|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Taz, it's good stuff. Could you bump it to the proposed thread: "On The Causes of Sexual Orientation"? Jesus Christ, hoot, did you just selectively ignore my post 90 regarding brain comparason between various groups in regard to their sexuality and gender? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
That's probably the most bigoted post on this thread. Shame on you! Your fallacy flag is flapping on the pole. Gays and blacks are like penguins and Chevorlets: they are not at all comparable. And don't we basically know the loci for skin pigmentation? So, if anything, I guess we're closer to a cure for being born black than we are for being born gay. Should we fix that one for you Hoot Mon? I mean, who in their right mind would want to be born black when they could be born white instead? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluescat writes:
Stomping queers for Jesus. What a concept! What's wrong with that? Well, everything. I'm not out to stomp queers. I'm out to see that they get their civil rights under the law, and without the law sanctioning their "marriage." But I suppose you'll call that queer stomping anyway. I agree, why would anyone want to be a homosexual and be denied rights and be attacked by right-winged bigots and even be killed, in the name of God, by even more right-winged fanatics. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
FO, may I direct you to bluescat's post in Message 134. He says it pretty well:
So then, Hoot Mon...what makes you think that a homosexual would want to be "cured" any more than a black person would want to be "cured"? quote:Wouldn't you think a cure might be welcomed relief for them? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
LinearAq writes:
As far as I know, "mixed-faith marriages" can conjoin members of opposite sexes and produce babies. And, as far as I know, that is the expressed purpose of marriage: to conjoin members of opposite sexes and produce babies if they want to. Furthermore, as far as I know, marriage was never meant to be sanctioned by the state unless it was between a man and a woman. It is not illegal now but perhaps it should be or at least have a different name like "mixed faith union". Religion is a choice just like homosexuality and shouldn't be a protected right by your standard. I think two humans with the same kind of sexual equipment ought to be united under the law if they choose to. Give 'em civil unions and send them their happy way. Then, if they want to go get "married," let them go to a church that will do the queer thing for them. Queerer things have been done before in churches. The Catholic Church marries women to a dead person all the time”the Holy Ghost of Jesus Christ”and then His brides go straight into a nunnery for life. I don't care if the Catholic church marries living people to dead ones, and I don't care if it marries queer ones to each other either. The only thing I care about that the LAW stays out of such exotic joineries. If the LAW sanctioned "living-dead marriages," just as it is supposed to sanction "same-sex marriages," then I'd like to marry my long-departed Grandfather Wilber who died without leaving me any access to his Social Security benefits. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
ramoss writes:
Then I suppose you would go along then with what I said in Message 140 about "living-dead marriages"*? I personally think the law should sanction their 'marriage'. I don't see what the big whoop de do is. I mean, the various churches don't have to recognize it from a religious standpoint anyway, and the 'marriage' gives them certain legal protections for their relationships that the rest of us take for granted. ”HM *Maybe a better term would be "pre-and-post-mortem marriages."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
CS writes:
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. This is one of the bigger issues for my hesitation to allow same sex marriages. Its not that I want to deny rights to gays, its the Chuck's and Larry's out there who could find the loop-holes in the laws and exploit them. Opening up marriage to same sexes provides more loop-holes and I hesitate to simply flip the lightswitch and give the go-ahead. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
Ah...when was the last time the gays were put to slavery?
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? Would not a more simple answer be to just stop denying them their rights and instead grant them the same protections under the law the heterosexuals receive?
I'm all for that. That's why I support civil unions for gays. (But watch out for your Social Security account that promises more than it will ever deliver.) ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 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 5530 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 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 5530 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
It's wrong to misquote people. Show me where I said that or resign from this discussion immediately. According to you; "them crazy homos are going to exploit the system....that's the only reason they want to married in the first place...and God gave only us heteros that right. Stupid homos, thinkin they can exploit the system and use up my SS benefits." ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024