A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[koshergrl]

You asked what benefits they expected to get and I gave you a link to a nice list of benefits.

And a power of attorney would not help in the event of the adoption. And should teh parent listed on the adoption die, the other parent would have absolutely no legal standing as a parent.

Obviously you don't know much about Family Contract Law

The adoption agency can define parenthood however their attourney wishes; if anyone, including queers want to adopt, they can.

However, just because queers are married, doesn't mean they will be qualified to be adopting parent.

That is not what I said.

In most states, if a gay couple wants to adopt, they will have to pick one or the other to be the legal parent/guardian of the child. This is because they are unmarried. An unmarried straight couple would have to do the same thing.

If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights. Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.

It sounds like perhaps you should change adoption law, then.

 

[WinterBorn]

Obviously you don't know much about Family Contract Law

The adoption agency can define parenthood however their attourney wishes; if anyone, including queers want to adopt, they can.

However, just because queers are married, doesn't mean they will be qualified to be adopting parent.

That is not what I said.

In most states, if a gay couple wants to adopt, they will have to pick one or the other to be the legal parent/guardian of the child. This is because they are unmarried. An unmarried straight couple would have to do the same thing.

If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights. Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.

It sounds like perhaps you should change adoption law, then.

I think that would be a good idea too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I did not use it to show any gay marriage. Someone claimed there was no "right to marry". Loving v. Virginia ruled that there was.

When I use it as a reference, it is simply a reference.

Let me see if I can dumb this down enough. If you try and tell young people today that there were laws against interracial marriages, many of them think it was 100 years ago. They do not comprehend that the gov't would punish someone for marrying someone of another race. And they are amazed that people would work so hard to keep those laws in place.

Now, someday when gay marriage is commonplace, I think people will look back and be amazed that these gay marraiges were not recognized by state and federal law. I also think they will be amazed that people fought so hard to keep gay marriages from happening.

Can you grasp it now? I am not comparing gay marriage to race or to interracial marriage. I am comparing the way people currently view the old laws with the way I think people in the future will view our current laws. The comparison is about people views.

Stop with the double talk. loving vs. Virginia has no place here, it's irrelevant.. so stop using it as a reference.

Double talk? I'm sorry you cannot comprehend. Let me try once more.

Its a shame that so many people today look at gays like the puritans looked at witches.

Now, am I calling gays witches? Am I calling them puritans?

Now, I am comparing the way people view gays with the way people (the puritans) viewed witches.



And if someone makes the claim that there is no right to marry, then Loving v. Virginia certainly has a place in the discussion. Someone did. So it does.

No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.

 

[MaxCha]

[/QUOTE]
No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

You have said multiple, multiple times that being gay is not a gene, it's a choice. You say it so emphatically. Yet you are not a scientist nor a researcher and I highly doubt you've spent a second of time reading studies that deal with exactly that issue using nothing but facts.

As I keep saying, almost every single psychological association and medical group (and 100% of the largest and most widely renowned) have conducted years worth of research and (the largest group, the APA) came to the following conclusion:

"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality."

Saying it's so does not change the facts. Especially when people like you have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up their assertions.

 

[Artevelde]

No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

You have said multiple, multiple times that being gay is not a gene, it's a choice. You say it so emphatically. Yet you are not a scientist nor a researcher and I highly doubt you've spent a second of time reading studies that deal with exactly that issue using nothing but facts.

As I keep saying, almost every single psychological association and medical group (and 100% of the largest and most widely renowned) have conducted years worth of research and (the largest group, the APA) came to the following conclusion:

"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality."

Saying it's so does not change the facts. Especially when people like you have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up their assertions.[/QUOTE]

Personally I believe the question as to whether gays choose to be gay or are born that way is completely moot. That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

For the rest I would point out that
a) nothing in the quote you post indicates that being gay is of the same thing as belonging to a cetain ethnic or racial group
b) the assertion that certain behavior is "normal" is not a scientific judgement but a value judgement.

 

[Samson]

If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights. Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.

Huh?

What a lot of clap trap. If a Queer couple want to pretend they are normal, and need a child as a prop to gain social acceptance, then all they need to do is find a sympathetic adoption agency.

The problem is not that anyone must be married to adopt: The problem is that even if queers were married, there are few adoption agencies that would recognize them as ideal adoptive parents (Queers have notoriously high rates of mental disease).

If the Queer Community really wanted children, then they could easily accomplish the task: Set up their own adoption agency, call it, "Queers for Kids!" and simply issue legal documents defining who the adoptive parents are.

