Legal benefits of same-sex marriage
 

Recognizing same-sex relationships as a legal marrige would open up the distinct possibility of the hypothetically now-legally married gay 'couple' sharing health insurance benefits (as a 'spouse'), bereavement leave, life insurance, annuity and pension rights, housing rights (such as rent-control apartments), adoption and inheritance rights. federal income tax and veterans' benefits as well as accumulated frequent-flier points, I would assume. Of course, same-sex couples could also be divorced with alimony and child custody issues following, just as with hetrosexual marriages.

The real goal for homosexuals isn't to be legally married (few have taken advantage of the opportunity in Vermont) but for forced social as well as legal acceptance of homosexuality on a hetrosexual populace via unelected judges making law from the bench with no input from those it's imposed on. The 97 -98% hetrosexual population tolerates homosexuality and homosexuals as individuals with the same rights as anyone else but generally is repulsed by it once you get past the platitudes about 'love' and realize exactly what it is gays do 'in the privacy of their own home' not to mention the much lesser privacy of men's rooms, bathhouses and bus stations. Homosexuality adds big health risks to a persons life and while being 'married' would add many financial and social benefits to their lives, civil unions could do the same - but most gays don't want that. They want the 'marriage' label and by receiving it, de facto recognition of what they do as 'normal' and accepted by society. I get that but it does nothing for the 98% of us who are not homosexual and don't believe that 'marriage' means in any way two guys sodomizing each other and looking for a kid to adopt because they can't make one and yet want to play daddy.

There are legal advantages to marriage but few hetrosexuals marry for financial benefits and, contrary to what some think, there is no 'right' to marry. It's simply recognized as the legal joining of two people, a man and a woman, in matrimony. After all the smoke and shouting is over, that crystal clear fact remains what every culture and every people have always known and acted on. Unfortunately, years of gay-friendly propaganda and a need to do what they think is PC and socially acceptable (as well as gain PC brownie points for sneering at assumed 'bigots' who disagree with them) many folks refuse to admit the simple logic of this and continue to champion 'gay marriage'. They go from pure emotionism to fantasy to nasty, anti-religion insults in their defense of this absurd concept all because they think it has no consequence and: "won't affect me one iota". They're mistaken but that never stopped anyone when their proclaimed 'open-mindedness' appears to be cost-free and makes them feel all warm and tingley for 'supporting' something they really are repulsed by in it's physical manifestation.

I have no doubt that this debate is far from over no matter what eventually happens in Massachusetts.

Re: Lessons learned, lessons still to be taught
 

Yes the almight Jim has spoken. Listen to he, shall he show no mercy on ones soul:rolleyes: The only thing I learned from you is not to be like you.

Yes the word "liberal":

" lib·er·al Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

I assume you were hinting I was also liberal? Yes I am. Refreshing your memory on the definition since you keep throwing that word out like it is a bad omen. Yeah, yeah you know the defintion but don't quite seem to grasp it. Being liberal is not a bad thing. I know you never said that as well.:rolleyes:


It wouldn't? I have a hard time believing that being your a father. It bothers me and I have no children.

Some day maybe you will learn to read between the lines. You seemed the most feared by it going by what you wrote and how you responded about it. You say you debate, but all I see is an argue. I am not going to deny it, neither should you. This does bring this discussion to a personal level. Freedom is for everybody. If we(Americans) are going to emphasize it we should be equal about it, but you don't want to hear any of that PC non-sense do you? All I am saying Jim is we(Americans) shouldn't be hypocrites of what we wrote years ago, either we stand by it or this nation will fall apart which is what it is doing today. I actually agree with some aspects of what you say on this subject of gay marriage. I think it is "wrong" for the most part and disgusting but if we can't stand behind what is written and what we live by, then why have laws at all?

I would assume that health insurance would increase as well, being that gays have the highest rate of AIDS. I also think they should pay more. I know what your thinking, he just wrote how we should be "equal" above yet he wants gays to pay more for health insurance. Well let me give you an analogy. You share an apartment with your friend. You use 70% of the electricity and he uses 30%. Now why should he have to pay more if you are using more? He shouldn't, he should pay his 30%. Insurance for gays is the same way. If they carry 80%(example only) of the AIDS virus, why should the rest of us non-gays have to pay more? So it would be correct to say they pay more;equal.

He didn't call you stupid. Its not gay propaganda either. Maybe he was misinformed. Is that possible? It's not a "gay disease". It didn't originate from gays. Gays did spread it cause of a study by the government, hepatitis B vaccine experiments, where in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. They still aren't sure if it was biowarfare or chimps from Africa in which it originated from.

Here is my resources:
INFO 1
INFO 2
INFO 3

Knee-jerk this! :eek:

James:D

Re: Re: Lessons learned, lessons still to be taught
 

Originally posted by srv1 :

Quote:

Yes the almight Jim has spoken. Listen to he, shall he show no mercy on ones soul. The only thing I learned from you is not to be like you.

That's a pity, James. Your illogical and obstinate attitude does you no favors here but you'll probably figure that out, in time. One hopes, anyway.

Quote:

I assume you were hinting I was also liberal? Yes I am. Refreshing your memory on the definition since you keep throwing that word out like it is a bad omen. Yeah, yeah you know the defintion but don't quite seem to grasp it. Being liberal is not a bad thing. I know you never said that as well.

No James, you're quite mistaken. I hinted that your alleged open-mindedness was somewhat of a fraud. You have definite opinions on politics and religion but pretend that supporting concepts such as 'gay marriage' renders you 'liberal' and 'open-minded'. It doesn't. It simply means that you have an opinion that is the same as many others. Nothing special or 'open-minded' about it. Your liberalism is nothing special and certainly not 'open-minded'.

Quote:

It wouldn't? I have a hard time believing that being your a father. It bothers me and I have no children.

I said that it wouldn't affectme, not that it wouldn't bother me. Big difference. You really need to learn to differentiate words and meanings better. It was simply a hypothetical example used to make a point.

Quote:

Some day maybe you will learn to read between the lines. You seemed the most feared by it going by what you wrote and how you responded about it. You say you debate, but all I see is an argue. I am not going to deny it, neither should you. This does bring this discussion to a personal level. Freedom is for everybody. If we(Americans) are going to emphasize it we should be equal about it, but you don't want to hear any of that PC non-sense do you? All I am saying Jim is we(Americans) shouldn't be hypocrites of what we wrote years ago, either we stand by it or this nation will fall apart which is what it is doing today. I actually agree with some aspects of what you say on this subject of gay marriage. I think it is "wrong" for the most part and disgusting but if we can't stand behind what is written and what we live by, then why have laws at all?

You appear to confuse what the word 'discrimination' really means, James, in terms of legality as well as constitutionality. I've posted at great length on the subject on this very thread and I have no intention of re-typing that all over again as you apparently ignore what you don't agree with, anyway. Your contention that by supporting and advocating 'gay marriage' you are somehow upholding some constitutional 'right' for gays is simply a manifestation of the mistaken idea that marriage is a 'right' and that to not redefine what marriage means is somehow 'discrimination' against homosexuals. It is not. That's where you and I clearly differ.

Quote:

I would assume that health insurance would increase as well, being that gays have the highest rate of AIDS. I also think they should pay more. I know what your thinking, he just wrote how we should be "equal" above yet he wants gays to pay more for health insurance. Well let me give you an analogy. You share an apartment with your friend. You use 70% of the electricity and he uses 30%. Now why should he have to pay more if you are using more? He shouldn't, he should pay his 30%. Insurance for gays is the same way. If they carry 80%(example only) of the AIDS virus, why should the rest of us non-gays have to pay more? So it would be correct to say they pay more;equal.

I agree. Unfortunately, homosexuals would probably challege that assumption in court as 'discrimination'. You see, when you use 'discrimination' as a club to get what you want, as 'gays' are doing with same-sex marriage, you'll keep using it and once 'gay marriage' is legalized, as I expect that it will be, on the basis that to not do so is 'discrimination', it open up a Pandoras Box of problems down the road that no one thinks about or at least wants to talk about, today.

Quote:

He didn't call you stupid.

I didn't say that he did. I was addressing the fact that bigred90gt termed the contention that links homosexuals and AIDS as 'The BS card' and called it: "the stupidest thing he had ever heard". I disagreed with his opinion.

Quote:

Its not gay propaganda either.

I disagree. The contention that AIDS is 'everyone's problem' is false and promoted by homosexuals to deflect the fact that they constitute 50% of the AIDS population.

Quote:

Maybe he was misinformed. Is that possible? It's not a "gay disease". It didn't originate from gays. Gays did spread it cause of a study by the government, hepatitis B vaccine experiments, where in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. They still aren't sure if it was biowarfare or chimps from Africa in which it originated from.

Sorry James, I don't buy it but the actual origin of AIDS is basically irrelevant at this late date. It's a 'gay disease' because - again - homosexuals constitute 50% of the AIDS 'population' in the United States but less than 3% of the total U.S. population. In Africa, hetrosexuals are the primary carriers of AIDS but we were discusssing the United States, not Africa and yes, I think 'bigred90gt' was quite misinformed, to put it politely.

Quote:

Knee-jerk this! James:D

I'd rather not, James. Thanks anyway. :D

What the hell are you talking about?? I started this thread and I'm not offended. If anyone gets offended by a subject matter then they shouldn't click on the thread(kinda like the person who sent Dan the email). I started this one and the President Bush thread because I was sitting here one night and thought this place was dead and thought it needed something to wake it up. If you don't like controversial threads, don't read them, m'kay?

My bad...what I should have said was what you just said "Don't click on threads if you can't handle the subject. I shouldn't have said "start threads" I wasn't referring to you. That remark you quoted me on was geared more towards joe4speed and bigred90GT , who seem to be getting all choked up and emotional over some of the comments and harsh words on this thread.

This thread is about dead anyway. Let's talk about something even more controversial like the situation with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners(poor babies...ahhh). I'm going to go start that on.

Unless I missed something somewhere it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve..........

You did miss something....that's already been said a long time ago.......That was the very first reply made to this thread by Missblondie .
(see page 1)

Well it's here
 

Here it is...
A new law has come into force in Massachusetts, which will allow couples of the same sex to get married.

It is the first American state(Massachusetts) to allow gay weddings, and the issue has divided opinion and politicians across the US.

Earlier this year thousands of homosexual and lesbian couples were married in San Francisco, but the marriages were not legally recognised under Californian law.

Towns and cities across Massachusetts are preparing to process large numbers of applications from gay couples.

Some of the views from this side of the world;
Loads of room for dissection here

Same old
 

Thanks for sharing this but frankly, it's the same exact arguments - pro and con - that have always been offered when 'gay marriage' is being discussed. I see nothing new here, just the same old same old, albeit with a British accent.