Dumb ass social conservatives

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think that they should be allowed the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple has.

that's a great question - other than it's not 'rights', it's 'benefits' - speech, worship, bearing arms, bearing witness (bearing witness is point of discussion) applies to all individuals

all individuals are supposed to have the same rights

"couples" shouldn't have special gov benefits...
INDIVIDUALS should.

why do hetereosexual 'couples' get to have special benefits that singles don't?

giving special benefits for anybody just because of how they associate (other than becoming a citizen) - is unfair



it's very insightful how people talk about entitlements and benefits.....yet use the words "rights"

I guess deciding what kind of medical care to choose for your loved one is an entitlement, not a right.

Being able to get time off from work to care for your significant other as provided by law is an entitlement, not a right.

I agree, these entitlements should apply only to heterosexual couples.

Or are you saying that those entitlements that heterosexual couples enjoy should be abolished to place them on the same level as everyone else?

[promise5 17]

Yes, and I do believe they are were wrong, and that it should be overturned.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Don't avoid the elephant in the room:


http://militarypay.defense.gov/survivor/sbp/01_overview.html
http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/survivors.htm
http://www.finaid.org/calculators/finaidestimate.phtml

...and last but not least:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-taxes-idUSBRE92B06K20130312

I mean seriously?! No one can acknowledge the additional costs?

It's easy to take the high ground and argue basic human rights, morality, justice, etc., etc. If you want to get it done, get into the trenches and deal with the nuts and bolts of it.

I don't like heterosexual couples getting these entitlements, let alone the idea of hundreds of thousands if not millions of others being instantly added to the dole.

And there in lies your problem. People who are not homophobic and support gay rights saying "FUCK THAT, I'm not paying", "social conservatives" saying, "fuck that" (jesus, etc.) and people who are pretty ambivalent about the right to marry saying "fuck that" if their entitlements are on the line to get it done.

Keep arguing it's the "right" thing though...see where that gets you.

[Bignugget 0]

You get no argument from me.

Lets take away all those entitlements from married couples, and allow gay people to get married.

You might make some married people angry stripping those entitlements away from them but I don't care...im single.

If 2 people who love each other can get married I am cool with that even if it means they don't get tax exemptions or the "entitlement" of deciding how best to care for their incapacitated loved one.

I like that framing. We can't let gay people get married because it would give them entitlements that unmarried people don't have, and we can't take away hetero married couples entitlements just to give someone else the ability to marry. Some sort of twisted circle of logic.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

You get no argument from me.

Lets take away all those entitlements from married couples, and allow gay people to get married.

You might make some married people angry stripping those entitlements away from them but I don't care...im single.

If 2 people who love each other can get married I am cool with that even if it means they don't get tax exemptions or the "entitlement" of deciding how best to care for their incapacitated loved one.

I don't think anyone would consider having access to or assisting in medical decision making for an incapacitated spouse is an entitlement.

With that point clarified I think we are in agreement. Making the sell is difficult, but I think something could be drafted on a bipartisan basis.

Just can't wait until I get my brothers wedding invitation. That will be such a joyous day.

[promise5 17]

Quote

Quote

But, where does it say "race"? The Bible refers to marrying a non believer.

Considering at the time, a non-believer was everyone who was not Hebrew, then that pretty much sums up every other race outside the Hebrews.
But,again it was talking about believers and non-believers. No where does is mention "race" or ethnic background. Moses himself married a believer of a different ethnic background.

(btw, I'm a non-believer, but raised Christian, so I have a good understanding of the material, as bogus as I think it is)

Quote

Tribe does not in anyway mean race.
race=human

species=human. race=ethnicity, color, nationality etc... that's why it's called racial hate. the racist don't hate humans, they hate a particular "race"

On my birth certificate and those of my siblings and also those of my mothers family going back to when they first started asking for race it is listed human. When filling out any form that asks for race we list human. I think a major step forward would be to define race(which then includes all ethnic backgrounds) as human instead of dividing people into separate "race" groups. I'm proud do say I'm plaid and come from a very diverse ethnic background.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[okalb 104]

Quote

why do hetereosexual 'couples' get to have special benefits that singles don't?

Personally, I think the government should get completely out of the marriage business. There should be no special treatment awarded to anyone just because they are married. The government should issue civil unions to cover the legal stuff relating to medical treatment, survivor benefits and whatnot. If you want to get married in a certain church that is your own business and should have nothing to do with the government.

