At last for the USA : in Mass. homo marriages are now permitted. . To all lesbies and homo's who look forward to a permanent relationship I say "congrats, go for it". . It would not be my choice : personally I only go for a mixed relationship. . . . But now I note that the US president has stated that he will do everything in his capacity AS PRESIDENT to stop these homo marriages. . Either this president tries to further mix State and Church - against the Constitution, . and/or this president tries to win votes on religious issues, . and/or this president is an anti-homo bigot and hypocrite. . Fortunately there is still time enough to organize a good flushing of the White House. Don't let your vote fall away : make sure to get rid of George Bush later this year. . Anyone comments? . ************************************************************* 02-07-04, 09:18 AM coldfuse Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Lieberman and Clark are among those who oppose gay marriages
02-08-04, 03:40 PM honilov No comments on mixed marriages, but I will comment on getting rid of George Bush, later this year. Yes, let's get him out, but not because he's opposed to mixed marriages.
02-09-04, 03:56 AM puppyblues I say, why bother in someone else's life? Do you have to live that way? Does anyone make someone else live that way? Aren't there enough things in people's lives to keep them busy enough that they don't have to worry about two men/women getting married? Sheesh! They are living together anyway, why can't they have the same benefits that heterosexual couples have, like spousel insurance and such?
I never understood why people care soooooooo dang much about what other people are doing with their lives. Roll Eyes
02-09-04, 03:32 PM teeceeum "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof."
That's the entire text of the Constitution as it regards religion. I've looked hundreds and hundreds of times and have never been able to find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere. The only thing I can find is the single sentence quoted above.
02-09-04, 04:17 PM MkStfnz
quote:Originally posted by teeceeum: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof."
That's the entire text of the Constitution as it regards religion. I've looked hundreds and hundreds of times and have never been able to find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere. The only thing I can find is the single sentence quoted above.
quote:Originally posted by honilov: No comments on mixed marriages, but I will comment on getting rid of George Bush, later this year. Yes, let's get him out, but not because he's opposed to mixed marriages.
Ooops, honi. I know he's a strange bird, but he isn't really against mixed marriages. Roll Eyes
02-11-04, 08:04 AM honilov Sorry Frank, I meant homo marriages. I was in a debate on another site about mixed marriages and I guess I was still thinking about that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. No need to get myself into hot water. (so to speak)
02-11-04, 11:51 PM DvdGStwrt Just think 10% of the population. Treated that way? God bless America!
oh wait, I can't say that can I? Nor can I post the ten commandments in a Public place, nor can I pray in school.
Because we separate church and state.
Now when it comes to gay marriage we can have the church in our government.
What a crock of horse apples.
Sanctity of Marriage? Yeah, unless you are Brittany spears marrying for a joke.
Now THAT pissed me off. I can't marry my male partner but Brittany can marry for a lark and not be punished for that? Allowed to divorce the next day "Oh it was a joke, we didn't mean it" Pity we don't make divorce the stoning crime it is in the Bible.
Now why hasn't anyone condemned all of that divorce that goes on - THAT is mentioned a hella more times than any homosexuality in the Bible.
Pushing my buttons a little more.
Why does the constitution have to be Amended? Hmm.
I do not like the notion of amending the constitution, taking the legal rights of judges to make their own minds up, taking the rights of States to declare their own laws in these civil matters.
That just is not right.
Defining Marriage should be a personal thing. After all who is marrying the Federal Government? People are marrying people - that's the way I see it, the Feds have no place in your bedroom or your heart - Government entities have no heart to live, black hearted big mouth bass named tard.
Sanctity of Marriage? Yeah - riiight - Goes in the same file as "Separation of Church and State - Both are myths convenient to wear when you want and to take off when you don't want it. Over 50% divorce rate, Brittany spears all goes to show me just how sacred marriage really is to the American people.
Bush:
All of this is to support him and hopefully elect him to another term in office after his lying, after his fricking war mongering, after is Hella Debt that we will be paying for years. The dang big mouth bass by the name of tard, is the worst to talk about "morality" when he speaks out one side of his mouth to make war. Steal from the US people and then has the audacity to threaten to amend the Constitution.
Just who the place of infernal damnation does he think he is? Where does he get off judging what is morally right or wrong?
Oh that's right, he is a politician.
POLITICIANS: I hate them all, they are leeches upon the belly of the hard working american people. They are stupid, contradictory, selfish, out to make a buck and keep the oppressed oppressed while maintaining the perpetual lie that they are going to do something for us.
Never have I seen such a low life bunch of crooks - we can't find such criminals even in maximum security prisons. They are all alike, from Blair to Bush, from Saddam to Hitler - they are all power hungry beasts that make war, make problems and stir the can of shifting sand until the stench fills the world.
that is how I sees it.
David
02-12-04, 05:12 AM shelster David, I wish you would run for president...not because you are like the current politicians, but because I would vote for you, and be glad!
I almost stood up and cheered outloud after reading that!
02-12-04, 11:35 PM stampeding turtles David, I think you are right in many ways about this issue. I'm convinced it is just discrimination based, in some, on a cruel and ignorant piety. But for other "decent" people, a basic feeling that the rules they have lived by and have given structure to society, are unraveling. Change can be very frightening. And this is BIG change to many, especially in the conservative areas of the country, where basically, it is similar to the 13th century, when religion ruled everyone's lives, and the government especially. And they have way too much respect for tradition, cops and military, and authority-based institutions in general. Some respect is needed, but not carte blanche!
Some fear that gays will redefine marriage to include other types of marriages.. polygamy and group sex marriage, animal marriages, etc. This is a patently absurd argument and makes me realize how strange and kooky these people who talk like this are. It shows no insight into the fact that many gays have lived for decades as couples and essentially married just like any two little old man and wife couple in this country would be. I know some and they are charming people.
I wonder if people know real gay couples, or are they just aware of media stereotypes, and the more radical fringe element that marches in parades to much hype. Many get their information only from mailings from very conservative religious groups or "traditional family values groups" and other discriminatory groups who do not really understand what freedom means. In that context, I consider them Un-American in thought and action.
Many fear that gays will completely redefine marriage. They will, but only redefining it to include them. And why shouldn't they? This is supposed to be such a free country, but many countries are now actually more free in many respects, because what the "religious right" and the ultra- conservatives are doing to block real freedom here. I know someone who recently moved to a European country and they said they have more freedoms there. For all that America claims it is "free", it is really a repressive and an overly -controlled society with too many hateful, meanspirited laws.
In many respects, Canada and some European countries are going to ultimately be more "American" in founding principles when it comes to feedoms, because they didn't cow to the religious conservatives in these areas like America did.
In areas like homosexuality where the numbers are not politically high, the mob will always rule against them. Democracy cannot work in areas like the rights of homosexuals. I have finally seen this after many years of believing that democracy is always best. It is essentially mob rule in areas like this.... where the vast majority cannot really understand the minority position or viewpoint and have no desire to! (YUCK! I hear many say) That's why there must be protection against the tyranny of the majority.
02-14-04, 05:22 PM puppyblues AMEN DAVID!
02-14-04, 06:59 PM frankvan As long as there are politicians there will be demagogues who take advantage of bigotry and prejudice to gain votes. But it is obvious that so long as the government grants certain rights and privileges to some it can not deny them to others. Bush is not the first politician to try to capitalize on widespread ignorance, but I predict that he will fail. We have a large enough population of ignorant people to rally to this cause, but I think the majority of my fellow citizens recognize the unfairness of discrimination even against minorities - eventually. Fortunately, it is no easy task to amend the constitution, and for the forseeable future, that is the law of the land.
02-15-04, 02:53 AM FredPuli Take away the word marriage. It is not necessary ,it is not the right word for such a union, being defined always as the union of a man and a woman, and its misuse is offensive to many Christians and others. Civil contract'or 'civil union' are better terms.If any church or religious body wishes to call it a marriage and conduct a service of marriage then that's a matter entirely for them.
The only purpose in our proposed law, in the eyes of the British government is to recognise that such unions should be given the same legal consequences for the parties as a marriage does; religion has nothing to do with it. Nor has morality, if such unions are 'immoral'. We see it as unjust that tax on inheritance, rights under intestacy, to shared property and all the rest should be different for such a couple. If heterosexual couples choose not to marry, then they choose not to get the rights and obligations of marriage; as many an innocent woman, faithful for many years as discovered to her cost on death or separation.Homosexual couples who wish to make this legal commitment should be allowed to do so.
Abortion is not an issue here either.When the law was passed it was voted on by members of parliament without reference to party policy; there was no 'policy'. However intending candidates here are sometimes asked by selection committees what they think of the law and asked whether they would ever wish it changed. This is an academic question, in reality, as there is no prospect we can see of anybody wanting to change it. Asking the question is likely to be frowned on by other commitee members as irrelevant. It is not nor ever likely to be an election issue In Britain we don't 'cow to religious conservatives' simply because we see no connection between religion and politics (when we have seen it linked in practice we haven't liked it v. Northern Ireland)
It is horrendous that an American should ask not just what religion a candidate belongs to but even which church he adheres to. What on Earth has that to do with his abilities or fitness? And what use are you supposed to make of that information in deciding where to cast your vote?
It is very disturbing to an outsider that , for example, pollsters should research the percentage of Catholics voting for Kerry. I believe he is a Catholic; does he have to give his opinions on contraception or papal infallibility to satisfy all that electorate that he is Catholic enough or is going to Mass enough? Can you not see how strange it is?And how wrong?
The word marriage has no place here.It has an accepted and plain definition. Christians who believe that anal intercourse is a sin or that homosexuals are sinful rightly baulk at it being applied to men living in union. That's understandable. They may rightly object to female unions being so termed; ever since there was a Christian marriage it has been defined as a union of man and woman, of husband and bride.
02-15-04, 06:55 AM Fritzzs Fred, you are so correct.... The word "marriage" means nothing...If you rob one light fixture to fix another, then that is also called a "marriage"...; to splice one species of a plant to another is called a "marriage"..
Unfortunatly, most gays seem to want to use the word "marriage" because "they" use it...
To me, it seems logical to form a "Legal Union", and I don't see how any state can reject that...
02-15-04, 01:30 PM frankvan With all due respect for Fred and Don, it seems to me that an impartial government can not recognize a union of heterosexual as a "marriage" and a union of homosexuals as "something similar". It should be unambiguous, either it is a civil union or a marriage or whatever. Separate but equal was discarded long ago as clearly UNequal. Smile
02-15-04, 01:57 PM Fritzzs Unfortunatly, here in the US, we have a small group of people who basically control almost everything, and that being the "Bible Thumpers"
They feel that their lives are threaten if a marriage unlike theirs exist.... I personally do not care how its done, but I feel that a Legal type agreement is the way to go...
02-15-04, 06:17 PM FredPuli Frank,I remember the Anglican, the Church of England, marriage service not only describing marriage as being the union of a man and a woman, (an institution, it helpfully added, honoured by our Lord by his first miracle being at a wedding in Canaa in Galilee) but saying it was for procreation and bringing up of children. This last bit had a marginal note: 'to be omitted if the woman is past child-bearing age'
Somehow, I think that, even though the service has been modernised, they are not yet ready to call a gay union a 'marriage' ( even if both men are past child-bearing age Big Grin)
The Catholics were even better. My wife ( a Catholic) and I had been divorced when we married. Suppose we wished to marry in the Catholic church. We were cheerfully informed that the divorces did not matter if it turned out a) that both of us had only been married in a civil ceremony before b) that we were both Catholics . So the Catholic church was not treating a civil heterosexual marriage as a marriage; those marriages did not count ! ( We could not and would not take up the offer) The protestant Church of England refused to marry any divorced person at this time, wherever they'd been married before.
02-15-04, 06:39 PM frankvan Okay, how about this for a solution. The only 'marriage' recognized by the government is a civil one. Those who wish to be married in any religious ritual are free to do so, but in order to derive any of the special benefits of married couples, they must also be married or 'united' lawfully in the prescribed civil ceremony. The existing hodge podge of Protestasnt, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and all religious ceremonies would be grandfathered and superceded by a new and purely secular requirement. It is my understanding that this is how it is done in France. Fred would know that?? Confused
02-16-04, 05:46 AM FredPuli Yes Frank, unless there is a civil ceremony of marriage in France there is no valid marriage. This was laid down when Napoleon Bonaparte had the whole of French Law codified. Couples still celebrate the marriage in church too. The result is that there are riotously loud processions as the couple, friends, family and supporters rush in noisy, klaxoned, convoy from one ceremony to the other.
However, although there is no definition of marriage in Le Code Civil,you may take it that the French government has no plans to apply the same service to gay or lesbian couples.It will adopt the British line, no doubt.
Napoleon's lawyers were practical. They saw no reason to leave the record -keeping and the questions of validity with the Church or ecclesiastical courts. In the UK there were well -kept records and the civil courts paid no attention to religious arguments; cases were judged entirely on a secular, legal basis. ( Henry VIII had had quite enough trouble with such questions; subsquent lawyers and legislators progressed from there Smile )
02-17-04, 12:01 PM Kendor Forget about religion when it comes to homosexuality. Biologically, homosexuality makes no sense, and is directly, and plainly, anti-productive; period. That is why current society cannot support it by allowing these unions legally. I'm not against one being a homosexual whatsoever. (Will elaborate upon request). I'm merely taking the logical stand in regards to our government's support or non-support of it.
The financial benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy in the U.S. are in return for their support of human reproduction and family values. (Proof is in the taxing processes). So puff all you want David, et al, but don't try to capitalize financially from it.
And as far as Bush goes, do we actually believe a simple ousting will fix anything? HA! I've read some ridiculous things here but things such as "I'll vote for anyone that can beat Bush", and "Don't let your vote fall away : make sure to get rid of George Bush later this year", are so narrow minded statements that it makes me embarrassed to be a part of all this.
02-18-04, 10:42 AM frankvan I don't know who said, "I'll vote for anyone that can beat Bush." but I could very well have because they are my sentiments, But I do know that 'freethinker' said "Don't let your vote fall away : make sure to get rid of George Bush later this year" which you are free to disagree with, but I question your blanket insult about 'ridiculous things' and 'so narrow-minded ' etc. Are you sure you are familiar with the rules of the Pool, and common courtesy?? I suggest that your embarrassment may be for other reasons. Why do you profess to be above the fray and then immediately resurrect a thread on pedophilia vs homosexuality which has been dormant from Jan 5 to the present?? Confused
02-18-04, 11:55 AM Kendor
quote:Originally posted by frankvan: Why do you profess to be above the fray and then immediately resurrect a thread on pedophilia vs homosexuality which has been dormant from Jan 5 to the present?? Confused
What does being 'above the fray' have to do with resurrection of any particular thread? Talk about confused.
I posted a response in a dormant thread because I hadn't visited this particular forum in a while and I,...well I felt like posting there. Is that OK, frank? Did I step over the line?
As far as my alleged 'blanket insult', I suppose if you take it that way then that's just too bad. In fact, what I said is just my opinion and it wasn't directed at any individual directly. I implied that the statements were ridiculous, not the ones making said statements. And I stand by that opinion. I'm surprised though, that someone of your apparent intellect, frank, cannot see the silliness of such a mindset. Stating that one would vote for anyone that could beat Bush is equivalent to saying "I'll trade my car in for any car that could beat it [in a race]." You may end up with a faster car, but it may have underlying problems. Only a simpleton would make such a trade so impulsively.
And common courtesy? Please frank. You take stabs at me every chance you get. (I have a log). In fact, I think it probable that when you see my name on a new post or reply, your ego begins to drool.
02-18-04, 01:12 PM frankvan "Don't let your vote fall away : make sure to get rid of George Bush later this year", are so narrow minded statements that it makes me embarrassed to be a part of all this"
I suggest that when you quote someone verbatim, followed by the comment that the person making that statement is narrow minded - I think that is insulting and ad hominem.
"it makes me embarrassed to be a part of all this.--" That's what sounds to me like claiming to be 'above the fray'.
"I posted a response in a dormant thread because I hadn't visited this particular forum in a while and I,...well I felt like posting there. Is that OK, frank? " Is that a reason, Kendor? Because I felt like it, because - just because..I find it interesting ??? Almost as if you are looking for a forum to lash out at homosexuals.
"Stating that one would vote for anyone that could beat Bush is equivalent to saying "I'll trade my car in for any car that could beat it [in a race]." You may end up with a faster car, but it may have underlying problems. Only a simpleton would make such a trade so impulsively." And only someone looking for any excuse to argue would take such a statement literally. Obviously the implication is that "Bush is so bad that almost anyone capable of being elected would suit me better
"And common courtesy? Please frank. You take stabs at me every chance you get. (I have a log). In fact, I think it probable that when you see my name on a new post or reply, your ego begins to drool." You have a log of what? My posts? I'm flattered! Or do you just like to collect grudges ? Believe it or not, Kendor I sometimes agree with you; but in those instances I see no point in posting an "Amen". On the other hand, in matters other than scientific or technical we are often at opposite ends of the spectrum. When you state that behavior that occurs in nature is un-natural, I feel compelled to take issue with it. That seems more religion than science, and my 'drooling ego' cannot refrain from responding. Sorry.
02-18-04, 01:54 PM Kendor Un-natural, as in, regarding sexual reproduction of a given species, the inability for two members of the same sex to procreate in support of the continuation of its species.
Nothing religious about that.
02-19-04, 03:30 AM mattlynda so what about people who are UNable to have children? should they not be allowed to get married and have all the benifits of that just because they cannot reproduce?
i know people who do not have the ability (or inability) to have children. does that make them un-natural?
02-19-04, 05:17 AM MrsS
quote: so what about people who are UNable to have children? should they not be allowed to get married and have all the benifits of that just because they cannot reproduce?
Or those who have chosen not to reproduce? Should my spouse and I run out and get an annulment? Should people who have undergone vascectomies or tubal ligation be denied marriage?
02-19-04, 11:42 AM Kendor You guys are making it more complex than it is. Society supports and encourages normal, (normal, as defined by the nature of sexual reproduction and natural selection), pairings, whether the parties choose to reproduce or not. (Either way they are not in direct opposition of nature’s intent). If we start endorsing homosexuality as part of modern ‘normalcy’, (in part by allowing legal unions), then we are circumnavigating the natural selection process.
Think about it: In nature, the processes of evolution include mutations that help a species adapt to changing environments. Any characteristic that is undesirable to the species’ health is weeded out through natural selection, or survival of the fittest. By its very nature, homosexuality should have disappeared soon after it surfaced. It survives because of our ability to reason illogically, and we continue to embrace it and breathe new life into it. In theory, if we continue this support of homosexuality, it could potentially be our demise, simply because it is an undesirable trait in our species that directly opposes reproduction.
An analogy: Sight is an extremely valuable commodity to us, and the loss of it is undesirable. If all blindness were genetic, it would soon disappear. But it’s not, so we deal with it. As a society we put obvious restrictions on blind individuals; one, not allowing them to drive automobiles. What if more and more blind people insisted they be allowed to drive? We would never allow it [with current technology] because of the obvious dangers to others.
I guess the dangers of homosexuality are not so obvious to most, and perhaps not so imminent in reality. But it’s the principle that stokes my continued adamancy, and hopefully our government’s as well.
02-19-04, 01:59 PM FredPuli What are the dangers of homosexuality Kendor? They may not be so obvious to most, you write.
Not only are they not obvious to me I go further. There are not any.Perhaps you would care to enlighten me and anyone else who is as innocent and ignorant in these matters as you believe.
We can only guess. Is it aids perhaps? If it's aids what were the dangers of it before aids existed? Does aids only exist among homosexuals? Did it ever? Was it a creation of homosexuals?
Or is it that homosexuals convert heterosexual boys to homosexuality? If it's conversion then who can you cite whose sexual feelings towards women were completely snuffed out by having sexual acts with a man; urges which were never to reappear so that they never later went with women and lost the urge for men ?
Or is there some other reason or evidence you propose for saying it ?
If you stuck to an argument that there is no reason to give two men living together tax breaks then you would be on safer ground; it is likely that the reason we give married couples tax advantages over unmarrieds is historical and practical. We don't or didn't want to encourage 'bastardy'. Encouraging couples to marry before producing children was a sensible step. Unmarried men who father children had and have a distressing and costly habit of denying paternity and mother and child ended up being supported by the government through taxes.
The above logic did not apply to homosexuals; it does still apply to unmarried couples, who, if such a law is passed will be worse off than some homosexual couples will be. Now that, the giving of rights to some gays which are denied couples who have sincere reasons for refusing to have an official union, could be seen as wrong.
[This message was edited by FredPuli on 02-19-04 at 02:14 PM.]
02-19-04, 03:20 PM Kendor The danger, simply, is that our species' existence is threatened by the fact that two same-sex partners cannot procreate. (What if everyone suddenly became gay)? Ridiculous and homophobic? Perhaps. But if you don't see that as a danger then either you're being too practical or I'm being overly cautious. Either way it is not logical to superfluously support this lifestyle, simply because it does not support the continuation of our species. Our government should not be asked to stray from logic for anyone's sake.
02-19-04, 03:23 PM mattlynda so, allowing same sex marriages is going to threaten a population of over 5 billion? cool.
02-19-04, 03:52 PM methos Our species is in no danger of ceasing due to lack of procreation. Something to slow down human birth rates would actually be quite healthy for the species, as well as for the rest of the Earth's life. Are people's marriages so weakened by Britney Spears et al that they would simply fall apart if loving, committed homosexuals were allowed to join the club, despite the billion plus dollars the President wants to use to promote marriage? Would the birth rate really suddenly drop if the unmarried same-sex couples became married same-sex couples? Are people's sexualities so insecure that they would suddenly find themselves attracted to the same sex if same-sex marriages were legal?
PS - Lynda - Over is right, the current world population is over 6 billion. The US Census Bureau estimated it as 6,349,394,274 a few seconds before this post.
02-19-04, 04:17 PM FredPuli The existence of our species is threatened?
Blimey, it's worse than I feared. Mustn't panic ! Where's that duct tape ? And where do I stick it ?
Let's see. Best read that post again down here in the fallout shelter. Well, I never...
I never knew that 'homosexual' equalled sterile.Not that a trait which ensured sterility would be an obvious evolutionary survival or benefit to an organism.Each generation would have yet fewer individuals carrying it until it, as we might say, 'died out' and only fertile organisms were left ;bit of a Darwinian dead end really.
We are to imagine are we that the whole human race gradually becomes homosexual by some evolutionary process and all decide not to mate with the homosexuals of the other gender ? All the females are lesbians and all the men gay.They are unwilling to make the sacrifice of reproducing even though it means the extinction of all humankind ( worse, all homosexuals).
How does it play out and please may I have the screen rights? The movie will make "2001 A Space Odyssey" look like a turkey. (Talking of turkeys, now there's a creature that can't reproduce normally...but that's another story )
mattlynda thank you methos. i had meant to type 6, but hey, typos happen.
02-19-04, 06:44 PM frankvan I always thought it was copulation between heterosexuals that was responsible for producing homosexuals. That being the case, how can preventing marriage between two people of the same sex reduce the homosexual population?? Maybe we need to discourage the kind of activities that 'normal' people insist on engaging in? Eek
03-02-04, 09:29 PM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: The danger, simply, is that our species' existence is threatened by the fact that two same-sex partners cannot procreate.
Yeah Right.
God you are ignorant of biology, ecology and the real numbers.
The real numbers: 90% straight, 10% gay.
Real biology: Artificial insemination is the preferred method of lesbians who tend to pick gays as fathers.
Real ecology
Population is a problem because we are too many! not because are too few.
If anything straight marriages should be banned to prevent more kids from being born so we can get our numbers in check before we eat ourselves out of house and home.
David
03-02-04, 09:57 PM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: So puff all you want David, et al, but don't try to capitalize financially from it.
What I do not understand is why I have to pay taxes to put your kids through school?
I'm gay, I can't/won't procreate, then why in the hell am I sending in that money if I will not have kids? How about all of those social programs that support kids, I will not have kids, so why do I have to pay into them every April 15th? It is illogical for me to support your kids. In fact it is illogical for any non-parents to have to pay for your kids schools.
Indeed, I see what's going on here - if you remain single or are gay you are made to support the "family" people. I smell a rotten stink here - Who is financially capitalizing on whom here?
Why do I have to pay taxes to keep your "family" supported with nice programs through the Federal and State Government? Why do I have to pay taxes to support "Family Values" which reflect nothing of my own values?
Why is it that I have to pay over and above what a married couple for things I will never use and I do not benefit directly from.
Who is capitalizing on whom here?
Your method is to penalize and over tax the homosexuals to support your kids through federal programs and your marriage, 'cause after all you are definitely getting a tax break.
In a round about way YOU stealing from ME!
Think about your answer here. Economically speaking you are a highway robber plundering me every April 15th.
Again I ask, who is capitalizing on whom?
Joint filing of taxes is a great thing for you, you pay less taxes than I do (though I live with a partner, sharing all of the bills) you are "rewarded" for getting married to your partner and I am "punished" for having my partner by having to pay more taxes (Two single filings), We are still denied the burial benefits, the right to go to the hospital room, and a whole lot more that you are rewarded with for being straight.
More punishment.
That's plain wrong -
03-02-04, 10:24 PM MrsS Amen, David! As a "Childless by Choice" supporter of equity for all citizens, not just Middle and Upper Middle income breeders, I applaud every word of your post.
03-02-04, 10:28 PM coldfuse If I may interject...
Among my wife's students is a girl who has asked to miss class next Monday - to be the "best woman" at her brother's gay marriage.
This just struck me because it is the first time I had ever heard of such a notion. I was saddened when hearing "the rest of the story" - that she was going because his estranged family refused to participate in the ceremony. Something about family, to me, is supposed to transcend differences. I suppose we have a way to go, yet - maybe this is still too "new" of a concept for us to completely get our hands around yet.
03-02-04, 10:43 PM MrsS I agree that "Family" is supposed to transcend differences....But as for having Honor Attendants of the opposite gender at ones wedding, that is becoming a bit more common. When Craig and I were married, my dearest friend, Brian, (who is gay, by the way) served as my Best Man and no one but the merchants who could not sell me overpriced Bridesmaid crap raised an eyebrow....and when Brian marries, I fully expect to stand up for him.
Come to think of it....this could be a good time to buy a few shares of stock in your favorite formalwear company.
03-10-04, 11:56 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: If we start endorsing homosexuality as part of modern ‘normalcy’, (in part by allowing legal unions), then we are circumnavigating the natural selection process.
All I can really think to say to your statements is, "so what?" What's the big deal, Kendor? So what if homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce together? Does that hurt you? No. Does that hurt me? No. Would you rather they were forced into a sham of a loveless marriage with a heterosexual just so that they can produce children -when there are already plenty of people on the planet anyway?
And Kendor, people do not "become" gay. They are born that way. It is not a decision that someone makes one morning, "gosh, I feel like being persecuted and discriminated against, I think I'll be gay now."
The "gay lifestyle" does not support the continuation of our species, but then neither do I. I do not have nor do I intend to have children. Does that affect you? No. Does it harm the planet? No. There are plenty of people who do not or cannot have children, and always have been. We do not need every couple to have children in order for the species to continue. Again, would you rather homosexuals be forced to have children?
03-10-04, 12:14 PM Kendor For the last time; I AM NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY!!!
03-10-04, 12:42 PM MrsS Of course you aren't, you are just against homosexuals sharing the same civil rights and economic status that you and I can take for granted....You don't mind them existing, so long as they remain, legally, second class citizens.
03-10-04, 12:51 PM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: _For the last time; I AM NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY!!!_
I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE!!!
03-11-04, 10:43 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Kendor: _For the last time; I AM NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY!!!_
Really? That doesn't strike me as correct.
Lets see you started two other posts likening homosexuality to bestiality in one.
You also declared that you will marry a man for the legal aspects only.
You have failed time and time again to accept that gays can love one another.
You declare that Marriage as you know it is sacred and holy and only between a man and woman.
You can only see the sex in homosexuality. You can not imagine that it is possible that two men may love each other deeply with or without the sex part.
You have hinted more than once that your children are threatened by the Homosexual Agenda - You have also confused the issue by asking what kind of message would your children receive if gays were allowed to marry.
Whether you like it or not you are coming off as being against homosexuality - If not intolerant than ignorant to the extreme.
David
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
AnswerPool.com 
