how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[ScreamingEagle]

wrong....the government IS a tool that helps determine what kind of society we become....including the monitoring of many types of relationships....IN ORDER to avoid lots of insidious problems within society...

the Left-wing promotes drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, promiscuity, prostitution, pornography and degeneracy....

....so i'd say the Left-wing is also in the business of "social engineering"......kinda the "sodom and gomorrah" version.....but oops....we are not supposed to reference religion because the left-wing is also against religion ......but one can easily see why.....

i'll take the Right-wing form of "social engineering" any day.....

Yeah, well, "live by the sword, die by the sword" eh? If you endorse the idea that the government should be telling us how to live, you've pretty much got to expect it's not always going to go your way.

the irony is that you ALSO are endorsing that the government should tell us how to live.....albeit in a different way....

 

[dblack]

wrong....the government IS a tool that helps determine what kind of society we become....including the monitoring of many types of relationships....IN ORDER to avoid lots of insidious problems within society...

the Left-wing promotes drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, promiscuity, prostitution, pornography and degeneracy....

....so i'd say the Left-wing is also in the business of "social engineering"......kinda the "sodom and gomorrah" version.....but oops....we are not supposed to reference religion because the left-wing is also against religion ......but one can easily see why.....

i'll take the Right-wing form of "social engineering" any day.....

Yeah, well, "live by the sword, die by the sword" eh? If you endorse the idea that the government should be telling us how to live, you've pretty much got to expect it's not always going to go your way.

the irony is that you ALSO are endorsing that the government should tell us how to live.....albeit in a different way....

No, I'm not.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah, well, "live by the sword, die by the sword" eh? If you endorse the idea that the government should be telling us how to live, you've pretty much got to expect it's not always going to go your way.

the irony is that you ALSO are endorsing that the government should tell us how to live.....albeit in a different way....

No, I'm not.

so what about your idea to make marriage a "contractual agreement".....? wouldn't that be a different form of government management....?

 

[dblack]

the irony is that you ALSO are endorsing that the government should tell us how to live.....albeit in a different way....

No, I'm not.

so what about your idea to make marriage a "contractual agreement".....? wouldn't that be a different form of government management....?

Heh... I don't intend to 'make' marriage anything. I simply pointed out that the functions held up as necessary can be attended to in other ways that don't involve government telling us what to do or how to do it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, I'm not.

so what about your idea to make marriage a "contractual agreement".....? wouldn't that be a different form of government management....?

Heh... I don't intend to 'make' marriage anything. I simply pointed out that the functions held up as necessary can be attended to in other ways that don't involve government telling us what to do or how to do it.

bullcrap...

 

[dblack]

so what about your idea to make marriage a "contractual agreement".....? wouldn't that be a different form of government management....?

Heh... I don't intend to 'make' marriage anything. I simply pointed out that the functions held up as necessary can be attended to in other ways that don't involve government telling us what to do or how to do it.

bullcrap...

heh, ok.

 

[bodecea]

wrong....the government IS a tool that helps determine what kind of society we become....including the monitoring of many types of relationships....IN ORDER to avoid lots of insidious problems within society...

the Left-wing promotes drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, promiscuity, prostitution, pornography and degeneracy....

....so i'd say the Left-wing is also in the business of "social engineering"......kinda the "sodom and gomorrah" version.....but oops....we are not supposed to reference religion because the left-wing is also against religion ......but one can easily see why.....

i'll take the Right-wing form of "social engineering" any day.....

Yeah, well, "live by the sword, die by the sword" eh? If you endorse the idea that the government should be telling us how to live, you've pretty much got to expect it's not always going to go your way.

the irony is that you ALSO are endorsing that the government should tell us how to live.....albeit in a different way....

Wait. By legalizing gay marriage, the government would be telling you that you have to live a gay life?

 

[WorldWatcher]

All of these functions can be addressed with contractual agreements between consenting adults. The state has no business defining these agreements or specifying who is allowed to sign them (apart from verifying informed consent). Parental rights and responsibilities are another matter entirely, and do not require a legal definition of marriage to resolve.

The above is a false statement:

1. A "contractual arrangement" does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. On Civil Marriage does that.

2. A "contractual arrangement" does not allow for exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

3. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. A "contractual arrangement" does not convey parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

6. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. A "contractual arrangement" cannot waive the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

8. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

10. Even with a "contractual arrangement" and a will, not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.​

>>>>

None of these were in Dragon's list. The things you're citing that cannot be addressed by contract are examples of special benefits and privileges granted by the state to encourage a certain kind of relationship with another person. It's the social engineering that is the root of the problem. The answer is not to slightly expand the circle of people we grant special privilege to (to include gays), but to eliminate the practice of granting special privileges in the first place.

I'm sure you will get a lot of buy-in for that (i.e. eliminating Civil Marriage from government all together) especially when tell them that because the government will not recognize any spousal relationship that...

... widows/widowers will have to pay tax on the full price of a home sold as the single owner when their spouse dies,

...that spouses who have sacrificed their careers to support their spouse and/or raise their children will not be elible to draw social security at the spousal rate,

... that military members will no longer be able to draw Bachelor's Allowance for Quarters because of their spouse,

... that military members will no longer be able to have thier spouse accompany them when they relocate INCONUS or serve an OUTCONUS permenant change of station move,

... that there will be no more "married filing jointly" status and that individuals will have to file at the "single" rate with only one deduction instead of two,

... that because there is no government recognition of the family relationship established by Civil Marriage that in the event of the accident death they get nothing if the spouse died without a Will (and even then blood relatives can challenge the Will and the non-spouse may loose).




Ya, I love the people that say the solution is "have no government recognition of Civil Marriage at all" as a platitude with no concept of what it would mean to actually people out there in the real world.



>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Heh... I don't intend to 'make' marriage anything. I simply pointed out that the functions held up as necessary can be attended to in other ways that don't involve government telling us what to do or how to do it.

bullcrap...

heh, ok.

OK......changing marriage into a "contract"......destroys the time-honored institution of marriage....

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I'm not.

so what about your idea to make marriage a "contractual agreement".....? wouldn't that be a different form of government management....?

Heh... I don't intend to 'make' marriage anything. I simply pointed out that the functions held up as necessary can be attended to in other ways that don't involve government telling us what to do or how to do it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4543783-post298.html


And it was pointed out that many of the legal aspects of marriage cannot be carried out via a "contractual agreement" because a "contractual agreement" cannot be entered into that replaces Civil Marriage eligibility criteria under the law.



>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah, well, "live by the sword, die by the sword" eh? If you endorse the idea that the government should be telling us how to live, you've pretty much got to expect it's not always going to go your way.

the irony is that you ALSO are endorsing that the government should tell us how to live.....albeit in a different way....

Wait. By legalizing gay marriage, the government would be telling you that you have to live a gay life?

we always knew u had a twisted mind.....stop proving it so much....

 

[Bern80]

I do find, however, girl on girl sex very hot. Very hot indeed.

Obviously straight guys think hot girls are great. Thus two hot girls together is even better. And if guys think hot girls are great it seems perfectly rationale that hot girls would think other hot girls are great. See? Totally logical.

 

[bripat9643]

Simply not true.

It is true.

Nope. It is not. At this moment in most states, gay couples....law-abiding, tax-paying gay couples cannot go to their County Offices and get a civil marriage license. They will be denied because they are both of the same gender. While another couple, male & female, can be right behind them in line and will not be denied.

That is unequal treatment UNDER THE LAW, and the 14th amendment forbids that without due process and cause.

Wrong. If you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you're free to do so. Marriage laws exist to facility a specific behavior: procreation. They weren't created so a couple of fuck buddies can get government benefits.

Any attempt to equate a homosexual couple with a heterosexual couple is simply absurd. The later is capable of reproducing. The former is simply a joke.

(Scenerio: If a obese couple went in to get a license and were told that they cannot get one if they are both over 300 lbs, one of them has to be no more than 150 lbs....would you say that they have the same rights as everyone else?)

The government has already taken a child away from its parents because it weighed over 200 lbs, so don't go thinking the government would overrule such a law. It probably wouldn't. Insurance companies also deny people insurance based on their weight.

 

[bodecea]

the irony is that you ALSO are endorsing that the government should tell us how to live.....albeit in a different way....

Wait. By legalizing gay marriage, the government would be telling you that you have to live a gay life?

we always knew u had a twisted mind.....stop proving it so much....

How odd that you could not answer yes or no to my question.

 

[bodecea]

It is true.

Nope. It is not. At this moment in most states, gay couples....law-abiding, tax-paying gay couples cannot go to their County Offices and get a civil marriage license. They will be denied because they are both of the same gender. While another couple, male & female, can be right behind them in line and will not be denied.

