Gay Marriage

Taz, it's good stuff. Could you bump it to the proposed thread: "On The Causes of Sexual Orientation"?”HM

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.”HM

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.”HM

FO, may I direct you to bluescat's post in Message 134. He says it pretty well:

quote:

---

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.

---

Wouldn't you think a cure might be welcomed relief for them?”HM

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.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

Then I suppose you would go along then with what I said in Message 140 about "living-dead marriages"*?”HM*Maybe a better term would be "pre-and-post-mortem marriages."

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.”HM

Ah...when was the last time the gays were put to slavery? 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

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

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

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

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

I know you didn't mean to say this, because you know that woman have tubaligations and men vascectomies. Right enough. But I still don't know why "marriage" should apply to same-sex civil unions.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

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

It's wrong to misquote people. Show me where I said that or resign from this discussion immediately.”HM