| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:08:09 PM | A homosexual may enter a heterosexual marraige, thus receiving said benefits. If a homosexual chooses to enter a marriage not recognized by the state, then they are not married in the state's eyes, thus receiving no benefits of said marraige.
He is correct in this. Is it right? That's a difference of opinion.
He's spinning you round and round in a circle and you are following. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:11:59 PM |
They are not entitled to the same benefits under different circumstances. But the benefits that are offered, are offered equally.
Talk in circles all you want. It just shows you are lacking either the courage or the facts to argue against my statement. That being, they are not given equal treatment.
Until you are willing to come up with a credible argument, your posts are meaningless. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 203 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:12:40 PM | I won't say if it's right.
But it is not wrong.
The goverment is not obligated to extend benefits to *anyone*, including homosexuals, niether would it be wrong for them to offer said benefits, though unwise, I think.
edit::
"Until you are willing to come up with a credible argument, your posts are meaningless."
What isn't credible, is when you compare homosexual union and heterosexual unions as if they are the same. There are blatant, obvious, fundamental differences. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:21:37 PM |
What isn't credible, is when you compare homosexual union and heterosexual unions as if they are the same. There are blatant, obvious, fundamental differences.
A Jewish marriage is far different than a Christian marriage, and both are far different than a Muslim marriage. All these are far different than an Aboriginal marriage. Yet there is nothing preventing any of these marriages in the United States. Why not allow homosexual marriage? | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 205 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:32:16 PM |
A Jewish marriage is far different than a Christian marriage, and both are far different than a Muslim marriage. All these are far different than an Aboriginal marriage. Yet there is nothing preventing any of these marriages in the United States. Why not allow homosexual marriage?
Different heterosexual marraiges are different only in form, not concept.
Homosexual "marraiges" are fundamentally different in concept.
That is why... not. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:34:41 PM | Personally, I'm all for homosexual marriage. I'm "against" the reason for it. Well, not even against the reason for it. Not the right words for it.
We introduced the income tax to pay for WWII. Then we start cutting breaks here and there. That is in itself discriminatory. Once you start cutting this group a tax break and that group a tax break, all of a sudden it starts creating all kinds of problems.
Then compound it by creating laws saying that only these people can make decisions here. Only these people can make decisions in this circumstance.
So, what do we do to correct the problem...create more laws, sue, more beauracracy to solve bad beauracracy.
My problem with them movement is the gay community is attacking the wrong source of the problem. The problem is not the government preventing certain benefits from being reached...it's the fact that they are giving benefits where none should be given period. Get rid of income tax, stop making preventive laws. Get the hell out of people's lives.
That is the root of the problem. That is what needs to be corrected. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:36:38 PM |
Different heterosexual marraiges are different only in form, not concept.
Homosexual "marraiges" are fundamentally different in concept.
That is why... not.
Tell a Jewish couple and a Muslim couple that their marriages are different only in form, and they will strongly disagree with you.
Besides that, a marriage, at least in theory, is based on love. Homosexual couples are just as likely to love each other as heterosexual couples. So why not let them get married. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 208 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:38:25 PM | Sure, that would be okay, I guess, esp getting rid of income tax, Im all for axing that.
But the thing is, that the gay community isn't *really* interested in equal treatment, only deviance.
Just like the big adu about allowing gays in scouting. The homosexual community didn't have a single thing to stand on, they were just interested in the publicity.
Bah.
"Tell a Jewish couple and a Muslim couple that their marriages are different only in form, and they will strongly disagree with you."
Conceptually, they are still the union of a man and a woman that are responsible for thier offspring. That's the point.
"Besides that, a marriage, at least in theory, is based on love. Homosexual couples are just as likely to love each other as heterosexual couples. So why not let them get married."
They can get married. Just no state benefits. If that's all they care about, then state recognition doesn't make a difference. | |
|
mauser
|
Joined: 1/3/2005
Msg: 209 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:52:13 PM | | My only other solution to this issue would be for the government in general to stop reconizing marrage in general. To begin with marrage is religious instituation. With the seperation of church and state being how it is in our country it wouldn't be too far fetched to see why the federal or state government has no business being involved in a religious right. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 210 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:55:22 PM | | Meh, that would be okay, except the government realizes the benefit to marraige, and it's good for them to encourage it. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 8:55:57 PM | Loukus, are you seriously telling me that you, after going on, ad nauseum, about the fact that homosexuals enjoy the 'right' to marry (with so ridiculous a justification, in that they can if only they'll find a willing individual of the opposite sex to enter into a loveless/sexless marriage with them), can then so blithely dismiss the HUGE inequalities that bds4711 so eloquently pointed out...