 

[Gadawg73]

If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights. Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.

Huh?

What a lot of clap trap. If a Queer couple want to pretend they are normal, and need a child as a prop to gain social acceptance, then all they need to do is find a sympathetic adoption agency.

The problem is not that anyone must be married to adopt: The problem is that even if queers were married, there are few adoption agencies that would recognize them as ideal adoptive parents (Queers have notoriously high rates of mental disease).

If the Queer Community really wanted children, then they could easily accomplish the task: Set up their own adoption agency, call it, "Queers for Kids!" and simply issue legal documents defining who the adoptive parents are.

With so many "queers" in the closet still how would anyone know how many of them have any disease?
How did you become an expert on "queers"?

 

[garyganu]

more proof you are tragically stupid in a closed minded way.

Paul wasn't gay dumb ass.

Paul wrote the book of Romans

Romans 1:24-28
King James Version (KJV)
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

your point? lot's of in the closet gays claim they're not..paul is one of them.

Closet gay? Is that like a closet pedophile. A closet pedophile is someone who has always had an attraction to children but restrains his abnormal and unhealthy desires and leads a normal life. Closet pedophiles are to be commended as long as they don't act on their abnormal and unhealthy attractions. Closet gays should should also be commended as long as they don't act on their abnormal and unhealthy desires..

 

[garyganu]

They do have the same rights as everybody else.

That's the beginning and end of it.

Oh good. So my sister and her partner of 20 years, and their best friend and his partner can get married. Right? Or will my sister have to marry Brian, and her partner have to marry Noel?

BDBoop, Why shouldn't all 4 of them marry each other? Shouldn't group marriages be legal if all 4 people are in love? Acording to your logic, the only requirement for marriage is love and legal age.

 

[garyganu]

Oh good. So my sister and her partner of 20 years, and their best friend and his partner can get married. Right? Or will my sister have to marry Brian, and her partner have to marry Noel?

They can if they move to a state that allows it.

Why should they move? No straights have to move so they can get married.

People DO have to move if they want to have sex with their goat, horse or dog. In certain states bestiality is legal and in certain states bestiality is illegal.

 

[Gadawg73]

They can if they move to a state that allows it.

Why should they move? No straights have to move so they can get married.

People DO have to move if they want to have sex with their goat, horse or dog. In certain states bestiality is legal and in certain states bestiality is illegal.

I am glad you have posted your opinion here. Please keep doing so.
It makes me know I am right when I fight for the rights of gays and lesbians.
Thanks.

 

[jillian]

That's it?

Power of Attourney would solve both issues.

Next?

As I suspected, these "benefits" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda: Social Acceptability for Deviant Behaviour.

You asked what benefits they expected to get and I gave you a link to a nice list of benefits.

And a power of attorney would not help in the event of the adoption. And should teh parent listed on the adoption die, the other parent would have absolutely no legal standing as a parent.

Obviously you don't know much about Family Contract Law

The adoption agency can define parenthood however their attourney wishes; if anyone, including queers want to adopt, they can.

However, just because queers are married, doesn't mean they will be qualified to be adopting parent.

well,, yes... and no...

they can apply their criteria equally and not in a discriminatory fashion.

 

[jillian]

1400 Benefits and you cannot just recall the ONE MOST VALUABLE?



Game:Set: Match.

Thanks for Playing.

You want me to call one the most valuable, without anything else being stated?

If my wife were terminally ill or in a coma, the ability to make decisions for her would be the most important.

If we had adopted a child, the ability to have us both on the adoption papers would be the most important.


Which benefit is the most important depends on the couple and their situation.

Unlike you, I make no claim to know what others feel is important.

That's it?

Power of Attourney would solve both issues.

Next?

As I suspected, these "benefits" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda: Social Acceptability for Deviant Behaviour.

does power of attorney allow them to inherit without being taxed?

does power of attorney confer ownership as tenants by the entirety?

does power of attorney allow them to share in each others' social security benefits if the relationship dissolves.

does power of attorney provide that their right of inheritance can't be abridged at least to a certain degree?

didn't think so.

 

[jillian]

Why should they move? No straights have to move so they can get married.

People DO have to move if they want to have sex with their goat, horse or dog. In certain states bestiality is legal and in certain states bestiality is illegal.

I am glad you have posted your opinion here. Please keep doing so.
It makes me know I am right when I fight for the rights of gays and lesbians.
Thanks.

is that misogynist freak still here?