That being said, until that comes to pass (which I doubt it ever will) then you can’t treat one group differently from another. If the laws are changed for everyone then great but for now, same sex couples are being discriminated against. I honestly just wanted to hear promise5 come right out and say that my mother doesn’t deserve the same rights that she does. People like that want to restrict the rights of others just because they don’t like their lifestyle. To me that is disgusting and goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. The part that bothers me the most is that people like her think of themselves as patriots and believe they are trying to save this country. It truly is no better than those that opposed the civil rights movement.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[promise5 17]

Quote

Quote

why do hetereosexual 'couples' get to have special benefits that singles don't?

Personally, I think the government should get completely out of the marriage business. There should be no special treatment awarded to anyone just because they are married. The government should issue civil unions to cover the legal stuff relating to medical treatment, survivor benefits and whatnot. If you want to get married in a certain church that is your own business and should have nothing to do with the government.

That being said, until that comes to pass (which I doubt it ever will) then you can’t treat one group differently from another. If the laws are changed for everyone then great but for now, same sex couples are being discriminated against. I honestly just wanted to hear promise5 come right out and say that my mother doesn’t deserve the same rights that she does. People like that want to restrict the rights of others just because they don’t like their lifestyle. To me that is disgusting and goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. The part that bothers me the most is that people like her think of themselves as patriots and believe they are trying to save this country. It truly is no better than those that opposed the civil rights movement.

You asked for a simple yes or no and I think it goes beyond that. So your beliefs are now more patriotic then mine and are more inline with what this country stands for? Then to bring in the civil rights movement?? please

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Quote

why do hetereosexual 'couples' get to have special benefits that singles don't?

Personally, I think the government should get completely out of the marriage business. There should be no special treatment awarded to anyone just because they are married. The government should issue civil unions to cover the legal stuff relating to medical treatment, survivor benefits and whatnot. If you want to get married in a certain church that is your own business and should have nothing to do with the government.

That being said, until that comes to pass (which I doubt it ever will) then you can’t treat one group differently from another. If the laws are changed for everyone then great but for now, same sex couples are being discriminated against. I honestly just wanted to hear promise5 come right out and say that my mother doesn’t deserve the same rights that she does. People like that want to restrict the rights of others just because they don’t like their lifestyle. To me that is disgusting and goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. The part that bothers me the most is that people like her think of themselves as patriots and believe they are trying to save this country. It truly is no better than those that opposed the civil rights movement.

This I agree with, right down the line.
However, there is one thing in your post where I think we disagree with some others. You mention "survivor benefits". I get the idea from rehmwa and ManagingPrime that they think that married couples (of any combinations of genders) should be treated as two completely separate individuals. That means no such thing as survivorship benefits. If you and your spouse buy a house together, when you die if you leave your share in the house to your spouse they will have to treat it as taxable income. If you or your spouse decide to take a few years off of work to raise the kids, it'll cost whoever takes the time off big time because they won't be contributing to their individual retirement, and they won't be able to rely on their spouse's pension to make up the difference. Whatever you do, don't have any joint bank accounts, because if you or your spouse should die everything will be tied up until you can prove, to the dollar, exactly how much you put in vs how much is the estate of the deceased. If you have kids, once they turn 18 they'll be adults not dependants. If you decide to help them out by paying for college, they'll have to treat your payment of their tuition and expenses as income. Also be prepared to spend big bucks for a lawyer to draft up lots of different contracts so your spouse can make medical or financial decisions for you, should you become incapacitated. I have no idea what legal web would be generated to enable you both to make decisions regarding kids, if the legal relationship between you and your spouse would be assumed to be exactly the same as the relationship between you and a complete stranger from the next county.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

why do hetereosexual 'couples' get to have special benefits that singles don't?

Personally, I think the government should get completely out of the marriage business. There should be no special treatment awarded to anyone just because they are married. The government should issue civil unions to cover the legal stuff relating to medical treatment, survivor benefits and whatnot. If you want to get married in a certain church that is your own business and should have nothing to do with the government.

That being said, until that comes to pass (which I doubt it ever will) then you can’t treat one group differently from another. If the laws are changed for everyone then great but for now, same sex couples are being discriminated against. I honestly just wanted to hear promise5 come right out and say that my mother doesn’t deserve the same rights that she does. People like that want to restrict the rights of others just because they don’t like their lifestyle. To me that is disgusting and goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. The part that bothers me the most is that people like her think of themselves as patriots and believe they are trying to save this country. It truly is no better than those that opposed the civil rights movement.