I've said this once. Shame on you. I'm saying it again because if you can seriously ignore such a blatant human rights discrepancy, in your wondrous 'land of the free', then your romantic notions about matrimony, fate and 'already being married, just haven't met her yet' are so entirely hypocritical as to to humourous if they weren't also beneath contempt.
Imagine living with that one and only of yours...for fifty or sixty years...having them die and then be treated by your own government as though you were little more than an acquaintence to the person. Or have the love of your life, the one true partner for you, die of a horrifying disease, wasting away in front of you and then watch as that person's parents take possession of the house you shared or refuse to allow you to be involved with their burial. Imagine you have a child, and that child is rendered persona non grata (it's latin, look it up) immediately if you break up with your partner. You have no rights to ever see them again.
For chrissakes, you little man, what if you have a child and they happen to be homosexual? Would you want to see them suffer the inequalities that exist now? Dick F*cking Cheney, who makes Reagan look like Ralph Nader, has embraced the idea of these things, not because they're right for everyone but because his daughter is a lesbian.
After all of your comments here, which are entirely devoid of fact or example and rather are blanket statements or bad 'analogies', you can't actually address the issue of human rights, equality and decency to our fellow man/woman. You owe bds4711 some rationale for why that's fair, the inequalities that he outlined. You owe it to him for taking the time to even bother trying to point out your cognitive disconnect that rivals the grand canyon in scope.
Explain how any of those 'benefits' he outlined shouldn't be granted to loving couples, regardless of race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. Don't just say "states don't do that" because as I pointed out before, the states need to be challenged to do it...explain why they shouldn't be challenged...explain why the status quo is fair.
Oh chr!st...he probably didn't read past "human rights discrepancy"... | |
|
mauser
|
Joined: 1/3/2005
Msg: 212 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:04:49 PM | Ok everything you just mentioned could be solved through a civil union. lets at least look at that as an option.
advantage 1
The christian right wouldn't complain because god didn't institute civil unions
advantage 2
It would cure all the harms you just mentioned
adv3
It wold be much easier to impliment in states that arn't as liberial as vermont. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:08:48 PM | There is a HUGE legal difference between being Married to each other and having it recognised by the State. HUGE DIFFERENCE.... they don't get the legal benefits that
married "hetero" couples do.... and now the lovely people of America are voting to take
away their rights to a Civil Union as well.
If we are going to leave the Church out of Government (HAHA! Thats a good one.)
Then their should be NO PROBLEM with Gays being married and recognised by the State. Why should the state care if the couple is same sex? Or that they can't procreate so thier marriage isn't valid? Hey... surprize! Its because its completely fictitious that there is a separation in this country. Christians just like to pretend they are being persecuted...
helps them feel their lives are worth living. Fighting the good fight and all.
I can't believe how selfish and bigotted people can be. How the hell
is a same sex couple being legally married going to ruin your life? Your marriage?
Its won't.... This whole thing is based on prejudices and religious self-righteousness...
and its complete crap.
Now I'm outta this thread before my head explodes... some people make me sick.  | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 214 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:09:59 PM |
...can then so blithely dismiss the HUGE inequalities that bds4711 so eloquently pointed out...
You seem equally as confident dismissing the HUGE differences between heterosexual and Homosexual unions. Undue confidence.
then your romantic notions about matrimony, fate and 'already being married, just haven't met her yet' are so entirely hypocritical as to to humourous if they weren't also beneath contempt.
How so?
Imagine living with that one and only of yours...for fifty or sixty years...having them die and then be treated by your own government as though you were little more than an acquaintence to the person.
That's the goverment's call.
Or have the love of your life, the one true partner for you, die of a horrifying disease, wasting away in front of you and then watch as that person's parents take possession of the house you shared or refuse to allow you to be involved with their burial.
Sure, that would suck, but it'd probably be our fault for not sorting it out.
Imagine you have a child, and that child is rendered persona non grata (it's latin, look it up) immediately if you break up with your partner. You have no rights to ever see them again.
Don't be an ass, I know basic latin terms.
Anyway. That goes against the grain of the concept of marraige. I don't think you've made the connection between gay marraige being ackowledged, and the disassociation of union with offspring.