 

[WinterBorn]

Stop with the double talk. loving vs. Virginia has no place here, it's irrelevant.. so stop using it as a reference.

Double talk? I'm sorry you cannot comprehend. Let me try once more.

Its a shame that so many people today look at gays like the puritans looked at witches.

Now, am I calling gays witches? Am I calling them puritans?

Now, I am comparing the way people view gays with the way people (the puritans) viewed witches.



And if someone makes the claim that there is no right to marry, then Loving v. Virginia certainly has a place in the discussion. Someone did. So it does.

No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.

Kindly point out where I have compared race with homosexuality and I would be happy to stop any "double talk".

 

[jillian]

I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.

that would be incorrect. the pertinent part of Loving isn't necessarily the issue of race... it's the fact that marriage is a fundamental right that can't be denied to someone for discriminatory reasons.

so please stop ignoring what the court said when you know full well that Loving applies to the issue of gay rights.

 

[garyganu]

Actually..there is.

Divorce....praised to the skies in the 60s and 70s, into the 80s, as the salvation of happy marriages and joyful children....no fault divorce was made the norm, and people flocked and still flock to get divorced.

And homosexuality itself. Once considered a crime...in the 60s, 70s and 80s a lot of people worked very hard (including using very bad studies a la Kinsey) to promote the idea that homosexuality was "normal". Law was changed to allow it.

And now, years later, we are learning...no fault divorce creates easy divorce, and leads to broken families..and broken families lead to dysfunctional children, who in turn are lame and halt, productively speaking, as adults.

Homosexuality was touted as 100 percent inherited, natural, perfectly acceptable. We were told fully 10 percent of the population was born gay...

All lies of course. But people believe it still, and homosexuals are accepted and encouraged to test it out from a very young age.

I disagree.

Ask any queer, and they will tell you that despite 60 years of psychobabble exposure, a significant portion of the population continues to believe homosexual behaviour is abnormal, and this is causing them to commit suicide at a higher rate.

Causing who to commit suicide? How?

I'd love to see a study on "causes of suicide". Ultimately, that, too, is just a choice.

The homosexual lobby is big on avoiding the consequences of making bad decisions.

The largest group of people who commit suicide do have mental disorders. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

 

[garyganu]

I disagree.

Ask any queer, and they will tell you that despite 60 years of psychobabble exposure, a significant portion of the population continues to believe homosexual behaviour is abnormal, and this is causing them to commit suicide at a higher rate.

Causing who to commit suicide? How?

I'd love to see a study on "causes of suicide". Ultimately, that, too, is just a choice.

The homosexual lobby is big on avoiding the consequences of making bad decisions.

Well, the story goes something like this: Once upon a time Brucy Twinkletoes was Outed. He was then Bullied. To escape the unbearableness of being called a fudgepacker, Brucy blew his brains out.

Somewhere in the story the possibility that Brucy was a nutcase and this caused him to be a fudgepacker, and eventually made him blow his brains out, is lost.

Anyone who blows his brains out is a nutcase. the sin of suicide is MUCH WORSE than the sin of bullying.

 

[garyganu]

Causing who to commit suicide? How?

I'd love to see a study on "causes of suicide". Ultimately, that, too, is just a choice.

The homosexual lobby is big on avoiding the consequences of making bad decisions.

Well, the story goes something like this: Once upon a time Brucy Twinkletoes was Outed. He was then Bullied. To escape the unbearableness of being called a fudgepacker, Brucy blew his brains out.

Somewhere in the story the possibility that Brucy was a nutcase and this caused him to be a fudgepacker, and eventually made him blow his brains out, is lost.

And the bullying, name-calling, and hostility had no bearing on it at all?

The sin of suicide is MUCH WORSE than the sin of bullying.

 

[garyganu]

Kittens do not count?

I would like to know precisely what is the most important benefit queers imagine they will receive from being legally married.

Off the top of my head, I might only receive one benefit, and I'm really not even sure it saves me any money: I file a federal tax return: "Married, Filing Jointly," and I have NEVER been asked to prove it.

They don't want anything from it. They want to undermine the traditional family, remove any safety nets we provide for children, and normalize depravity. That's what it's about, that's what it has always been about.

The rest is just window dressing.

Well, I disagree.

The intention is not evil, or to "undermine the traditional family." Queers don't qive a second thought to traditional families: They are completely egocentric, hedonistic behaviorial deviants who could give a flip about anything except their own obscene desires.

Not true, Most homosexuals have a deep resentment that they have been cheated out of the chance of leading a normal life. This is why they act out with "in your face" behavior.