This I agree with, right down the line.
However, there is one thing in your post where I think we disagree with some others. You mention "survivor benefits". I get the idea from rehmwa and ManagingPrime that they think that married couples (of any combinations of genders) should be treated as two completely separate individuals. That means no such thing as survivorship benefits. If you and your spouse buy a house together, when you die if you leave your share in the house to your spouse they will have to treat it as taxable income. If you or your spouse decide to take a few years off of work to raise the kids, it'll cost whoever takes the time off big time because they won't be contributing to their individual retirement, and they won't be able to rely on their spouse's pension to make up the difference. Whatever you do, don't have any joint bank accounts, because if you or your spouse should die everything will be tied up until you can prove, to the dollar, exactly how much you put in vs how much is the estate of the deceased. If you have kids, once they turn 18 they'll be adults not dependants. If you decide to help them out by paying for college, they'll have to treat your payment of their tuition and expenses as income. Also be prepared to spend big bucks for a lawyer to draft up lots of different contracts so your spouse can make medical or financial decisions for you, should you become incapacitated. I have no idea what legal web would be generated to enable you both to make decisions regarding kids, if the legal relationship between you and your spouse would be assumed to be exactly the same as the relationship between you and a complete stranger from the next county.

Don

Exactly. That is what they are saying. Those are "entitlements" that single people do not enjoy.

Of course all the points you raised are the reasons WHY there is recognition of couples under the law.

Some people argue that adding more people to that pool is irresponsible, and since we can't stop heteros from marrying, we can at least keep the gays from gaming the system.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

You asked for a simple yes or no and I think it goes beyond that. So your beliefs are now more patriotic then mine and are more inline with what this country stands for? Then to bring in the civil rights movement?? please

In 20 years time this whole area of discussion will be looked back on in the same way (morally, not in terms of scale) we look back on the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s. You are an anachronism in the making. Seriously.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[promise5 17]

I completely disagree and sincerely hope not.
Comparing this to the Civil Rights movement is in my mind a very very long stretch indeed.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[okalb 104]

Quote

You are an anachronism in the making. Seriously.

Preserved for posterity thanks to the internet Nowadays people hear stories about their great grandfather the racist. Their great grandchildren will be able to read their posts about it.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

I completely disagree and sincerely hope not.

Why? What is your problem with gay couples?

Quote

Comparing this to the Civil Rights movement is in my mind a very very long stretch indeed.

The people on the wrong side of the civil rights movement thought that comparing white freedoms with coloured freedoms was a heck of a stretch, too. They've faded away, and good riddance.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[promise5 17]

Considering my ethnic background and family, I'm sorry but i still see it as a stretch. If you would like a list of my ethnic background I would be more then happy to list it for you.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

On my birth certificate and those of my siblings and also those of my mothers family going back to when they first started asking for race it is listed human. When filling out any form that asks for race we list human.
....

What kind of "form" in todays life could ask for "race", where do you need to fill in "human"? Only at a vet, I guess ???

In my opinion, you are no girl, no woman. You entered this site on Dec 20 of last year. (One day later, several believers left earth and hopefully are having a wonderful live on another planet ).

You sound like RonD1120's grand kid, talking about the "choice" homos made, talking about the "counseling" some of them poor souls enjoyed, which brought them back on track.

I think you are RonD1120. Disguised, of course

It just needs a sweet little (blonde) face in the avatar, and most straight man fall for it.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[promise5 17]

Birth Certificates are one and also the Census forms asked for race and then wanted ethnic background the only problem is they didn't list all the ethnicities. My brother for entering a school was asked to list what race he was and it took going before the superintendent before they would accept human.
Well, crapit how many jumps did he have?? i really need to get my numbers up.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

why do hetereosexual 'couples' get to have special benefits that singles don't?

Personally, I think the government should get completely out of the marriage business. There should be no special treatment awarded to anyone just because they are married. The government should issue civil unions to cover the legal stuff relating to medical treatment, survivor benefits and whatnot. If you want to get married in a certain church that is your own business and should have nothing to do with the government.

