They will keep the countries where the minority is simply shot from ever disturbing your entitlement.
quote:Irami are you sure that only Christians voted in favor of these actions?
Unless someone here can prove otherwise, I would bet that the percentage of Christians who voted for it was substantially greater than the percentage of atheists, Buddhists and Jews. Heck! Combine the percentages (point-wise) of those three groups, and I would bet that we're still less than a third of the Christian percentage.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I finally read the last 3 pages of this thread. And I noticed. And I thought it was very courageous of you.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am confused. I didn't even want to continue reading the self-touting rhetoric. It seems to me that you all are confused on a relatively simple issue. If you are gay, so be it; I can't deny that basic human right of lust or love or whatever. The fact is, being homosexual creates no net gain. In a society driven entirely by money and politics (please, decide on your own time whether that is good or bad), we reward those that benefit the society. As members of a populus, we also must pay for protection. Since we no longer pay only for protection of ourselves, but for other people as well (protection can be in the form of any number of social programs); we are forced into a pact with the state that gives us the ability to accept or refuse more protection. A majority of the USA has chose to refuse the benefits of marriage to those who are homosexual.
All this comes with a perfectly good biological standpoint. If you have not the means to procreate the human race, you effectively negate that life cycle. Therefore, the benefits of marriage should not be bestowed upon those who are homosexual. Now you say what about people who are sterile?!?! Elderly?! Etc. Etc. Etc. Well, the fact is that we cannot deny what is a viable option. Do we know that a man is sterile or a woman barren? No. Therefore, we cannot deny. Perhaps the best way to go with the homosexual marriage issue is nowhere. They should go after civil union options, which I am all for, and also, for adopting children or artificial insemination options - well, they could perhaps form joint custody laws so a civil union couple could have the benefit of tax write-off for their children.
To me, the question is not religious, but of biological viability. -Oh yes, and to those that believe the Supreme Court will entervene and take these decisions away from the state... congratulations; another step toward eliminating another ammendment from the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Ammendment hangs in a delicate balance. That scares me more than whether or not homosexuals can marry.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The fact is, being homosexual creates no net gain. In a society driven entirely by money and politics (please, decide on your own time whether that is good or bad), we reward those that benefit the society."
And your argument is that monogamous homosexual relationships produce no societal benefit -- and that, in fact, childless heterosexual marriages produce no "net gain?"
posted
Of course, you're also missing the point that allowing marriage for homosexuals is likely more efficient within the legal system than the patchwork created now, creating cost savings on society.
Further, it's rather reprehensible that you think civil rights are due based on contribution to society.
posted
I'm more bothered by the insinuation that the only benefit to society a couple can have is procreative.
Doesn't society have an interest in reducing promiscuity and adultery, encouraging social interaction and responsibility, and providing more stable homes for foster/adoptive children?
That's why I'm confused about the resistance to civil unions. The benefits seem obvious to me.
Most people demanding civil unions are not trying to destroy marriage or weaken society. We're pushing for more commitment, not less.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hetero marriages have the possibility though. You cannot deny them that."
So are you really saying that the right to marriage is extended to couples because they can have children?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Tom, if it weren't for the pro-creative aspect of marriage, I doubt many, if not most, of the legal institutions of marriage would have arisen. I can't prove this, of course, but there's a lot of support.
However, since then, the law has taken definite steps to separate the law of parenthood from the law of marriage, until now there is little if any marriage-specific law that relies on the reproductive capacity of marriages.
Even if this hadn't occurred, however, there's no reason to deny the rights associated with marriage to those who cannot reproduce, especially since it can be done for no or little cost.
quote: Now you say what about people who are sterile?!?! Elderly?! Etc. Etc. Etc. Well, the fact is that we cannot deny what is a viable option. Do we know that a man is sterile or a woman barren? No. Therefore, we cannot deny.
Hmmm. No woman in her seventies is going to gestate and deliver a baby. My dad fathered me at 65, but women's fertility does have a cutoff.
Nix on the marrying old women, then. All the virile old geezer guys get hot young chicks.
Women staus-post hysterectomy? Not going to gestate and deliver, either. So, would one appropriately be precluded from marriage if one has had that particular opersation? It would be pretty easy to write it into the law.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what about people like me, who are heterosexual and physically able to reproduce, but vehemently don't want to? My husband and I got married with the understanding that we were not interested in having children, ever, and as soon as we could get the money together one or both of us would get sterilized. Does that render my marriage null and void?
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think everyone here is agreed that it's not an argument that holds any ground with us.
1) Many marriages do not result in children, either involuntarily or voluntarily.
2) Most of the benefits accorded to a married couple do not directly affect children or having children.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I just don't see why it matters if gays get married. In what possible way can ANYONE claim that gay people getting married is harming the institution of marriage? Today people get married and divorced at the drop of a dime-- so maybe people who have gotten divorced should not be allowed to remarry because obviously they don't respect the marriage vows. After all doesn't the Bible say that a man shouldn't marry a divorced woman or he will cause her to commit adultery? (I don't actually believe all of this but it sounds as absurd as refusing to allow two people in love to marry because they happen to be the same sex!!)
Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we ever do have Gay Unions is there any reason why brothers should not be able to get married. And sisters too! Twins... Tiger Wood's wife and her sister.... yeah!
posted
A well-crafted "civil union" law might include cases like what you describe. In some circumstances, the entire reason for the union is to obtain benefits.
It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a sexual union.
But I suppose to your puerile sensibilities, this is all just fodder for a cheap porno. And that's probably one reason why you seem to be missing the point by so vast a margin.
At any rate, if we're talking JUST gay marriage, the idea is to allow two consenting adults to marry in the legal sense and thus obtain the rights and privileges associated with marriage.
Oddly enough, the proscription against incest is really only important if you are marrying members of the opposite sex and intend to produce children from that union (i.e., have babies resulting from the mating of brother and sister).
So homosexual unions of brother and brother, or sister and sister wouldn't really be that big a deal. I mean, it's not like they're going to accidently have offspring that express familial recessive genetic traits.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it is my path to spiritual enlightenment.
My my, I never thought of having to explain why gay unions between siblings would not fall reasonably under the incest taboo, it is apparent that I need to take less insight for granted on the part of the audience.
For God the universe is a Reality Show, so don't be so dismissive about watching porn! I will miss it so.
posted
Its not a question of incest taboo, its a question of incest laws and the reasoning behind them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you've taken almost nothing of what any of us say to you into account, except when you can think of a glib one liner to illustrate the depths of your shallowness, I'm not sure why you'd start worrying about your audience now.
posted
"If we ever do have Gay Unions is there any reason why brothers should not be able to get married."
I can't really think of one. I see no reason why civil unions need to be extra-familiar. Of course, that's why I prefer the term "personal incorporation." There are good reasons why we wouldn't want to encourage sexual relatonships within families -- most notably the issue of true consent -- but I don't see why civil unions would need to include the presumption of a sexual relationship.
posted
"The ordinary man looks for approval in the eyes of his fellow men and calls that power. The Warrior looks only to his own impeccability for approval and calls that humility.
Don Juan
BC
PS Sorry all, I cannot play with you anymore, I have a war to fight. Gotta pack.
Posts: 1249 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, Tom, if it weren't for the pro-creative aspect of marriage, I doubt many, if not most, of the legal institutions of marriage would have arisen. I can't prove this, of course, but there's a lot of support.
Even if they arose out of this, marriage has rightfully become something, it even comes something else once the kids move out of the house. That said, let's get some civil union legislation on the books outside of Vermont. It's seperate, it's unequal, but it may not be that bad.
quote:Now you say what about people who are sterile?!?! Elderly?! Etc. Etc. Etc. Well, the fact is that we cannot deny what is a viable option. Do we know that a man is sterile or a woman barren? No. Therefore, we cannot deny.
Would you argue that in circumstances it which one were able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a person was incapable of reproduction, the right of marriage should be withheld from them?
Also, I'm curious--what I take from your argument is that you feel the only way in which people contribute to society is by producing children. The thing is, that is so obviously wrong that I think I must be misreading you. Am I, or do you think that?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The contribution argument is one that isn't really reached by this issue at all.
Either the legal benefits of marriage as they exist today are designed to help raise children or they are not.
If they are not, then the benefits are unrelated to the contribution. In other words, they're simply a payoff, and a rather inefficient one at that. Also, they don't go to everyone raising children, so they're both under and over inclusive.
If the benefits of marriage as they exist today are designed to help in the raising of children, then we're seriously depriving those children not being raised by married couples of needed benefits.
quote: If we ever do have Gay Unions is there any reason why brothers should not be able to get married. And sisters too! Twins... Tiger Wood's wife and her sister.... yeah!
I married my brother.
Posts: 23 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
anyway the biological father was aware he was "helping" he ladies out). When the child was born the partner listed "unknown" for biological father. The sister was the provider in the relationship and her partner stayed home with the baby. To get the baby insurance they went down to the welfare office and signed the baby up for medicaid. Since the sister was "just" the roommate to the "mother" of the baby her income did not figure in to the calculations for state aid qualification, therefore not only did they qualify for medicaid but also food stamps, WIC, AFDC and whatever else they could get.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
