More gay marriage crap.

See now, we were doing fine. Then Gonz came back. How do you KNOW it's not right? Cause you don't feel that way?
 
The All Knowing said:
Why did it take a democrat to say what I've been saying since the beginning?
Click to expand...
That's not what we were arguing about... Didn't you say the problem would be that they would be eligible for tax breaks and insurance? Wasn't that your real problem with gay marriage?
 
PuterTutor said:
So Kerry is saying it's ok as long as they don't call it marriage? Is that what you're getting from this?

As long as they get the same benifits as married people, I doubt most gay people would care what they call it.
Click to expand...

Now, let's look at the other side of the coin, shall we? How long before those longed for tax benefits, marital considerations, and such, are done away with, because they've become irrelevant? Thanks to having to give them to everyone who's roommate decieded to claim marital status? How about immigration? What happens to marrying a native?


You're looking at step on in becoming nothing but a number. And at pissing any benefit of family down the drain.
 
If they get some sort of "civil union" that is not required to be accepted by all the states. Every one that wants it can have it but it needs to be a state rights thing.

Did you know that all the fuss over legalitites is actually BS coverage. All they need to do is go to a lawyer (or an office supply store) & fill out some Powers of Attorney. Then they can be "next of kin", etc.
 
Gonz said:
If they get some sort of "civil union" that is not required to be accepted by all the states. Every one that wants it can have it but it needs to be a state rights thing.

Did you know that all the fuss over legalitites is actually BS coverage. All they need to do is go to a lawyer (or an office supply store) & fill out some Powers of Attorney. Then they can be "next of kin", etc.
Click to expand...


*sigh* I need a trout

What they want is stuff like Marital insurance benefits. Survivor benefits. Marital allocation of sick days. Stuff like that.
 
Professur said:
*sigh* I need a trout

What they want is stuff like Marital insurance benefits. Survivor benefits. Marital allocation of sick days. Stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Marital allocation of sick days?!?!?! Where do I sign up?
 
I can take a sick day whenever my wife's sick, to look after our kids. But, similarly, I can't claim day care on my tax refund.

Gays can't claim any of it, and that's what all this BS is all about.
 
I don't think any of the states have that...it may be policy for a few corporations
 
But even within corps, that's the reserved territory of the married person. Gays need not even consider it. Hell, even a divorced man can claim if his wife has the kids and is sick.
 
Of course, since homosexuals, by their vary nature, can't have kids, this is irrelevent isn't it?

Although, homosexulas tend to have worse health than the average joe wouldn't "partner insurance" cause all of our health care costs rise? (question void in GB & CA...you already can't afford health care)
 
Gonz said:
Of course, since homosexuals, by their vary nature, can't have kids, this is irrelevent isn't it?
Click to expand...

Adoption ,but lets not get into that again :rolleyes:

[edit] previous relationship[/edit]
 
A.B.Normal said:
Adoption ,but lets not get into that again :rolleyes:

[edit] previous relationship[/edit]
Click to expand...


OK...for now (although your [edit] says nurture, not nature)
 
Gonz, a good 30% of gay men today, have biological children. Many were happily married, until they ran out on their wives for a new 'lifestyle'.

Many gay women have children too. Mellissa Etherage, to name one. But none of their partners qualify for spousal benefits. Either from the state, or from private or group insurance.
 
Assuming homosexuality is nature, I can manage to work up some sympathy. If it's choice I have none. Don't make matters worse.

Melissa & friends are the ones that piss me off. If you want kids, give them what they need...a balanced heterosexual family. If you want childless sex, who cares.
 
If you want kids, give them what they need...a balanced married heterosexual family.

Please sir, may I have some more?
 
:rolleyes: kids do not necessarily need a "balanced heterosexual family". Children need a balanced family to nurture and provide for them. To bring them up as respectable adults. Heterosexuality means nothing when it comes to being a good parent.
 
Given a reasonable set of circumstances, a heterosexual married family is preferable to a homosexual family in the overall balance & adustment of a child. Females & males are different. We each provide a balance to the other. The child picks up on each, learns & grows. Ying/Yang.

Given an unreasonable alternative, homosexuals can make wonderful parents. Men can't be mothers & women can't be fathers. Set a stable baseline from which to work. I think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Not infants mind you, but harder to place older children.
 
You think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt but you want to set a specific criteria for who they can and can't adopt? Talk about some fucked up children there.

I"m sorry little Billy, you're too old for any "normal" parent to want you, but we have a happy queer family that would just love you. :rollseyes:

Goodness, Gonz. You never cease to amaze.

There are some really shitty heterosexual parents out there - married and single alike. And I'd imagine the same goes for homosexual parents.

I think that a "FAMILY" setting is a preferred environment to rear a child regardless of the parent's sexuality. But that doesn't mean single parents are any lesser of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top