Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Sounds fine to me. I'd love for Rosie to just right away explode, and I think if a community wants to make public their religious iconography, they're more than welcomed to it. I think we've made a fine deal today! You just keep your gay iconography to yourself young man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Well it can't help the health system... Explain to me how it will help? That is why the gays are fighting for acceptance of gay marriage (ie: so they can get the benefits), right?. Why is that dumb? More people riding the coat tails of others to get benefits... At a cheaper rate than if they would secure those benefits independently? So you think that gay couples--many of whom already get benefits from their cohabitant if they opt to --will disrupt the health system? You're really too much. Somehow, a few small states like California have already survived this...what makes you think that your argument has ANY merit? Again, explain to me how it (gay marriage) can help an already broken health system? I have explained already how it can make things worse WITHOUT even getting into the higher potential health risks that a gay lifestyle brings to the table. And before you mock me again... The risks factors ARE greater than heterosexual relations with just the risk of AIDS alone. I am not needlessly stereotyping... The risk factors are there. Please flame away and tell me how stupid I am. I have no problem with people and how they live, I just think there needs to be LIMITS on what is accepted and what isn't. And there sure the hell is enough problems with the heterosexual institution of marriage... Why compund it. Help, hurt--who cares? Do you propose giving fewer benefits to older couples, who are at higher risk to health issues? Homosexual couples are adults who are in love. M-F couples can marry. What right do you have to get in the way of M-M or F-F couples? If dependent health benefits are your concern, suspend all dependent benefits but at least make benefits equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 So you think that gay couples--many of whom already get benefits from their cohabitant if they opt to --will disrupt the health system? You're really too much. Somehow, a few small states like California have already survived this...what makes you think that your argument has ANY merit? IMO, it has a lot of merit. If gay marriage is allowed country wide, you are talking about a pretty quick change to the status of millions of people who use the health care system and get benefits. It will have a pretty big effect on the taxation of folks, too, on all levels. Im not saying that this is a reason against gay marriage, Im just saying this is something the health care and IRS needs to be aware of and prepare for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Yeah, and sad to say: close-minded bigotry ruled the day that one time. Just out of curiosity, how does another peson's marriage affect you or yours? IMO I think it does not help society in general. I think it hurts society... I could care less what people do, just that there should be social limits on what is acceptable and judged to be right... Standards that is. Hetero standard = okay Homo standard = unregcognized. This doesn't mean they can't live that lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 IMO I think it does not help society in general. I think it hurts society... I could care less what people do, just that there should be social limits on what is acceptable and judged to be right... Standards that is. Hetero standard = okay Homo standard = unregcognized. This doesn't mean they can't live that lifestyle. How does it "hurt" society to allow homosexuals to marry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 If dependent health benefits are your concern, suspend all dependent benefits but at least make benefits equal. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 How does it "hurt" society to allow homosexuals to marry? It makes it an acceptable standard for living. IMO, I think there should be one standard for recognizing marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 It makes it an acceptable standard for living. IMO, I think there should be one standard for recognizing marriage. Right. Adults can marry. That way there's no discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 IMO, it has a lot of merit. If gay marriage is allowed country wide, you are talking about a pretty quick change to the status of millions of people who use the health care system and get benefits. It will have a pretty big effect on the taxation of folks, too, on all levels. Im not saying that this is a reason against gay marriage, Im just saying this is something the health care and IRS needs to be aware of and prepare for. That is what I am thinking... But, let it happen and if what you say doesn't impact things... It is win-win... If it does, we really ventured up sh*t's creek without a paddle. That is what they are really fighting for, right... Dependent's benefits (in other state not as liberal as Cali)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Right. Adults can marry. That way there's no discrimination. Don't get me wrong... I think there is discrimination and in this case just as money can "discriminate"... So can this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 It makes it an acceptable standard for living. IMO, I think there should be one standard for recognizing marriage. Well, then you're suggesting that ACTS of homosexuality, not homosexuality itself is are socially unacceptable. Last I checked, gay marriage--or even marriage itself--is not bound to sexual acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 How does it "hurt" society to allow homosexuals to marry? I have yet to read one credible, rational, specific answer to this question from the anti-gay marriage crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Well, then you're suggesting that ACTS of homosexuality, not homosexuality itself is are socially unacceptable. Last I checked, gay marriage--or even marriage itself--is not bound to sexual acts. hmmmm interesting.... I recall that if a the marriage has not been consummated it could easily be anulled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 