That is unequal treatment UNDER THE LAW, and the 14th amendment forbids that without due process and cause.

Wrong. If you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you're free to do so. Marriage laws exist to facility a specific behavior: procreation. They weren't created so a couple of fuck buddies can get government benefits.

Any attempt to equate a homosexual couple with a heterosexual couple is simply absurd. The later is capable of reproducing. The former is simply a joke.

(Scenerio: If a obese couple went in to get a license and were told that they cannot get one if they are both over 300 lbs, one of them has to be no more than 150 lbs....would you say that they have the same rights as everyone else?)

The government has already taken a child away from its parents because it weighed over 200 lbs, so don't go thinking the government would overrule such a law. It probably wouldn't. Insurance companies also deny people insurance based on their weight.

We are talking about parents over 300 lbs. And you knew that.

But your kind of argument was laughed out of the Supreme Court during Loving v. Virginia

 

[bripat9643]

No.

Brilliant argument.

However, it's a colossal fail.

The facts I stated are irrefutable.

Your facts are easily refutted by the FACT that childbearing is not a requirement for getting a marriage license....nor is a marriage license a requirement for childbearing.

IPSO FACTO.

Wrong. Couples need to be married before they have children, not after. Obviously, afterwards, the incentive for getting married is drastically altered. Before the days of paternity tests, there was no way to ensure that any particular male was the father of the child. In those days, marriage ensured that the a male would be around to support the family. Being around all the time was his way of making sure he was the father. If a woman got pregnant without getting married first, her chances of landing a husband were close to zero.

So your theory is absurd on its face. Marriage exists for the protection of women and children. It isn't permission to have children. It's a contract that binds a couple together and makes it painful for the husband to abandon his responsibilities. In fact, there is very little benefit to males from the marriage contract. The benefits all go to the mother and children.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Wait. By legalizing gay marriage, the government would be telling you that you have to live a gay life?

we always knew u had a twisted mind.....stop proving it so much....

How odd that you could not answer yes or no to my question.

How odd....as a Lefie i thot u didn't believe in "yes or no".....or "right or wrong".....or "black or white".....everything with u Lefties always appears to be a wavy gray line....

 

[Dragon]

Couples need to be married before they have children, not after.

No, there is no such requirement.

Obviously, afterwards, the incentive for getting married is drastically altered.

No, it's not.

Before the days of paternity tests, there was no way to ensure that any particular male was the father of the child.

We are, however, living after the days of paternity tests today.

In those days, marriage ensured that the a male would be around to support the family.

Actually, in those days, marriage ensured that a male could be sure it WAS his family. It was a property arrangement in which a man owned a woman and she was to have children only by him.

Marriage exists for the protection of women and children.

That wasn't even really true in the days you were talking about, and it's certainly not true today.

 

[Seawytch]

You have no problem whatsoever with imposing your morality on everyone else.

How am I forcing YOU to become gay or have a gay marriage or even go to a gay wedding, Katzndogs.

It is ONLY me forcing my morality onto you when I have the government pass laws making you live your life like mine. Cite such a law on the books, plz.

Actually...in all fairness....

THe gay community (for lack of a better way to put it) is forcing those that have religiously saw marriage as a rite between a man and a woman to change what they belioeved to be...and acted through.

In other words...from a religuious point...those that referred to their marriage religiuoulsy as a bond between the man and woman are now being told that they were not experineing what they were taught to believe.

It is a valid debate on both sides and minimizing the importance of how the religious right feels is no less worng than minimizing the importance of how the gay community feels.

No, that's conflating religious marriage with civil marriage.

 

[Luissa]

Then Warren Jeffs shouldn't be in prison at all. Which is probably the way it will be someday. Jeffs will have his own national holiday as a wrongfully imprisoned martyr.

I believe Jeffs is in jail becuase he raped minors.....if it was just about multiple wives, he likely would have received a fine and probation.

The term "minor" is subjective. It's just a line in a lawbook. Change it. Sort of like the way same sex marriage was prohibited by a line in a lawbook.

It's pretty much a given that all these cultural prohibitions are on their way out. All individuals can do is take precautions to keep the effects away from themselves.

Same sex marriage would be between two CONSENTING ADULTS... Is that so hard to understand? A minor is a minor, and cannot give consent.
Stop bringing up that argument, it doesn't work.

When it comes down to it, you guys want to deny two consenting adults the rights that everyone else has. If Kim Kardashian can be married for 80 days or whatever it was, two gay people should be allowed to get married.