|
Author
|
Topic: Marriage is a civil right in the US
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Come one
Because of my personal feelings that I'd be more inclined to enter a fake marriage with a guy than with a girl and that I think there are other people that are like me. then perhaps it is you, and others that would do something similar, that are really making a mockery of marriage. but two consenting adults who really want to enter into a state-sanctioned and binding contract expressing their love and commitment for each other are not.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Well, at any rate, how can you justify denying marriage to homosexuals because our healtcare system is so crappy? quote:
Because I think its gonna make things worse.
Well, we could deny all sorts of rights to all sorts of people and it would make our healthcare system less taxed. For example, we could deny marriage to people who's family history or genetic profile show a high chance that they will have difficult pregnancies which will require costly hospital stays. We could deny marriage to people who are poor and have no health insurance, because if they have children that they obviously cannot afford, the taxpayers end up footing the bill for their kids. Would this be acceptable to you? It should be, because thesse are known factors that actually do increase costs, compared to your vague "I think it would be worse".
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
I just think that including gay marriages as marriages is gonna make it a lot more frequent and for exploitng different benefits.
I still don't understand upon what data you are basing this opinion on.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Come one
Because of my personal feelings that I'd be more inclined to enter a fake marriage with a guy than with a girl and that I think there are other people that are like me.
then perhaps it is you, and others that would do something similar, that are really making a mockery of marriage.
Yes, it is because of this potential for mockery that I don't support gay marriage as it is being pushed.
but two consenting adults who really want to enter into a state-sanctioned and binding contract expressing their love and commitment for each other are not. Yup, which is why I'm not actively against gay marriages. I think they should have some kind of marriage, I just don't like they way its going down.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
A lot of people say this but a good enough pre-nup could solve any issues that would come up when the fake marriage is terminated.
Tell that to Donald Trump. He and Ivana had a pre-nup that was, I suspect, amazingly thorough, but a fat lot of good that did him as she reportedly got much more than was prearranged.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Come one
Yes, it is because of this potential for mockery that I don't support gay marriage as it is being pushed. double-standard. the potential exists in straight marriage too.
Yup, which is why I'm not actively against gay marriages. I think they should have some kind of marriage, I just don't like they way its going down. explain? i'm confused. what don't you like, specifically? what would you prefer?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 202 of 304 (317962)
06-05-2006 1:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by nator
06-05-2006 1:08 PM
|
|
Would this be acceptable to you? No. I think there's a difference between actively excluding and limited including. I don't think we should try to find things to add to the system to exclude people to benefit the system but I do think we should be careful when adding things to include people so that benefits of the system are not opened up for exploitation. If we include things that weren't orignally considered and it gets opened up for exploitation, then we will have to add things afterwards for exclusion. It seems like extra work. Maybe we could just be careful during the inclusion to prevent the exploitation. Of course, that could be a lot of work too. I don't really know the best way to go about it but simply including gay in to the marriage thing seems like a bad idea to me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:08 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 204 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:28 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied | | | Message 215 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:09 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 203 of 304 (317963)
06-05-2006 1:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 198 by nator
06-05-2006 1:10 PM
|
|
quote:
I just think that including gay marriages as marriages is gonna make it a lot more frequent and for exploitng different benefits.
I still don't understand upon what data you are basing this opinion on.
Not all of my opinions are based on data. Its based on what I think is gonna happen. I think its a valid reason for not supporting something but not really a good reason for actively opposing it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:10 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
If we include things that weren't orignally considered and it gets opened up for exploitation
It's already opened up for exploitation from mixed gener couples. You still haven't given any compelling reason to believe that same gender couples would exploit the system any more than mixed couples.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 205 of 304 (317983)
06-05-2006 2:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by nator
06-05-2006 1:28 PM
|
|
You still haven't given any compelling reason to believe that same gender couples would exploit the system any more than mixed couples. and I probably won't. The reasons are just my personal opinions. You'll disagree with my position and continue to support gay marriages and I won't. Just don't call me a bigot because we have different positions (which I realise you haven't). I'm not trying to compel you to change you mind about gay marriages and I probably wouldn't have said anything at all if Jar didn't act the fool in the thread this stemmed from.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:28 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
kjsimons
Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: 06-17-2003 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Well just to let you know where most of us are coming from, watch this little mpeg and see why we think your position is indefensible. http://www.dumbamendment.com/
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 5:42 PM | | kjsimons has not replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
Message 207 of 304 (317995)
06-05-2006 3:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by nator
06-05-2006 1:08 PM
|
|
wow
Well, we could deny all sorts of rights to all sorts of people and it would make our healthcare system less taxed. For example, we could deny marriage to people who's family history or genetic profile show a high chance that they will have difficult pregnancies which will require costly hospital stays. We could deny marriage to people who are poor and have no health insurance, because if they have children that they obviously cannot afford, the taxpayers end up footing the bill for their kids. Would this be acceptable to you? It should be, because thesse are known factors that actually do increase costs, compared to your vague "I think it would be worse". What increases costs is that there are people who are uninsured which is why we need some sort of universal coverage. But that is another topic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:08 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
and I probably won't. The reasons are just my personal opinions. You'll disagree with my position and continue to support gay marriages and I won't. Just don't call me a bigot because we have different positions (which I realise you haven't). I'm not trying to compel you to change you mind about gay marriages and I probably wouldn't have said anything at all if Jar didn't act the fool in the thread this stemmed from. I don't think you're a bigot Catholic Scientist. Nothing of the sort. It's not fair to smear anyone against gay marriage as a bigot; even though there are a lot of bigots who are against it. I've seen a lot of posts from you on here.... and the only thing I think you are guilty of is being young  (I held a lot of your views about 8 years ago when I was in my early 20s) ABE: Of course this doesn't mean I'm right Cheers Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.
|
Shh
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 209 of 304 (317999)
06-05-2006 3:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by rgb
06-05-2006 2:04 AM
|
|
Re: Two things....
lo Rgb you wrote...
I suspect very much that the tolerance level there are somewhat similar to what we see here in the states.
Sure, I wasn't trying to claim Ireland was incredibly forward thinking (or anything about any other country), just responding to somone who said homosexuality was considered an aberration here. It's not. Dublin was considered the Gay capital of Europe for about three years recently. The point being, regardless of wether or not popularity was a qualifier for this sort of thing (it isn't imo) the view that was presented was an erroneous one, an unsubstabtiated opinion of what others think. Since I am one of those others, commented on, as are my friends family etc., I felt I should speak up, as we (and many others) were being misrepresented. Many people are intolerant in any country, but to associate this with the "official", or collective view of things, isn't valid. Funnily enough I think that this notion of a rigid set of rules which must be obeyed to qualify, is what mocks marriage. And the idea that anyone knows, or can control, who someone else loves, or how they manifest that love, is nonsense. Do we also now have to pass a test to "qualify" that our love fits the Christian interpretation? hardly. Should we have exams to see who's qualified to show their love, or that how they express it, fits how we think it should? no, that's nonsense too. How about we test everyone, and give them percentage marks, and unless they score 100% compliance with Faiths, ot whoevers, definition of marriage they can't?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by rgb, posted 06-05-2006 2:04 AM | | rgb has not replied |
|
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4933 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: 12-18-2005
|
Re: Come one
Yup, which is why I'm not actively against gay marriages. I think they should have some kind of marriage, I just don't like they way its going down.
marriage in what sense, religious or legal?
-I believe in God, I just call it Nature -One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion. -People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men. -Religion is the opiate of the masses
|
™ Version 4.2