how dare the court!
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
1 man + 1 woman is not the same as 1 man + 1 man, or 1 woman + 1 woman.
I pass no judgement on whether one combination is better than the other. But for it to be a marriage in this country, there must be one man and one woman.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Unfortunately you are not correct here.
While some states may recognize marriages between same sex couples, the federal government does not.
Thusly, many federal rights that hetero couples enjoy are not afforded to same sex couples.
Here are just a few examples:
Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers are not eligible to receive Social Security survivor benefits.
A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A partner in a same sex relationship is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
If you are employed by any federal agency, your spouse, as a hetero couple, would be eligible for health care supported by the federal government. Not true if you are a same sex couple. You spouse would be required to find his or her own coverage.
If employed by a private company hetero couples do not pay federal income taxes on the value of health care insurace. Same sex couples employed by these same companies, who do receive health coverage for their partners, must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
If still working for that same federal agency ( or any other) and you decide to take a new position in another location that would require you to relocate your residence, the federal government may foot the bill for you and your spouse to relocate. Not true for same sex partners. No government funding to relocate the spouse in a same sex marriage.
Bankruptcy law, which is federal, says that if you declare bankruptcy as a couple, you can retain enough assets to support both spouses. But you won't be able to declare bankruptcy as a couple if you're a same-sex couple, so you can't get the protection.
An employer cannot fire a worker who requests a six-week unpaid medical leave to care for a spouse or child. However, since the family leave act is a federal law, this does not apply to gay couples.
Same-sex spouses also will be unable to sign up for COBRA post-employment continuation insurance if a spouse leaves a company - unless the company volunteers to offer it. The program is federal, so employers are not required to offer the option.
Marriages between a man and a woman are recognized by the federal government, so a foreign-born spouse in an opposite-sex marriage has the right to apply for U.S. citizenship. That same right does not extend to same-sex couples. One spouse cannot sponsor a same-sex partner to grant immigration status.
So as you can see (and feel free to check my facts) that the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples, under federal law, are noticeably absent for same sex couples.
While "marriage" is not a right, its connotation entitles certain individuals to be afforded rights that are otherwise denied to a segment of the citizenry without legal justification.
While some states may recognize marriages between same sex couples, the federal government does not.
Thusly, many federal rights that hetero couples enjoy are not afforded to same sex couples.
Here are just a few examples:
Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers are not eligible to receive Social Security survivor benefits.
A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A partner in a same sex relationship is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
If you are employed by any federal agency, your spouse, as a hetero couple, would be eligible for health care supported by the federal government. Not true if you are a same sex couple. You spouse would be required to find his or her own coverage.
If employed by a private company hetero couples do not pay federal income taxes on the value of health care insurace. Same sex couples employed by these same companies, who do receive health coverage for their partners, must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
If still working for that same federal agency ( or any other) and you decide to take a new position in another location that would require you to relocate your residence, the federal government may foot the bill for you and your spouse to relocate. Not true for same sex partners. No government funding to relocate the spouse in a same sex marriage.
Bankruptcy law, which is federal, says that if you declare bankruptcy as a couple, you can retain enough assets to support both spouses. But you won't be able to declare bankruptcy as a couple if you're a same-sex couple, so you can't get the protection.
An employer cannot fire a worker who requests a six-week unpaid medical leave to care for a spouse or child. However, since the family leave act is a federal law, this does not apply to gay couples.
Same-sex spouses also will be unable to sign up for COBRA post-employment continuation insurance if a spouse leaves a company - unless the company volunteers to offer it. The program is federal, so employers are not required to offer the option.
Marriages between a man and a woman are recognized by the federal government, so a foreign-born spouse in an opposite-sex marriage has the right to apply for U.S. citizenship. That same right does not extend to same-sex couples. One spouse cannot sponsor a same-sex partner to grant immigration status.
So as you can see (and feel free to check my facts) that the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples, under federal law, are noticeably absent for same sex couples.
While "marriage" is not a right, its connotation entitles certain individuals to be afforded rights that are otherwise denied to a segment of the citizenry without legal justification.
Basically, if a homosexual weds a person of the opposite sex, they and their spouse are entitled to all the things you listed, just as if there were no homosexuals in the marriage. They will be denied nothing on your list.
