|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4170 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: So what this really comes down to is that you and Catholic Scientist are paranoid that homosexuals are gonna drain Social Security and/or exploit the benefits granted to heterosexuals? All this crap about not being homophobic or bigoted is in reality a big stinkin pile of horse shit, because as it turns out...you now admit that you are a homophobic bigot. If Chuck and Larry get their stinkin' fingers into Social Security they will put an end to it sooner than its death sentence already prescribes. Thanks and all...for the admission...but why did you wait so fucking long to tell us your real reason for hating homosexuals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4170 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: FO writes:
FliesOnly writes: Did they not suffer the same sorts of things not too long ago (and some might argue still do)? So again I ask, why should a homosexual want to change anymore than a black person should want to change? Ah...when was the last time the gays were put to slavery? Honestly...I'm not following your logic here. Yes, Blacks were once enslaved...so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2918 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: So....slavery is the only way people can suffer discrimination? What a silly question. I call red herring argument on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
For chrissake yes! Every Chuck and Larry from every YMCA from sea to shining sea will want to parlay their bets on the Social Security Wheel of Fortune. You can count on it! So what this really comes down to is that you and Catholic Scientist are paranoid that homosexuals are gonna drain Social Security and/or exploit the benefits granted to heterosexuals? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
deerbreh writes:
deerbreh, if it weren't for red herrings I'd had not argument at all. And smelliest of all red herrings is this silly, frilly notion of "gay marriage." So....slavery is the only way people can suffer discrimination? What a silly question. I call red herring argument on you. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2918 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Got news for you Hoot mon. Being gay doesn't disqualify you from Social Security. Chuck and Larry already have their "stinkin' fingers" into SS unless they are retired military or old federal system, etc. And if they have contributed to it according to their income, why shouldn't they? If you are talking about the spousal benefit - it's pretty much a non issue if both individuals have been working full time until they retire - which is the case I would guess for most gay couples. And even if it weren't so, what is the problem? Spousal benefits for gays is not going to make or break SS and if it is the right thing to do it is the right thing to do. I call red herring on you again. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2918 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Well then you have no argument because a red herring is a logical fallacy - not a valid argument. Gay marriage may be silly to you, it is not silly to gays who want to get married. Why should marriage be any more silly or frilly for a gay person than a hetero person?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2887 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Hoot Moon, i dont know alot about american social security, so this is a serious question.
What, specifically, do married couples get from SS? What services and so forth, that apparently costs so much that it can bring the system down?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
rbp writes:
American SS works this way: If one spouse dies the survivor is entitled to receive full benefits from the dead one's SS account after he or she turns 65+. If Chuck survives Larry, and if they were "married" when Larry dies, Chuck would get ALL of Larry's SS benefits at age 65+. However, if Chuck's SS account is greater than Larry's then Chuck would be foolish to take Larry's SS. But, if it's the other way around, then Chuck, who has a lesser SS account, could "marry" Larry at age 64, who is dying of something or other. Then, when Larry dies, Chuck would have a free ride on Larry's account, and SS would be screwed up the Hershey Highway. Hoot Moon, i dont know alot about american social security, so this is a serious question.What, specifically, do married couples get from SS? What services and so forth, that apparently costs so much that it can bring the system down? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4170 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
deerbreh writes: If we ignore the fact the both Chuck and Larry in all likelihood could still collect Social Security, regardless if they are married to each other or not, there's another little twist of stupidity to Hoot Mon's argument. Spousal benefits for gays is not going to make or break SS and if it is the right thing to do it is the right thing to do. I call red herring on you again. That being:Amongst other arguments against gay marriage that Hoot Mon has put forth, is the one that homosexuals can get married...but it has to be to a member of the opposite sex. So rather than letting Chuck and Larry marry each other, Hoot Mon would prefer that each of them marry a women instead. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Chuck and Larry then be members of two separate marriages (rather than one, if they were allowed to marry each other)? And isn't two a larger number than one? And since Chuck and Larry are both gay, it's then likely that their marriages will fail. And then their former female spouses would each perhaps remarry, creating two new marriages. So his paranoid fear about gay couples draining Social Security if they're allowed to marry, in a twist of irony, actually results in a lesser drain, due to fewer of those pesky "social security draining" marriages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
