Serious question on the gay marriage issue

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

For thousands of years civilizations across the world have taught that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, etc. Gay marriage goes against what people have believed for thousands of years.

 

Tell that to the Greeks and Romans.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Tell that to the Greeks and Romans.

 

The Romans also thought a vomitorium was the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

I don't care about what they want to do. I don't feel sorry for them, nor do I feel any hatred for them.

 

Along the lines of Dev/Null-->perhaps they need to be careful what they wish for?

 

The fundamental problem with the entire Gay Marriage argument is this: they already have all the legal rights, or reasonable substitutes, that straight people have.

Consider the "we aren't allowed in the hospital" argument: Complete BS. You can make anyone your health care proxy. Once that person is, they not only are allowed in the hospital, they are allowed to make all decisions regarding care, including life and death, same as a spouse. Making someone your legal proxy can be done verbally or in writing, and health care proxies have all of the legal rights of a spouse the instant the patient says so.

Consider the "we can't inherit" argument: Complete BS. You can make your will out to anyone. And, while that will can be contested, if it is done properly it stands.

Consider the "health insurance" argument: Complete BS. What insurance company in the world doesn't want to have MORE premiums? Hell all of them have already created "significant other" coverage. Why? Charging more for the gay partner, and the insured themselves, due to the additional "risk factor" of being gay, makes a hell of a lot more money than getting sued because you only cover straight couples. Also, insurance companies would much rather pay to cover your gay partner, AND KNOW YOU ARE GAY because you have one, than not know you're gay. This way, the next time you apply for insurance, they get to jack up the rates.

 

And on and on. I have yet to hear one rational argument for gay marriage that points to a specific right gay people don't already have. Remember, I said above that I don't care either way. But, not caring and pretending like BS isn't BS are 2 different things.

 

It's such an issue due to the following:

1. Far-left pissants decided that they were going to "be courageous" , start telling people that gay marriage was going to be acceptable and that "if you didn't agree then you were a bigot", and force their agenda on us. They hoped to score political points on those people who stood in their way. They figured they would pass laws in a couple of states, with the intent that this goes to the Supreme Court , and personally attack people for political gain until it did.

2. The far-left, being as f'ed in the head as they are, didn't count on the fact that most people think they are idiots, and that their ideas are worthless. And people especially don't like being told how to think, even in California.

3. The far-right, seeing an opportunity to crush the far-left, got their PR people moving and overwhelmingly passed laws in 35+ states against gay marriage, with the intent that this goes the the Supreme Court, but existing law would be on their side.

4. The far-right, stupidly, instead of taking their win and going home, decides to keep running their mouths every day, and suddenly turns gays into "underdogs". This country loves the underdog. Far-right idiots lose the 2010 elections based on this and other stupidity, thus ensuring that this goes to the Supreme Court, but now with some court decisions that favor the other side

 

This ends up at the Supreme Court 9/10 times. The far-left once again foolishly miscalculated their position in this country and the Court strikes down gay marriage, due to the fact that, as I said above, the far-left cannot prove that gays are short any TANGIBLE rights. Aside from Kelly's intangible "right to feel a certain way", which isn't a right at all, the Court will find that no equitable rights to life, liberty or property are being denied by not letting gays get married, and all that will be accomplished is wasting lots of money and time.

 

Thank god you're OK, I was starting to worry that the MSNBC death squad had finally terminated you. Good thing you have this secure outlet to communicate with your fellow kooks errr I mean patriots who are also actively resisting this socialist regime! Congratulations!

 

For those of you who are uninitiated into the kooky right wing fantasy land of "OCinBuffalo" you would be most impressed to find out that he is currently being targeted for an extrajudicial killing by a cabal of left wings radicals, specifically the intelligentsia of liberal punditry....No seriously that’s what he thinks...

 

 

Look I am in the first group of people they have to kill in order gain/keep their power: people that can build things from scratch without any help from the government or inheritance. My very existence proves their ideology to be the BS that it is, because, according to them, I don't exist. I do, so they have to get rid of me. I look at resisting them as self-defense, and so should every other small business owner, or independent contractor, or VC company founder, or inventor that wants to benefit from his/her own work.

 

You can't make this stuff up! This idiot is some sort of creepy combination of Timothy McVeigh, John Hinkley, and Rupert Pupkin!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Okay... I will play some more... Is anybody really "born" anything? Gay or straight? That is a hard thing to prove... IMO, these are social lifestyles that one chooses. Now given that, what is stopping anybody from "marrying" anybody... Including family? Of course the law.

 

IMO there are mostly (see next paragraph) no equality issues here... Because nobody is born anything outside of their physical realm. Of course almost everybody is born male or female. What is wrong with the law saying that men and woman can only marry and have that be the acceptable social more with regards to marriage? The law says you can't marry your immediate family. Certain speed limits say I can only drive 55. What happens if I feel like driving 100? Should I be granted equal protection because I like to drive 100?

 

Now... If there is somebody really born between a male and a female (third gender in the physical sense) physical state, maybe they have a right to complain on equality issues.

 

Fire away all wannabee liberals that think they are conservative/libertarian.

 

Shouldn't social mores be set by the voice of the many, not the few?

 

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

Okay... I will play some more... Is anybody really "born" anything? Gay or straight? That is a hard thing to prove... IMO, these are social lifestyles that one chooses. Now given that, what is stopping anybody from "marrying" anybody... Including family? Of course the law.

 

IMO there are mostly (see next paragraph) no equality issues here... Because nobody is born anything outside of their physical realm. Of course almost everybody is born male or female. What is wrong with the law saying that men and woman can only marry and have that be the acceptable social more with regards to marriage? The law says you can't marry your immediate family. Certain speed limits say I can only drive 55. What happens if I feel like driving 100? Should I be granted equal protection because I like to drive 100?

 

Now... If there is somebody really born between a male and a female (third gender in the physical sense) physical state, maybe they have a right to complain on equality issues.

 

Fire away all wannabee liberals that think they are conservative/libertarian.

 

Shouldn't social mores be set by the voice of the many, not the few?

 

 

Excellent post. I think you hit the nail right on the head.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Okay... I will play some more... Is anybody really "born" anything? Gay or straight? That is a hard thing to prove... IMO, these are social lifestyles that one chooses. Now given that, what is stopping anybody from "marrying" anybody... Including family? Of course the law.

 

IMO there are mostly (see next paragraph) no equality issues here... Because nobody is born anything outside of their physical realm. Of course almost everybody is born male or female. What is wrong with the law saying that men and woman can only marry and have that be the acceptable social more with regards to marriage? The law says you can't marry your immediate family. Certain speed limits say I can only drive 55. What happens if I feel like driving 100? Should I be granted equal protection because I like to drive 100?

 

Now... If there is somebody really born between a male and a female (third gender in the physical sense) physical state, maybe they have a right to complain on equality issues.

 

Fire away all wannabee liberals that think they are conservative/libertarian.

Not sure about your remarks WRT conservative/libertarian but I will say this:

 

You can be born with the gay gene. I have witnessed behavior in my 4 year old nephew and knew as it turned out 15 years later that he is gay.

 

No RC church that I know of would marry a gay couple. But a JOTP might marry a gay couple.

 

Marriage is a contract to love and support someone for the rest of their life!

 

as to the rest of the off the wall questioning... WTF?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Not sure about your remarks WRT conservative/libertarian but I will say this:

 

You can be born with the gay gene. I have witnessed behavior in my 4 year old nephew and knew as it turned out 15 years later that he is gay.

 

No RC church that I know of would marry someone. But a JOTP might marry a gay couple.

 

Marriage is a contract to love and support someone for the rest of their life!

 

as to the rest of the off the wall questioning... WTF?

 

BS, there is no gay gene. One can notice an enjoyment for things like art an early age... Of course they will go down that road because they and especially others will promote what their likes and dislikes are. Dollar to donuts, they even become an artist.

 

What you said is like saying Pat Kane was born with a "hockey gene."

 

Hey... You gotta hand it to me... I am saying one is not even born straight. I am not asking anybody to repress what they like to do. All I am saying is stop screaming equal protection because you like to drive 100 when the sign says 55.

[The Dean]

Okay... I will play some more... Is anybody really "born" anything? Gay or straight? That is a hard thing to prove..