That being said, until that comes to pass (which I doubt it ever will) then you can’t treat one group differently from another. If the laws are changed for everyone then great but for now, same sex couples are being discriminated against. I honestly just wanted to hear promise5 come right out and say that my mother doesn’t deserve the same rights that she does. People like that want to restrict the rights of others just because they don’t like their lifestyle. To me that is disgusting and goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. The part that bothers me the most is that people like her think of themselves as patriots and believe they are trying to save this country. It truly is no better than those that opposed the civil rights movement.

This I agree with, right down the line.
However, there is one thing in your post where I think we disagree with some others. You mention "survivor benefits". I get the idea from rehmwa and ManagingPrime that they think that married couples (of any combinations of genders) should be treated as two completely separate individuals. That means no such thing as survivorship benefits. If you and your spouse buy a house together, when you die if you leave your share in the house to your spouse they will have to treat it as taxable income. If you or your spouse decide to take a few years off of work to raise the kids, it'll cost whoever takes the time off big time because they won't be contributing to their individual retirement, and they won't be able to rely on their spouse's pension to make up the difference. Whatever you do, don't have any joint bank accounts, because if you or your spouse should die everything will be tied up until you can prove, to the dollar, exactly how much you put in vs how much is the estate of the deceased. If you have kids, once they turn 18 they'll be adults not dependants. If you decide to help them out by paying for college, they'll have to treat your payment of their tuition and expenses as income. Also be prepared to spend big bucks for a lawyer to draft up lots of different contracts so your spouse can make medical or financial decisions for you, should you become incapacitated. I have no idea what legal web would be generated to enable you both to make decisions regarding kids, if the legal relationship between you and your spouse would be assumed to be exactly the same as the relationship between you and a complete stranger from the next county.

Don

Exactly. That is what they are saying. Those are "entitlements" that single people do not enjoy.

Of course all the points you raised are the reasons WHY there is recognition of couples under the law.

Some people argue that adding more people to that pool is irresponsible, and since we can't stop heteros from marrying, we can at least keep the gays from gaming the system.

Its does not have to be earth shattering change to those who already enjoy some of the "benefits" of being married. I don't see any reason why existing married partners could not maintain their benefits under a grandfather clause. ALL new married partners would simply be playing under a new set of rules.

I would like to see radical overhaul to social security and medicare as well. But, the boomers (who politicans on both sides owe their elections to) will not stand for the change.

I understand why the government has encouraged marriage with these "benefits" for as long as they have, but the fact remains that times are changing. Women do have their own means of support now. Survivorship benefits, tax on estates, who are the real beneficiaries when women live longer than men?

Anyone care to guess how many college students will marry a friend in order to get financial aid if we don't address the root problem of the government being partial to married couples? It's already happening with male-female pairings. It's going to happen even more if that limiter is removed.

Boomers are the obstacle. Boomers are also responsible for the changing views race, sex, etc. In this country. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost. Lets deal with it.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

..... My brother for entering a school was asked to list what race he was and it took going before the superintendent before they would accept human.
....

When was that? Same time as "Mississippi (was still) Burning" or what?

Quote

Well, crapit how many jumps did he have?? i really need to get my numbers up.

???

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Bignugget 0]

Im with you. When do we start the euthanasia on the boomers?

I like the grandfather clause!

Aptly named since we are going from how our grandparents lived, to allowing people to live openly and free.

So:

Step 1) Kill baby boomers

Step 2) Write laws abolishing any sort of rights/benefits/exemptions/lollipops/glitter for (new) married couples

Step 3) Allow gay people to get married.


That seems simple enough. Only 3 steps.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Considering my ethnic background and family, I'm sorry but i still see it as a stretch. If you would like a list of my ethnic background I would be more then happy to list it for you.

Is that you in your avatar? Most racists tend to go on what they can see rather than checking your family tree, don't they?

Regardless, it's a liitle amusing that you list your family tree as evidence of insight into one form of bigotry, when the thread is about a man reversing his bigotted views on sexuality when he found out it affected one of his own family members

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[promise5 17]

I brought that up when what the issue the thread started on was compared to the Civil Rights movement. Yes it is me, and I grew up as did everyone in my extended mothers family proud of all our ethnic backgrounds.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[promise5 17]

That was actually back in September,of last year and I'm sure you know when the last Census was taken.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

That was actually back in September,of last year and I'm sure you know when the last Census was taken.

What was in September?

Which cencus are you talking about? The one in your country, or the one taken in Europe or Africa?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[ManagingPrime 0]

I really like the way you think. You go first and let me know the coast is clear.