deerbreh writes:
Because a homo person has a clear, legal route to marriage, so long as said same homo person marries a person of the opposite sex. The frilly and silly part comes when a homo person tries to "marry" another homo person of the same sex. There are significant limitations set by nature that will prevent the joinery of their sexual equipment. Well then you have no argument because a red herring is a logical fallacy - not a valid argument. Gay marriage may be silly to you, it is not silly to gays who want to get married. Why should marriage be any more silly or frilly for a gay person than a hetero person? Try this: Find two electrical extension cords and try to "marry" the male end of one with the male end of the other. Then get back to me on how well that "marriage" worked, and whether or not it was successful in conducting electricity. But please don't try this at home without your parents' supervision. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3686 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
So by this reasoning HM, reproduction is the sole purpose of marriage? What about women who have vasectomies or men who have suffered a deformity causing accident? Obviously these people should be excluded from marriage because their parts don't work in the accepted or normal manner. How a person enjoys their sexuality has no berring in regards to marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4170 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: And yet gay couples have sex all the time...proving once again that you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
There are significant limitations set by nature that will prevent the joinery of their sexual equipment. Hoot Mon writes: So actually being allowed to marry the person of your choice...another consenting adult...is just a frilly and silly exercise with no importance or real meaning? I mean hey, I realize that to you marrying for love was obviously not part of the plan (who knows, maybe you were just trying to rip off Social Security), but why do you want to deny that choice to homosexuals? No need to answer, Hoot Mon, it's a rhetorical question... we are all aware of your paranoid delusions about Social Security as well as that icky feeling you get at the thought of two guys kissing. All perfectly valid reason to be a homophobic bigot, but not really valid enough reasons to take a crap on our Constitution. The frilly and silly part comes when a homo person tries to "marry" another homo person of the same sex. And let me ask you this, Hoot Mon. You keep claiming that you have nothing against homosexuals...that you think Civil Unions (CUs) should be allowed...and that these CUs should be equivalent to "marriage". If that's truly the case, then why did your even bring up the crappola about Social Security? It seems to me that if you really want CUs to be the same in every way to marriages (except in name), then your BS about Social Security would be a moot issue, as CUs and Marriage would be the same fucking thing. So why do I get the feeling that you've been lying to us the whole time...that in reality you do not want equivalency...what you really want is to deny homosexuals some of the potential benefits of marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, Hoot Mon. Explain to me why SS is a concern for you if homosexuals are allowed to get married as opposed to getting "Civily Unioned". Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
rueh writes:
I know you didn't mean to say this, because you know that woman have tubaligations and men vascectomies.
What about women who have vasectomies or men who have suffered a deformity causing accident? Obviously these people should be excluded from marriage because their parts don't work in the accepted or normal manner. How a person enjoys their sexuality has no berring in regards to marriage.
Right enough. But I still don't know why "marriage" should apply to same-sex civil unions. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
FO, And let me ask you this, Hoot Mon. You keep claiming that you have nothing against homosexuals...that you think Civil Unions (CUs) should be allowed...and that these CUs should be equivalent to "marriage". If that's truly the case, then why did your even bring up the crappola about Social Security? A same-sex civil union granted by a homophilic state would not necessarily affect the distribution of SS benefits by the federal government. Or would it? I don't really know. But if the gays ever got access to each other's SS benefits by being officially "married," according to some state, then why wouldn't you want to "marry" your best buddy, who happens to be dying, just to get his SS benefits? I believe this is done occasionally by elderly heterosexuals to transfer their SS benefits, but I'm not really sure. However, I've thought about it myself. And if Chuck and Larry start doing it then that can't be good for SS. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024