 

 

I'm going to assume you are straight. When did you make that decision? How did you go about it? Did you weigh the pros and cons? Experiment to see what worked for you?

 

The idea that sexual orientation is a choice is an idea that even most against same-sex marriage no longer hold.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

I'm going to assume you are straight. When did you make that decision? How did you go about it? Did you weigh the pros and cons? Experiment to see what worked for you?

 

The idea that sexual orientation is a choice is an idea that even most against same-sex marriage no longer hold.

 

Although I am on the opposite side of the whole gay marriage "issue", I see what you are saying as far as this goes. In fact, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that end of the issue. I am almost inclined to think there can be multiple answers to the question of "Are you born gay" or is it a "choice"? It just seems like there is evidence pointing in both directions.

[The Dean]

Although I am on the opposite side of the whole gay marriage "issue", I see what you are saying as far as this goes. In fact, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that end of the issue. I am almost inclined to think there can be multiple answers to the question of "Are you born gay" or is it a "choice"? It just seems like there is evidence pointing in both directions.

 

 

I have seen little reputable evidence demonstrating it is a choice.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

I have seen little reputable evidence demonstrating it is a choice.

 

Well, here is an example of a scenario that is puzzling to me in that regard. There are many cases of people that have lived many years as heterosexuals only to switch sides of the fence well into their adult life. Does that mean that all of these people simply chose to completely ignore gay feelings and intuitions for years upon years that they were "born with"? It seems to me that the enviroment that they have lived in and experiences they have had throughout their lives has to be the factor in at least some of those types of cases.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

BS, there is no gay gene. One can notice an enjoyment for things like art an early age... Of course they will go down that road because they and especially others will promote what their likes and dislikes are. Dollar to donuts, they even become an artist.

 

What you said is like saying Pat Kane was born with a "hockey gene."

 

Hey... You gotta hand it to me... I am saying one is not even born straight. I am not asking anybody to repress what they like to do. All I am saying is stop screaming equal protection because you like to drive 100 when the sign says 55.

 

How do you know? Are you a scientist?

 

Explain how you can look at someone, the way they walk, or talk, or just look and KNOW that they are gay!!!

 

As to a Sports Star, ever hear the phrase he's a "natural", I was born to play this game,

other phrases

You Either Have It or you don't, It's a God Given ability, it just comes natural to me?

[Chef Jim]

I don't care about what they want to do. I don't feel sorry for them, nor do I feel any hatred for them.

 

Along the lines of Dev/Null-->perhaps they need to be careful what they wish for?

 

The fundamental problem with the entire Gay Marriage argument is this: they already have all the legal rights, or reasonable substitutes, that straight people have.

Consider the "we aren't allowed in the hospital" argument: Complete BS. You can make anyone your health care proxy. Once that person is, they not only are allowed in the hospital, they are allowed to make all decisions regarding care, including life and death, same as a spouse. Making someone your legal proxy can be done verbally or in writing, and health care proxies have all of the legal rights of a spouse the instant the patient says so.

Consider the "we can't inherit" argument: Complete BS. You can make your will out to anyone. And, while that will can be contested, if it is done properly it stands.

Consider the "health insurance" argument: Complete BS. What insurance company in the world doesn't want to have MORE premiums? Hell all of them have already created "significant other" coverage. Why? Charging more for the gay partner, and the insured themselves, due to the additional "risk factor" of being gay, makes a hell of a lot more money than getting sued because you only cover straight couples. Also, insurance companies would much rather pay to cover your gay partner, AND KNOW YOU ARE GAY because you have one, than not know you're gay. This way, the next time you apply for insurance, they get to jack up the rates.

 

And on and on. I have yet to hear one rational argument for gay marriage that points to a specific right gay people don't already have. Remember, I said above that I don't care either way. But, not caring and pretending like BS isn't BS are 2 different things.

 

It's such an issue due to the following:

1. Far-left pissants decided that they were going to "be courageous" , start telling people that gay marriage was going to be acceptable and that "if you didn't agree then you were a bigot", and force their agenda on us. They hoped to score political points on those people who stood in their way. They figured they would pass laws in a couple of states, with the intent that this goes to the Supreme Court , and personally attack people for political gain until it did.