What you're proposing would take us a step closer to what you're desribing.
you can't actually address the issue of human rights, equality and decency to our fellow man/woman.
All men and women are offered the same benefits wrt marraige.
Explain how any of those 'benefits' he outlined shouldn't be granted to loving couples, regardless of race, creed, colour or sexual orientation
Because homosexuals don't offer the same thing to the society that Heterosexuals do.
Don't just say "states don't do that" because as I pointed out before, the states need to be challenged to do it...explain why they shouldn't be challenged...explain why the status quo is fair.
That's not what I've been saying. I've been saying, States don't *have* to do that.
Oh chr!st...he probably didn't read past "human rights discrepancy"...
I shouldn't be. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:11:10 PM | I'm for that mauser...entirely. And in fact, some Christian and Jewish congregations recognize and perform gay marriages already...that's a decision that is battled outside of court government.
That works...but marriage can't be recogized at all by the government...separation of church and state, and all that good stuff (which seems forgotten by the current administration).
Are you always the voice of reason? :) ;) | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 216 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:15:17 PM |
That works...but marriage can't be recogized at all by the government...separation of church and state, and all that good stuff (which seems forgotten by the current administration).
As it's been pointed out, the concept of marraige transcends religon. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:22:18 PM |
Because homosexuals don't offer the same thing to the society that Heterosexuals do.
What is that exactly? Babies? I know a lot of heterosexual married couples
who don't have children and don't plan too. does that make them less
worthy of being recognised by the State as well?
You sir, are a bigotted jackass. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:25:33 PM |
Because homosexuals don't offer the same thing to the society that Heterosexuals do.
So you're a homophobic bigot? I assume this because the 'offerings' you are talking about are procreation (creating more taxpayers). I assume you're for forbidding marriage for those heterosexuals who are sterile? Because other than that (and trust me, we're not rebuilding after the flood here, okay Noah? It's not such a big deal) then what you assert is that gays are simply not as valuable human beings.
As to your hypocritical views of fate, love and the person you've not yet met. Here's how so. You allow yourself the idealistic certainty that your 'beloved' shall arrive after which point all shall be well, simply because you have found love. However here, you are unwilling to allow those lucky enough to have met that special 'one' person the kind same kind of happiness and security and equality you are so certain to someday enjoy. By the way, if it's 100% in fate's hands...let's hope they're not in an ironic mood and get cupid to have you fall for some guy. Aw, heck, I'LL hope that...because I love irony, but you ought to make sure to keep an eye out for that possibility.
All men and women are offered the same benefits wrt marraige.
Coward. That's evading the issue...as per your standard so far.
I've been saying, States don't *have* to do that.
So you're cool with gay marriage then, so long as someone goes through the process of challenging it in court. Great...otherwise...you're a coward to use that as an argument when it's not the point.
Oh chr!st...he probably didn't read past "human rights discrepancy"... I shouldn't be.
Au contraire (that's French), you should be reading a lot more...I can provide a reading list, on request. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:26:36 PM | hi shannigan...:D
We seem to be on that left wing commie ESP wavelength that Loukus has been wondering about...
| |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 220 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:26:47 PM | What is that exactly? Babies? I know a lot of heterosexual married couples
who don't have children and don't plan too. does that make them less
worthy of being recognised by the State as well?
Married couples that don't have children are exceptions. Laws are written for the masses, not for exceptions. Fact is, whether or like it or not, most do, and that's benefit enough for the state to encourage ALL heterosexual marraiges.
You sir, are a bigotted jackass.
It's funny how much liberals talk about tolerance, but never practice it. | |
|
| |
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 222 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:29:01 PM |
Great...otherwise...you're a coward to use that as an argument when it's not the point.
The point is what goverment HAS to do, and what it DOESN'T have to do. So I don't know what you're talking about. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:31:37 PM |
It's funny how much liberals talk about tolerance, but never practice it.
I have no tolerance for Hateful Intolerance....
Don't be lumping me into a group you obviously have no clue about... as I have
never once claimed to be politically correct or passive. I'm a b*tch and admit it....
You are a biggot... and you should be admitting that to yourself and stop pretending
you have a social conscious. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:33:37 PM | | Make that social conscience... though its obvious you aren't conscious of the world around you either. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 225 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 9:34:22 PM |
I have no tolerance for Hateful Intolerance....
Marraige has existed for a very, very long time as it is, and worked quite well. To write off people that defend it as just being hateful intolerants is well,... real intolerance. | |
|
Home
login 
