VABills Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 i hope i don't regret this....but since you didn't distinguish i will ask....do you think all Catholics are Christian? 499341[/snapback] By definition, all Catholics are Christian. However, that doesn't mean they act like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 By definition, all Catholics are Christian. However, that doesn't mean they act like it. 499361[/snapback] You have me, for example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I agree that the law is bad. I don't see where it says a person cannot decide who gets his/her belongings in a will. It would unjustifiably preclude that transfer being automatic, but I don't see where it would preclude it being spelled out. A person can will his/her belongings to a cat, a perfect stranger, a homosexual lover or anyone else. The "or recognizing" part of the law is particularly disturbing, but if something can be willed to anyone, it would be hard to argue that willing it a lover constitutes recognizing a legal status that was previously held to spouses. Someone might try to argue that, but even under this screwed up law, the argument should fail. 499221[/snapback] Actually, the law specifies anything similar to a legal status held by spouses...so conceivably under that phrasing, one could argue that willing everything to a homosexual partner establishes their status as an inheritor similar to a spouse. It's that "similar to" wording that's really nonsense...it's both vague and broad, thus leaving itself open to a world of abuse. However, I neglected to note where it specifically forbids the state from establishing such a legal status. It doesn't forbid private parties. So my example was wrong anyway. Still a poorly worded law, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I agree that the law is bad. I don't see where it says a person cannot decide who gets his/her belongings in a will. It would unjustifiably preclude that transfer being automatic, but I don't see where it would preclude it being spelled out. A person can will his/her belongings to a cat, a perfect stranger, a homosexual lover or anyone else. The "or recognizing" part of the law is particularly disturbing, but if something can be willed to anyone, it would be hard to argue that willing it a lover constitutes recognizing a legal status that was previously held to spouses. Someone might try to argue that, but even under this screwed up law, the argument should fail. My guess is that you did not experience a random sample of the population. I'd be willing to bet that some Christians voted against it. I'd also be willing to bet that some Christians (and people of other faiths) actually employ logic in their daily lives. 499221[/snapback] Not really, you can't always just will whatever you want to whoever you want. Wills are subject to attack by distributees and potential distributees. There are lots of issues when there is a surviving spouse. Most states, for example, will not allow one to disinherit a spouse. This law is limited by its terms to political subdivisions of the state and the state itself. A private business, in theory, would not be effected. However, the model in business is legal marriage. Their benefit structure is based on a scheme that makes "legal marriage" important. By depriving gays of that status, you deprive them of that benefit. It really does make a difference. Especially that part about prohibiting anything identical or similar to marriage. The goes way beyond marriage. It would even prohibit other legal relationships that are "similar" to marriage. Civil unions come immediately to mind but that language is so incredibly broad that much more could be included. Christians aren't the only hypocrites in the world and I don't mean all christians. However, other groups are not claiming to be following the divine, justifying their politics by claiming its God's will and the like. I think maybe we would be right to expect more from christians than from your average schmoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Actually, the law specifies anything similar to a legal status held by spouses...so conceivably under that phrasing, one could argue that willing everything to a homosexual partner establishes their status as an inheritor similar to a spouse. It's that "similar to" wording that's really nonsense...it's both vague and broad, thus leaving itself open to a world of abuse. However, I neglected to note where it specifically forbids the state from establishing such a legal status. It doesn't forbid private parties. So my example was wrong anyway. Still a poorly worded law, though. 499395[/snapback] Yeah but a lot of private relationships are keyed to legal marriage so if the state denies you legal marriage, it denies you certain things that would otherwise be available in a private setting. More troubling still would be the interaction between private and state actions and actors. What if you have a contractor who gives benefits to gay couples bidding on a state job or receiving state funds for one reason or another. Do they become an arm of the state subject to its prohibitions by being financially tied to them? Its like prohibiting public funds going to a private entity which discriminates. Well, it is Texas so these things have to be expected. Gay men and lesbian women will vote with their feet and their dollars. Maybe they will boycott Texas, who knows. Didn't they do that with success in Colorado back when it passed a state law prohibiting any city from passing gay friendly legislation back when cities like Boulder were doing just that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Not really, you can't always just will whatever you want to whoever you want. Wills are subject to attack by distributees and potential distributees. There are lots of issues when there is a surviving spouse. Most states, for example, will not allow one to disinherit a spouse. This law is limited by its terms to political subdivisions of the state and the state itself. A private business, in theory, would not be effected. However, the model in business is legal marriage. Their benefit structure is based on a scheme that makes "legal marriage" important. By depriving gays of that status, you deprive them of that benefit. It really does make a difference. Especially that part about prohibiting anything identical or similar to marriage. The goes way beyond marriage. It would even prohibit other legal relationships that are "similar" to marriage. Civil unions come immediately to mind but that language is so incredibly broad that much more could be included. Christians aren't the only hypocrites in the world and I don't mean all christians. However, other groups are not claiming to be following the divine, justifying their politics by claiming its God's will and the like. I think maybe we would be right to expect more from christians than from your average schmoe. 