2. The far-left, being as f'ed in the head as they are, didn't count on the fact that most people think they are idiots, and that their ideas are worthless. And people especially don't like being told how to think, even in California.

3. The far-right, seeing an opportunity to crush the far-left, got their PR people moving and overwhelmingly passed laws in 35+ states against gay marriage, with the intent that this goes the the Supreme Court, but existing law would be on their side.

4. The far-right, stupidly, instead of taking their win and going home, decides to keep running their mouths every day, and suddenly turns gays into "underdogs". This country loves the underdog. Far-right idiots lose the 2010 elections based on this and other stupidity, thus ensuring that this goes to the Supreme Court, but now with some court decisions that favor the other side

 

This ends up at the Supreme Court 9/10 times. The far-left once again foolishly miscalculated their position in this country and the Court strikes down gay marriage, due to the fact that, as I said above, the far-left cannot prove that gays are short any TANGIBLE rights. Aside from Kelly's intangible "right to feel a certain way", which isn't a right at all, the Court will find that no equitable rights to life, liberty or property are being denied by not letting gays get married, and all that will be accomplished is wasting lots of money and time.

 

They don't get the step up in basis at death which is huge.

[finknottle]

The idea that sexual orientation is a choice is an idea that even most against same-sex marriage no longer hold.

 

Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, particularly when it's such a charged issue.

 

Environment versus Genetics are over-simplifications. About the only certainty is that there is no 'gay gene.' That's not to say there isn't a large genetic component, only that that phrasing is a dangerous simplification.

 

Genes nudge. They rarely dictate. If I have a genetic predisposition towards accounting, say, it is the result of hundreds or thousands of genes working in incremental ways, adding up to ability and desire. In some this summation may be strong, and in others it may be weak or non-existant. But it's not coming from some super gene that is either present or absent.

 

My predisposition in the presence of such genetic influence can also be encouraged or discouraged based on the environment. Perhaps I have a bunch of genes that say 'you are happy when you are admired.' If society frowns upon accountants, those genes may yield greater happiness than my accounting genes. Of if society showers admiration and respect on accountants, then by becoming an accountant I can get all of my genes firing - woo hoo!

 

But ultimately, on the question of the attractiveness of accounting all of my genes are weighing in, many at odds with each other. And more than a few genes weigh in to demand that my life lessons - what I've been taught, what I've figured out about accounting and society, etc - be the primary guide to my behavior. Put me in a different society, or educate me differently, and I might be just as happy as an accountant as not. But then again I might not - it depends on my genes as a whole.

[Albany,n.y.]

It's people like this guy who push me towards support of an issue I could personally care less about.

 

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...sdate=5/18/2009

 

Here's an excerpt & then how easily one could change his words to ban marriage of anyone my age to a woman my age:

 

Adulterate is the operative word here.

 

Civil union for protection of civil liberties and earned benefits is not sufficient for the homosexual movement. The militant homosexual agenda calls for the debasement (adulteration) of marriage by insisting on a finding of equality with marriage between a man and woman. Homosexual unions cannot by definition produce children and hence are not entitled to the same elevation and protections offered to society's basic building block.

 

Rights are endowed by the Creator, not by government. Marriage is an institution recognized as a contract and is neither a right nor an entitlement.

 

Now I've changed his gay assertions to how his thoughts could be used to stop me from getting married:

 

Civil union for protection of civil liberties and earned benefits is not sufficient for the over 50 movement. The militant over 50 heterosexual agenda calls for the debasement (adulteration) of marriage by insisting on a finding of equality with marriage between a couple in their 50s and a couple in their 20s. Over 50 heterosexual unions cannot by definition produce children and hence are not entitled to the same elevation and protections offered to society's basic building block.

 

Also, by his logic any childless couple of any age is debasing marriage.

 

People like the author of this letter remind me to support causes that don't affect me, because they can start with a group that you're not a part of and eventually get to you. This poem sums it up nicely:

 

First They Came - Pastor Martin Niemoller

 

First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

First they came for the Socialist

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist

First they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

First they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

[Alaska Darin]

BS, there is no gay gene.

And there you have it.

[Alaska Darin]

Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, particularly when it's such a charged issue.

 

Environment versus Genetics are over-simplifications. About the only certainty is that there is no 'gay gene.' That's not to say there isn't a large genetic component, only that that phrasing is a dangerous simplification.

 

Genes nudge. They rarely dictate. If I have a genetic predisposition towards accounting, say, it is the result of hundreds or thousands of genes working in incremental ways, adding up to ability and desire. In some this summation may be strong, and in others it may be weak or non-existant. But it's not coming from some super gene that is either present or absent.

 

My predisposition in the presence of such genetic influence can also be encouraged or discouraged based on the environment. Perhaps I have a bunch of genes that say 'you are happy when you are admired.' If society frowns upon accountants, those genes may yield greater happiness than my accounting genes. Of if society showers admiration and respect on accountants, then by becoming an accountant I can get all of my genes firing - woo hoo!

 

But ultimately, on the question of the attractiveness of accounting all of my genes are weighing in, many at odds with each other. And more than a few genes weigh in to demand that my life lessons - what I've been taught, what I've figured out about accounting and society, etc - be the primary guide to my behavior. Put me in a different society, or educate me differently, and I might be just as happy as an accountant as not. But then again I might not - it depends on my genes as a whole.

Considering our understanding of genetics is incredibly rudimentary, your post is utter nonsense. But thanks for letting us know not to bother responding on that particular subject.

 

Now get back to pretending the science of Global Warming is compelling, you friggin' hypocrite.

[OCinBuffalo]

You can't make this stuff up! This idiot is some sort of creepy combination of Timothy McVeigh, John Hinkley, and Rupert Pupkin!

Nice to see that you are still so affected....but then again, why would that change?

 

Slow day working at your Wilson Farms-like job? Not much going on? Still pissed that you have everything in common with McVeigh, while I have nothing in common with either of you poorly raised, hick-ass, uneducated tools? Being paranoid about a 2 month old post isn't going to make you any more able to compete in this world. Time to stop blaming others for the fact that you suck at life. Time to stop demanding that we give you free schit you don't deserve. Your crappy existence is your own doing, and it's on you to change it. Chasing me around this board only makes you look even more pathetic. Damn I guess that post was even more effective than I thought. 2 months and it's still fing with you? Now that's hysterical.

 

Ahh, the fun never stops. I eagerly await your response.

[OCinBuffalo]

They don't get the step up in basis at death which is huge.

Really? I thought that only applied in cases where the asset was going to an entity instead of a person....but I guess I am wrong. Also, doesn't a gay person's beneficiary technically qualify as "not family", and therefore not subject to the normal restrictions and limitations on transfers to family members?

 

Anyway, mark this down as the first real argument I have heard where a marital benefit either doesn't exist or can't be accomplished in some fashion.

 

Hmmm, I went and looked this up. Had to go to a law firm's site to find it here. So yeah, they do lose the step up, but they get over on the limitations. But my point still holds: why am I looking at a law firm site to see this instead of a "Gay Marriage Good" site? Because there aren't very many. Instead, it's: "you either support gay marriage or you hate gay people".

 

Funny how the "you're either with us or against us" mentality was only bad when Bush said it, but it's perfectly fine if the far-left says it.

[Chef Jim]

Really? I thought that only applied in cases where the asset was going to an entity instead of a person....but I guess I am wrong. Also, doesn't a gay person's beneficiary technically qualify as "not family", and therefore not subject to the normal restrictions and limitations on transfers to family members?

 

Anyway, mark this down as the first real argument I have heard where a marital benefit either doesn't exist or can't be accomplished in some fashion.

 

Hmmm, I went and looked this up. Had to go to a law firm's site to find it here. So yeah, they do lose the step up, but they get over on the limitations. But my point still holds: why am I looking at a law firm site to see this instead of a "Gay Marriage Good" site? Because there aren't very many. Instead, it's: "you either support gay marriage or you hate gay people".

 

Funny how the "you're either with us or against us" mentality was only bad when Bush said it, but it's perfectly fine if the far-left says it.

 

If you pass and you and your wife own an asset in joint tenants she gets a step up in basis on your half. Reduces her tax liability when you sell the asset. Civil unions don't get that.