Your first example was social security benefits. If a homsexual marries a person of the opposite gender and one dies, the survivor receives the same benefits as they would if there were no homosexuals in the marriage. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The same logic applies for all your other examples. Also, I think not all employers and states are as hard-assed against same sex couples as your worst-case examples.
Essentially, every homosexual can get married and get all the legal benefits of marriage, in every state in the union. But just like the rest of us, they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
That may be a bitter pill to swallow, but if a homosexual chooses to follow their heart and co-habitate with a love of the same gender, at least they don't pay an income tax 'marriage penalty' like they would if they were married.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Gosh, such twisted thoughts.
I just do not understand how two people of the same sex getting married in the eyes of the court, not your precious church, could possibly affect you? How does this affect you negatively you have yet to cite a reason other than you disagree with it.
Health care, again, two people in love married in the eyes of the court. I was not wed in a church and certainly am not a catholic, although I did complete all of the other sacraments :-) ,such a traitor I know! So, does this mean I should not be entitled to my wife's health insurance?
Oh, so gay people are the only one's whom display lewd acts in public. Right, there has never been such a showing of said acts between hetero couples. Or if there were it would be ok because the "good book" said a man and a woman should only have sex. Speaking of that book, I imagine you have never had sex for pleasure, only for makin' babies right? I thought that was what sex is for, that and that alone. So you are just as guilty of gay people of what your God disapproves of if you have had sex only for self gratification.
Good for your nephew. Gosh, again why does it always turn to sex! He says he is gay, that's that, why should be have to explain or justify it, let him be! I can see it now with "uncle Chris" "Come on now nephew just try touching her breasts, ok, now kiss her, yeah, now have sex with her!" I paid good money for this hooker to steer you "straight." Let him make is own decisions, give kids some credit.
I do not view this as a change for the worse. I simply view it as change. Again this is a matter of your opinion and nothing more. How does this AFFECT you DIRECTLY and NEGATIVELY???????????
I am sure gay people are not asking to be treated "special" or if they had birth defects, dude, what is wrong with you? They just wish to be treated fairly, that is all. Just as black people and women. But I am willing to bet my house you would be ok with slavery and women should only be in the kitchen to cook and in the bed to make babies, right?
I will continue to call myself republican, but thanks for the advice. What this boils down to is YOU think it is wrong because of the religion that YOU CHOOSE to believe in. You seem to forget that not everyone is catholic. I was raised Roman Catholic and will certainly not raise my children that way. I believe in a God, maybe not the same on you do. I believe in reincarnation and have my own views on religion and spirituality. I do not believe that the sole purpose for people to be here is to "make babies." Does that mean you condemn single hetero people, or hetero couples that are married, but choose to not have children, that's why we are here right? I am guessing not, because it's ok because they are a man and a woman...please.
I believe our time on this earth is far more important and deep that to "make babies." I think we are here to educate ourselves and better ourselves and others. But, this is MY view. I do not push this on anyone, or consider it to be the "norm" as many Christians expect their beliefs to be that of all society.
I just do not understand how two people of the same sex getting married in the eyes of the court, not your precious church, could possibly affect you? How does this affect you negatively you have yet to cite a reason other than you disagree with it.
Health care, again, two people in love married in the eyes of the court. I was not wed in a church and certainly am not a catholic, although I did complete all of the other sacraments :-) ,such a traitor I know! So, does this mean I should not be entitled to my wife's health insurance?
Oh, so gay people are the only one's whom display lewd acts in public. Right, there has never been such a showing of said acts between hetero couples. Or if there were it would be ok because the "good book" said a man and a woman should only have sex. Speaking of that book, I imagine you have never had sex for pleasure, only for makin' babies right? I thought that was what sex is for, that and that alone. So you are just as guilty of gay people of what your God disapproves of if you have had sex only for self gratification.
Good for your nephew. Gosh, again why does it always turn to sex! He says he is gay, that's that, why should be have to explain or justify it, let him be! I can see it now with "uncle Chris" "Come on now nephew just try touching her breasts, ok, now kiss her, yeah, now have sex with her!" I paid good money for this hooker to steer you "straight." Let him make is own decisions, give kids some credit.
I do not view this as a change for the worse. I simply view it as change. Again this is a matter of your opinion and nothing more. How does this AFFECT you DIRECTLY and NEGATIVELY???????????