499398[/snapback] I agree that the whole thing is bad. I also share your concern for civil unions being attacked. I think that is half of what the proponents of this were really going after and they got their wish. I just didn't see where anyone would be forbidden from willing their assets to a person of their choice. I can see where things would be argued. If a guy had kids from a previous marriage, the kids could argue they should be ahead of the partner. There are probably other circumstances that could cause issues. I would guess that there are similar circumstances in heterosexual relationships like a girlfriend of a divorcee versus his kids (Anna Nicole Smith). In an odd way it seems that it could actually bestow an "extra right" to homosexuals in allowing them to preclude their partner from a will where a married couple is afforded no such right. It's still not good, just odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Someone please explain the thinking of the Christian right to me. I really don't understand it. One of the reasons why I became a Democrat and an Athiest was because of the terrible logic that they attempt to use. 499147[/snapback] Since you seem to like labels, have you solicited any opinions from the Christian "Left"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Since you seem to like labels, have you solicited any opinions from the Christian "Left"? 499442[/snapback] There are none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 You have me, for example... 499389[/snapback] Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Exactly. 499534[/snapback] A veritable poster child for bad behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I think maybe we would be right to expect more from christians than from your average schmoe. 499398[/snapback] Excuse me, shouldnt we ALL be held to the same standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Excuse me, shouldnt we ALL be held to the same standard? 499659[/snapback] Like gay rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Excuse me, shouldnt we ALL be held to the same standard? 499659[/snapback] I do my part. I don't expect much from any of you bozos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, be sure you talk to muslims too, because I'm pretty sure they're against homosexual marraige too. Maybe the Hindus or Buddhists will take you in with warm and accepting embraces. You sound like a bigot, btw. Substitute "!@#$s" for "christians" and the limpwrists around here would be throwing a fit. 499256[/snapback] Since you seem to like labels, have you solicited any opinions from the Christian "Left"? 499442[/snapback] The reason why I put "Christian" in quotation marks is because I was referring to the people that do not seem to practice what they believe. I have many Christian friends who I respect becuase they actually voted against the proposition. There are also many who are too focused on "Gay Bad" to look at the ramifications from their actions. My post was directed toward the people that I feel are letting their emotions and their religion get in the way of logic, not all Christians. I probably should have worded it better, but I was drunk. BF's first mistake is mixing politics with Religion. 499287[/snapback] Heheh, too bad its enivitable when you have people like James Dobson as an advisor to the president. I do my part. I don't expect much from any of you bozos. 499690[/snapback] And I don't expect to offer much besides drunk ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 It's not as if people are so offended by religious display that they'll go work on Christmas to spite the religious right. 499358[/snapback] rather than say they are "Closed On Christmas", companies now state they are "Closed On Dec. 25th". I generally like to call those companies and ask them whats the special occasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't believe in a Hell, but I almost wish there was one just to see the look on the Christian Right's faces when they end up there. 499204[/snapback] My sentiments exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't believe in a Hell, but I almost wish there was one just to see the look on the Christian Right's faces when they end up there. 499204[/snapback] What a stupid statement...I don't believe something exists, but I hope it does so strangers are hurt like I should be hurt. So typical of the Satanic Left... Don't like that applation? Then don't dish it out if you can't take it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 What a stupid statement...I don't believe something exists, but I hope it does so strangers are hurt like I should be hurt. So typical of the Satanic Left... Don't like that applation? Then don't dish it out if you can't take it... 499842[/snapback] See you in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 See you in hell. 499848[/snapback] Well, glad for the admission of it's existence. See you in Heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 See you in hell. 499848[/snapback] Of course, you're in New England. You're already halfway there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts