Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 151 of 519 (471958)
06-19-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Fosdick
06-19-2008 11:56 AM


Re: Should the law marry dead people, too?
Hoot Mon 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.
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.
Thanks and all...for the admission...but why did you wait so fucking long to tell us your real reason for hating homosexuals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 12:15 PM FliesOnly has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 152 of 519 (471960)
06-19-2008 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Fosdick
06-19-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 12:05 PM Fosdick has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 153 of 519 (471961)
06-19-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Fosdick
06-19-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
quote:
Ah...when was the last time the gays were put to slavery?
So....slavery is the only way people can suffer discrimination? What a silly question. I call red herring argument on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 12:05 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 12:18 PM deerbreh has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 154 of 519 (471962)
06-19-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by FliesOnly
06-19-2008 12:06 PM


Re: Should the law marry dead people, too?
FO 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?
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!
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by FliesOnly, posted 06-19-2008 12:06 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Shield, posted 06-20-2008 3:40 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 155 of 519 (471963)
06-19-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by deerbreh
06-19-2008 12:13 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
deerbreh writes:
So....slavery is the only way people can suffer discrimination? What a silly question. I call red herring argument on you.
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."
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by deerbreh, posted 06-19-2008 12:13 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by deerbreh, posted 06-19-2008 12:34 PM Fosdick has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 156 of 519 (471965)
06-19-2008 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Fosdick
06-19-2008 11:56 AM


Re: Should the law marry dead people, too?
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by FliesOnly, posted 06-20-2008 10:47 AM deerbreh has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 157 of 519 (471968)
06-19-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Fosdick
06-19-2008 12:18 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
quote:
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."
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 12:18 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 11:01 AM deerbreh has not replied

Shield
Member (Idle past 2863 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 158 of 519 (472046)
06-20-2008 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Fosdick
06-19-2008 12:15 PM


Re: Should the law marry dead people, too?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 06-19-2008 12:15 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 10:46 AM Shield has seen this message but not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 159 of 519 (472088)
06-20-2008 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Shield
06-20-2008 3:40 AM


Re: Should the law marry dead people, too?
rbp writes:
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?
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.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Shield, posted 06-20-2008 3:40 AM Shield has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 6:31 PM Fosdick has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 160 of 519 (472089)
06-20-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by deerbreh
06-19-2008 12:26 PM


Re: Should the law marry dead people, too?
deerbreh writes:
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by deerbreh, posted 06-19-2008 12:26 PM deerbreh has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 161 of 519 (472091)
06-20-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by deerbreh
06-19-2008 12:34 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
deerbreh writes:
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?
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by deerbreh, posted 06-19-2008 12:34 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by rueh, posted 06-20-2008 11:20 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 163 by FliesOnly, posted 06-20-2008 11:35 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 190 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 6:36 PM Fosdick has not replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3662 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 162 of 519 (472094)
06-20-2008 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Fosdick
06-20-2008 11:01 AM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 11:01 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 12:17 PM rueh has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 163 of 519 (472098)
06-20-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Fosdick
06-20-2008 11:01 AM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
Hoot Mon writes:
There are significant limitations set by nature that will prevent the joinery of their sexual equipment.
And yet gay couples have sex all the time...proving once again that you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
Hoot Mon writes:
The frilly and silly part comes when a homo person tries to "marry" another homo person of the same sex.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 11:01 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 2:21 PM FliesOnly has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 164 of 519 (472109)
06-20-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by rueh
06-20-2008 11:20 AM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
rueh writes:
What about women who have vasectomies or men who have suffered a deformity causing accident?
I know you didn't mean to say this, because you know that woman have tubaligations and men vascectomies.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by rueh, posted 06-20-2008 11:20 AM rueh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 6:39 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 165 of 519 (472118)
06-20-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by FliesOnly
06-20-2008 11:35 AM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
FO writes:
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?
FO,
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by FliesOnly, posted 06-20-2008 11:35 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by FliesOnly, posted 06-20-2008 2:37 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 6:54 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024