I am sure gay people are not asking to be treated "special" or if they had birth defects, dude, what is wrong with you? They just wish to be treated fairly, that is all. Just as black people and women. But I am willing to bet my house you would be ok with slavery and women should only be in the kitchen to cook and in the bed to make babies, right?
I will continue to call myself republican, but thanks for the advice. What this boils down to is YOU think it is wrong because of the religion that YOU CHOOSE to believe in. You seem to forget that not everyone is catholic. I was raised Roman Catholic and will certainly not raise my children that way. I believe in a God, maybe not the same on you do. I believe in reincarnation and have my own views on religion and spirituality. I do not believe that the sole purpose for people to be here is to "make babies." Does that mean you condemn single hetero people, or hetero couples that are married, but choose to not have children, that's why we are here right? I am guessing not, because it's ok because they are a man and a woman...please.
I believe our time on this earth is far more important and deep that to "make babies." I think we are here to educate ourselves and better ourselves and others. But, this is MY view. I do not push this on anyone, or consider it to be the "norm" as many Christians expect their beliefs to be that of all society.
The procreation argument and saying having sex for pleasure is about the most stupid argument ever. I didn't say gays can't have sex. They can pack fudge all day for all I care.. behind there closed doors. I was talking in a strict scientific sense that being gay is wrong because they can not perpetuate the species. You extrapolate that and you sound like an idiot. And again, EVERY LAW MADE WAS A JUDGMENT BY PEOPLE. So don't come here on your high horse saying "who am I to judge" OK? BTW..I am not catholic.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke, Va
I find yours and others here arguments VERY annoying. They defy logic or reason. OK.. so lets say someone murders someone in Oregon. It doesn't affect you does it? So that murder should be OK right? The procreation argument and saying having sex for pleasure is about the most stupid argument ever. I didn't say gays can't have sex. They can pack fudge all day for all I care.. behind there closed doors. I was talking in a strict scientific sense that being gay is wrong because they can not perpetuate the species. You extrapolate that and you sound like an idiot. And again, EVERY LAW MADE WAS A JUDGMENT BY PEOPLE. So don't come here on your high horse saying "who am I to judge" OK? BTW..I am not catholic.
The procreation argument and saying having sex for pleasure is about the most stupid argument ever. I didn't say gays can't have sex. They can pack fudge all day for all I care.. behind there closed doors. I was talking in a strict scientific sense that being gay is wrong because they can not perpetuate the species. You extrapolate that and you sound like an idiot. And again, EVERY LAW MADE WAS A JUDGMENT BY PEOPLE. So don't come here on your high horse saying "who am I to judge" OK? BTW..I am not catholic.So, being gay is wrong because they can't procreate. So, if someone is unable to procreate due to a medical condition that is out of their control then they too should not be able to wed and should be treated sub-standard?
The only one making idiotic statements on here is you with your double standards and ignorant beliefs. This is made very apparent by your completely absurd "comparison" of the Oregon murder statement, come on dude, please. Of course that is wrong, someone was killed, duh. NOBODY, AGAIN NOBODY is being "wronged" by two people of the same sex being wed in the eyes of the government. Just because YOU don't like it, does not mean it shouldn't be allowed.
That's the bottom line.
Excuse me while I get back on my high horse. Giddy up!
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 1
From: mass.
well.. gay marriage has been legal in mass for 4 years now and the world didnt come to a end like some thought it would. i personally dont care what two consenting adults want to do. i do disagree with the court making the call though.it should hae been a ballot question so the people could have spoken.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Well if you have to resort to name calling I can see you are unable to have a civil discussion here, that's ok, most closed minded people can't, you aren;t alone.
So, being gay is wrong because they can't procreate. So, if someone is unable to procreate due to a medical condition that is out of their control then they too should not be able to wed and should be treated sub-standard?
The only one making idiotic statements on here is you with your double standards and ignorant beliefs. This is made very apparent by your completely absurd "comparison" of the Oregon murder statement, come on dude, please. Of course that is wrong, someone was killed, duh. NOBODY, AGAIN NOBODY is being "wronged" by two people of the same sex being wed in the eyes of the government. Just because YOU don't like it, does not mean it shouldn't be allowed.
That's the bottom line.
Excuse me while I get back on my high horse. Giddy up!
So, being gay is wrong because they can't procreate. So, if someone is unable to procreate due to a medical condition that is out of their control then they too should not be able to wed and should be treated sub-standard?
The only one making idiotic statements on here is you with your double standards and ignorant beliefs. This is made very apparent by your completely absurd "comparison" of the Oregon murder statement, come on dude, please. Of course that is wrong, someone was killed, duh. NOBODY, AGAIN NOBODY is being "wronged" by two people of the same sex being wed in the eyes of the government. Just because YOU don't like it, does not mean it shouldn't be allowed.
That's the bottom line.
Excuse me while I get back on my high horse. Giddy up!
Now tell me more about my double standards? There are none there. The murder thing is accurate. Someone else's murder has no affect on me. Or you, unless your related. Much like being gay. It affects family members. It also affects our society, despite your belief otherwise. What you are insisting here is being tolerant of a deviant behavior. Sorry.. I won't buy in. The behavior is sickening and gross. That doesn't mean the gay people are bad people. That doesn't mean I hate them. That doesn't mean I don't respect there abilities in there chosen profession. The argument that a gay person could save my life as a doctor is stupid and irrelevant. And is very disgusting that you could even bring that up in an argument. It is obvious in our very being that being gay is wrong. It is common sense. It is born into us that it is wrong. I don't care if the year is 2500. Times change, but basic moral values never should.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke, Va
Name calling? I called no one names in this thread. Get over it. So your saying that being gay is a medical condition... we almost agree.
Now tell me more about my double standards? There are none there. The murder thing is accurate. Someone else's murder has no affect on me. Or you, unless your related. Much like being gay. It affects family members. It also affects our society, despite your belief otherwise. What you are insisting here is being tolerant of a deviant behavior. Sorry.. I won't buy in. The behavior is sickening and gross. That doesn't mean the gay people are bad people. That doesn't mean I hate them. That doesn't mean I don't respect there abilities in there chosen profession. The argument that a gay person could save my life as a doctor is stupid and irrelevant. And is very disgusting that you could even bring that up in an argument. It is obvious in our very being that being gay is wrong. It is common sense. It is born into us that it is wrong. I don't care if the year is 2500. Times change, but basic moral values never should.
Now tell me more about my double standards? There are none there. The murder thing is accurate. Someone else's murder has no affect on me. Or you, unless your related. Much like being gay. It affects family members. It also affects our society, despite your belief otherwise. What you are insisting here is being tolerant of a deviant behavior. Sorry.. I won't buy in. The behavior is sickening and gross. That doesn't mean the gay people are bad people. That doesn't mean I hate them. That doesn't mean I don't respect there abilities in there chosen profession. The argument that a gay person could save my life as a doctor is stupid and irrelevant. And is very disgusting that you could even bring that up in an argument. It is obvious in our very being that being gay is wrong. It is common sense. It is born into us that it is wrong. I don't care if the year is 2500. Times change, but basic moral values never should.
Suspended
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,103
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Name calling? I called no one names in this thread. Get over it. So your saying that being gay is a medical condition... we almost agree.
Now tell me more about my double standards? There are none there. The murder thing is accurate. Someone else's murder has no affect on me. Or you, unless your related. Much like being gay. It affects family members. It also affects our society, despite your belief otherwise. What you are insisting here is being tolerant of a deviant behavior. Sorry.. I won't buy in. The behavior is sickening and gross. That doesn't mean the gay people are bad people. That doesn't mean I hate them. That doesn't mean I don't respect there abilities in there chosen profession. The argument that a gay person could save my life as a doctor is stupid and irrelevant. And is very disgusting that you could even bring that up in an argument. It is obvious in our very being that being gay is wrong. It is common sense. It is born into us that it is wrong. I don't care if the year is 2500. Times change, but basic moral values never should.
Now tell me more about my double standards? There are none there. The murder thing is accurate. Someone else's murder has no affect on me. Or you, unless your related. Much like being gay. It affects family members. It also affects our society, despite your belief otherwise. What you are insisting here is being tolerant of a deviant behavior. Sorry.. I won't buy in. The behavior is sickening and gross. That doesn't mean the gay people are bad people. That doesn't mean I hate them. That doesn't mean I don't respect there abilities in there chosen profession. The argument that a gay person could save my life as a doctor is stupid and irrelevant. And is very disgusting that you could even bring that up in an argument. It is obvious in our very being that being gay is wrong. It is common sense. It is born into us that it is wrong. I don't care if the year is 2500. Times change, but basic moral values never should.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Houston and Lil ol' England
Name calling? I called no one names in this thread. Get over it. So your saying that being gay is a medical condition... we almost agree.
Now tell me more about my double standards? There are none there. The murder thing is accurate. Someone else's murder has no affect on me. Or you, unless your related. Much like being gay. It affects family members. It also affects our society, despite your belief otherwise. What you are insisting here is being tolerant of a deviant behavior. Sorry.. I won't buy in. The behavior is sickening and gross. That doesn't mean the gay people are bad people. That doesn't mean I hate them. That doesn't mean I don't respect there abilities in there chosen profession. The argument that a gay person could save my life as a doctor is stupid and irrelevant. And is very disgusting that you could even bring that up in an argument. It is obvious in our very being that being gay is wrong. It is common sense. It is born into us that it is wrong. I don't care if the year is 2500. Times change, but basic moral values never should.
Now tell me more about my double standards? There are none there. The murder thing is accurate. Someone else's murder has no affect on me. Or you, unless your related. Much like being gay. It affects family members. It also affects our society, despite your belief otherwise. What you are insisting here is being tolerant of a deviant behavior. Sorry.. I won't buy in. The behavior is sickening and gross. That doesn't mean the gay people are bad people. That doesn't mean I hate them. That doesn't mean I don't respect there abilities in there chosen profession. The argument that a gay person could save my life as a doctor is stupid and irrelevant. And is very disgusting that you could even bring that up in an argument. It is obvious in our very being that being gay is wrong. It is common sense. It is born into us that it is wrong. I don't care if the year is 2500. Times change, but basic moral values never should.
You have refered to "Fudge Packers" a couple of times. That's name calling.
I'll bet you don't like it if people call you a Bible Basher or a religious Nut, do you?
As to the murder analogy, I think you are wrong. Murdering somebody affects a third party who obviously, didn't want to get murdered in the first place.
Homosexuality takes place between consenting couples. They want to do it.
You would be better off drawing a comparison between people who get drunk together. That doesn't affect me or you either. Do you think that a consenting act like getting drunk together should be illegal because that's on the same level, not a non consenting act like murder.
So, you don't believe that moral behavior should change?
How about slavery? A few hundred years ago, it was seen as moral.
What about separate drink fountains for coloured people? Or where you sit on a bus? How about segregated schools?
In certain states, these actions were see as moral and were actual laws.
What's your opinion on these basic moral values? Do you believe they should still be in force?
At the time these things changed, many people thought that morally, segregation and the laws should stay as they were.
That's the line of logic you are taking.
Last edited by EnglishAdam; Oct 12, 2008 at 09:18 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
well.. gay marriage has been legal in mass for 4 years now and the world didnt come to a end like some thought it would. i personally dont care what two consenting adults want to do. i do disagree with the court making the call though.it should hae been a ballot question so the people could have spoken.
If we'd been given a chance to vote on this in our state, I believe that today there wouldn't be same sex marriage. Well, maybe the activist judges would have intervened after we voted.
I think four years ago a majority of the country would have voted to retain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. That's the way it's been, well since the beginning. If we want same sex couples to have a way to solidify, or "legalize" their commitment, the legislatures should work on making laws that do that. Laws that create an alternate arrangement for people in alternative lifestyle relationships. As hard as it is for people to understand why some of us want to preserve marriage as originally intended, I cannont for the life of me understand why there isn't a country wide effort to create a new arrangement for this new societal circumstance.
I suspect that we are about to enter an age when everything is done more liberally. I think that there will be legalized same sex marriage across this country within the next four years. Some of you don't think that it's effects you at all. You'll be fine untill they fundamentally change something that you feel strongly about. There will be something that does effect you, and by that time it'll be to late. We're about to open the flood gates and it'll take quite some time to ease the flow.
I believe that our society is supposed to have a foudation, and a strong structure. The foundation has been crumbling, and the structure is being altered. We can keep it standing for a while but there will be a day when it can no longer stand. We'll be surprized when that day comes. Some of us will have been expecting it.
This is really just the beginning. There is a lot more to come.