hmmmm interesting.... I recall that if a the marriage has not been consummated it could easily be anulled. Good luck finding that law on the books and if you do, it will never be found to be enforceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 hmmmm interesting.... I recall that if a the marriage has not been consummated it could easily be anulled. Do we have an annullment police out there checking to make sure that all heterosexual marriages are consumated? Fortunately for these M-F marriages, we don't: Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 How does it "hurt" society to allow homosexuals to marry? I think if I were to play the foil, I would start with widow and widower survior benefits for Social Security as well regulations with state pensions and whatnot. Expanding marriage rights will have financial implications in many states.....that is without saying these would be "better" or "worse" for society in the aggregate. Expanding rights may strain these systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I think if I were to play the foil, I would start with widow and widower survior benefits for Social Security as well regulations with state pensions and whatnot. Expanding marriage rights will have financial implications in many states.....that is without saying these would be "better" or "worse" for society in the aggregate. Expanding rights may strain these systems. That is all I am saying too. I have more of a hunch it will strain the system... I think it can only be worse. How can it be better. I can live with either way states decide... I am just against it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 How does it "hurt" society to allow homosexuals to marry? -Destroys the natural law -Destroys the most major purpose of marriage which is the stability of the PARENTS to raise children -Forces their beliefs, which are unnatural, on others through coercion That's the short list. Here's a better question, why are they trying to usurp a once sacred institution and steal the language when they know full well they can call it whatever they want. The opposition to my statement usually runs that because marriage doesn't function accordingly therefore marriage should mean anything you want it to with 2 consenting individuals. If true why not apply this to incest and underage relationships as well. I mean who can define the age of adulthood right and consent? The destruction of marriage and family values are clearly seen in society. I mean why not push absolute anarchy while we are at it under the pretense of liberty. With the eradication of reason found in the majority of people there is no grounds to have any laws or groundwork under subjectivist thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 -Destroys the natural law Go ahead and explain "Natural Law" for the rest of us. This is my second request. -Destroys the most major purpose of marriage which is the stability of the PARENTS to raise children Are you !@#$ing kidding me? -Forces their beliefs, which are unnatural, on others through coercion Beliefs? Like those who worship invisible entities and pretend they can somehow be everywhere? How exactly did we heterosexuals realize our sexual "beliefs"? That's the short list. Here's a better question, why are they trying to usurp a once sacred institution and steal the language when they know full well they can call it whatever they want. That's not a "better" question. It's the dumbest one you've asked so far. Marriage throughout human history isn't sacred at all. That's why it's been "arranged", "bought" (dowry), etc. And the modern American version of it is the least sacred of all. Why the hell do you zealots care what the hell they call it? Why is it that you preach about things that you absolutely refuse to practice? The opposition to my statement usually runs that because marriage doesn't function accordingly therefore marriage should mean anything you want it to with 2 consenting individuals. If true why not apply this to incest and underage relationships as well. I mean who can define the age of adulthood right and consent? So in your "mind", allowing any two adults to live the way they choose automatically translates to future incestuous behavior and pedophilia? Very credible. The destruction of marriage and family values are clearly seen in society. I mean why not push absolute anarchy while we are at it under the pretense of liberty. With the eradication of reason found in the majority of people there is no grounds to have any laws or groundwork under subjectivist thinking. So even though queers aren't allowed to have a piece of paper and enjoy the same rights at those who're blessed with "Natural Law" on their side, marriage and family values are already "clearly destroyed?" Why is it when dudes like you have no leg to stand on that you automatically fire the biggest dummy round in the gun? Fags marrying and having the same rights as Heterosexuals = Anarchy? Priceless. Retarded, but priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Go ahead and explain "Natural Law" for the rest of us. This is my second request. Are you !@#$ing kidding me? Beliefs? Like those who worship invisible entities and pretend they can somehow be everywhere? How exactly did we heterosexuals realize our sexual "beliefs"? That's not a "better" question. It's the dumbest one you've asked so far. Marriage throughout human history isn't sacred at all. That's why it's been "arranged", "bought" (dowry), etc. And the modern American version of it is the least sacred of all. Why the hell do you zealots care what the hell they call it? Why is it that you preach about things that you absolutely refuse to practice? So in your "mind", allowing any two adults to live the way they choose automatically translates to future incestuous behavior and pedophilia? Very credible. So even though queers aren't allowed to have a piece of paper and enjoy the same rights at those who're blessed with "Natural Law" on their side, marriage and family values are already "clearly destroyed?" Why is it when dudes like you have no leg to stand on that you automatically fire the biggest dummy round in the gun? Fags marrying and having the same rights as Heterosexuals = Anarchy? Priceless. Retarded, but priceless. Fag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts