A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?



Just the top two?


Top One?

Still nothing huh?

I suspect there really is no specific benefit, and that my original premise was correct: Queers just want legal marriage in a vain hope their deviant behaviour will be socially acceptable.

I believe I listed 4 or 5 benefits.

But here is a link that lists more.

 

[WinterBorn]

And since they're playing by the Kinsey playbook....

the next step, according to kinsites is to remove the stigma of pedophilia.

Still going the straw route? I think the words "consenting adults" have been used repeatedly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ummm, that is pretty much calling me a liar.

No not really but you are in the gray zone right now. If you continue defending your stance that you were not comparing bi-racial marriages too gay marriages then yes you are a liar. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you were mistaken when you said you did not do it. For me doing that show just how civil I can be.

Yeah, how kind of you. I guess that means you won't be showing me where I made the comparison of race to gay marriage?

Isn't that convenient.

When you use it as a reference you are comparing it to gay marriage loving vs. Virginia is not about gay marriage There are no supreme court rulings on gay marriage. The 14TH amendment is not an umbrella amendment that gives rights to illegal acts.

 

[Samson]

I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?



Just the top two?


Top One?

Still nothing huh?

I suspect there really is no specific benefit, and that my original premise was correct: Queers just want legal marriage in a vain hope their deviant behaviour will be socially acceptable.

I believe I listed 4 or 5 benefits.

But here is a link that lists more.

Link?

Just ONE, m'k?

Jeeze why is this so difficult

 

[WinterBorn]

Still nothing huh?

I suspect there really is no specific benefit, and that my original premise was correct: Queers just want legal marriage in a vain hope their deviant behaviour will be socially acceptable.

I believe I listed 4 or 5 benefits.

But here is a link that lists more.

Link?

Just ONE, m'k?

Jeeze why is this so difficult

It wasn't. I typed "Benefits for Married Couples" in Google. You might have tried it. It would certainly have been easier than harping on me to do your research for you.

 

[Samson]

I believe I listed 4 or 5 benefits.

But here is a link that lists more.

Link?

Just ONE, m'k?

Jeeze why is this so difficult

It wasn't. I typed "Benefits for Married Couples" in Google. You might have tried it. It would certainly have been easier than harping on me to do your research for you.

1400 Benefits and you cannot just recall the ONE MOST VALUABLE?



Game:Set: Match.

Thanks for Playing.

 

[WinterBorn]

No not really but you are in the gray zone right now. If you continue defending your stance that you were not comparing bi-racial marriages too gay marriages then yes you are a liar. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you were mistaken when you said you did not do it. For me doing that show just how civil I can be.

Yeah, how kind of you. I guess that means you won't be showing me where I made the comparison of race to gay marriage?

Isn't that convenient.

When you use it as a reference you are comparing it to gay marriage loving vs. Virginia is not about gay marriage There are no supreme court rulings on gay marriage. The 14TH amendment is not an umbrella amendment that gives rights to illegal acts.

I did not use it to show any gay marriage. Someone claimed there was no "right to marry". Loving v. Virginia ruled that there was.

When I use it as a reference, it is simply a reference.

Let me see if I can dumb this down enough. If you try and tell young people today that there were laws against interracial marriages, many of them think it was 100 years ago. They do not comprehend that the gov't would punish someone for marrying someone of another race. And they are amazed that people would work so hard to keep those laws in place.

Now, someday when gay marriage is commonplace, I think people will look back and be amazed that these gay marraiges were not recognized by state and federal law. I also think they will be amazed that people fought so hard to keep gay marriages from happening.

Can you grasp it now? I am not comparing gay marriage to race or to interracial marriage. I am comparing the way people currently view the old laws with the way I think people in the future will view our current laws. The comparison is about people views.

 

[WinterBorn]

Link?

Just ONE, m'k?

Jeeze why is this so difficult

It wasn't. I typed "Benefits for Married Couples" in Google. You might have tried it. It would certainly have been easier than harping on me to do your research for you.

1400 Benefits and you cannot just recall the ONE MOST VALUABLE?



Game:Set: Match.

Thanks for Playing.

You want me to call one the most valuable, without anything else being stated?

If my wife were terminally ill or in a coma, the ability to make decisions for her would be the most important.

If we had adopted a child, the ability to have us both on the adoption papers would be the most important.


Which benefit is the most important depends on the couple and their situation.

Unlike you, I make no claim to know what others feel is important.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?



Just the top two?


Top One?

Your question was concerning what benefits they expect to receive. I gave you that.

The rest, I thought, was posted to show you thought I had no answer. Obviously I did, so I ignored the rest.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah, how kind of you. I guess that means you won't be showing me where I made the comparison of race to gay marriage?

Isn't that convenient.

When you use it as a reference you are comparing it to gay marriage loving vs. Virginia is not about gay marriage There are no supreme court rulings on gay marriage. The 14TH amendment is not an umbrella amendment that gives rights to illegal acts.

I did not use it to show any gay marriage. Someone claimed there was no "right to marry". Loving v. Virginia ruled that there was.

When I use it as a reference, it is simply a reference.

Let me see if I can dumb this down enough. If you try and tell young people today that there were laws against interracial marriages, many of them think it was 100 years ago. They do not comprehend that the gov't would punish someone for marrying someone of another race. And they are amazed that people would work so hard to keep those laws in place.

Now, someday when gay marriage is commonplace, I think people will look back and be amazed that these gay marraiges were not recognized by state and federal law. I also think they will be amazed that people fought so hard to keep gay marriages from happening.

Can you grasp it now? I am not comparing gay marriage to race or to interracial marriage. I am comparing the way people currently view the old laws with the way I think people in the future will view our current laws. The comparison is about people views.

Stop with the double talk. loving vs. Virginia has no place here, it's irrelevant.. so stop using it as a reference.

 

[Samson]

It wasn't. I typed "Benefits for Married Couples" in Google. You might have tried it. It would certainly have been easier than harping on me to do your research for you.

1400 Benefits and you cannot just recall the ONE MOST VALUABLE?



Game:Set: Match.

Thanks for Playing.

You want me to call one the most valuable, without anything else being stated?

If my wife were terminally ill or in a coma, the ability to make decisions for her would be the most important.

If we had adopted a child, the ability to have us both on the adoption papers would be the most important.


Which benefit is the most important depends on the couple and their situation.

Unlike you, I make no claim to know what others feel is important.

That's it?

Power of Attourney would solve both issues.

Next?

As I suspected, these "benefits" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda: Social Acceptability for Deviant Behaviour.

 

[WinterBorn]

When you use it as a reference you are comparing it to gay marriage loving vs. Virginia is not about gay marriage There are no supreme court rulings on gay marriage. The 14TH amendment is not an umbrella amendment that gives rights to illegal acts.

I did not use it to show any gay marriage. Someone claimed there was no "right to marry". Loving v. Virginia ruled that there was.

When I use it as a reference, it is simply a reference.

Let me see if I can dumb this down enough. If you try and tell young people today that there were laws against interracial marriages, many of them think it was 100 years ago. They do not comprehend that the gov't would punish someone for marrying someone of another race. And they are amazed that people would work so hard to keep those laws in place.

Now, someday when gay marriage is commonplace, I think people will look back and be amazed that these gay marraiges were not recognized by state and federal law. I also think they will be amazed that people fought so hard to keep gay marriages from happening.

Can you grasp it now? I am not comparing gay marriage to race or to interracial marriage. I am comparing the way people currently view the old laws with the way I think people in the future will view our current laws. The comparison is about people views.

Stop with the double talk. loving vs. Virginia has no place here, it's irrelevant.. so stop using it as a reference.

Double talk? I'm sorry you cannot comprehend. Let me try once more.

Its a shame that so many people today look at gays like the puritans looked at witches.

Now, am I calling gays witches? Am I calling them puritans?

Now, I am comparing the way people view gays with the way people (the puritans) viewed witches.



And if someone makes the claim that there is no right to marry, then Loving v. Virginia certainly has a place in the discussion. Someone did. So it does.

 

[WinterBorn]

1400 Benefits and you cannot just recall the ONE MOST VALUABLE?



Game:Set: Match.

Thanks for Playing.

You want me to call one the most valuable, without anything else being stated?

If my wife were terminally ill or in a coma, the ability to make decisions for her would be the most important.

If we had adopted a child, the ability to have us both on the adoption papers would be the most important.


Which benefit is the most important depends on the couple and their situation.

Unlike you, I make no claim to know what others feel is important.

That's it?

Power of Attourney would solve both issues.

Next?

As I suspected, these "benefits" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda: Social Acceptability for Deviant Behaviour.

You asked what benefits they expected to get and I gave you a link to a nice list of benefits.

And a power of attorney would not help in the event of the adoption. And should teh parent listed on the adoption die, the other parent would have absolutely no legal standing as a parent.

 

[Samson]

You want me to call one the most valuable, without anything else being stated?

If my wife were terminally ill or in a coma, the ability to make decisions for her would be the most important.

If we had adopted a child, the ability to have us both on the adoption papers would be the most important.


Which benefit is the most important depends on the couple and their situation.

Unlike you, I make no claim to know what others feel is important.

That's it?

Power of Attourney would solve both issues.

Next?

As I suspected, these "benefits" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda: Social Acceptability for Deviant Behaviour.

You asked what benefits they expected to get and I gave you a link to a nice list of benefits.

And a power of attorney would not help in the event of the adoption. And should teh parent listed on the adoption die, the other parent would have absolutely no legal standing as a parent.

Obviously you don't know much about Family Contract Law

The adoption agency can define parenthood however their attourney wishes; if anyone, including queers want to adopt, they can.

However, just because queers are married, doesn't mean they will be qualified to be adopting parent.

 

[koshergrl]

See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.

 

[Samson]

See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.

Queers want to adopt children because it makes them fel like normal people instead of the deviant freaks that they really are.

 

[jillian]

See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.

Queers want to adopt childern because it makes them fel like normal people instead of the deviant freaks that they really are.

weren't you the person bemoaning not getting intelligent responses to your posts?

let's see ... "queer", not exactly a word i'd use for my gay friends.

they ARE normal people. and they aren't deviant freaks... notwithstanding the homophobic assertions of the uber right.

the thing is, the way people see gays is really generational at this point... but for the radical religious right. so i'm kind of wondering why you feel so threatened by gays.

 

[WinterBorn]

That's it?

Power of Attourney would solve both issues.

Next?

As I suspected, these "benefits" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda: Social Acceptability for Deviant Behaviour.

You asked what benefits they expected to get and I gave you a link to a nice list of benefits.

And a power of attorney would not help in the event of the adoption. And should teh parent listed on the adoption die, the other parent would have absolutely no legal standing as a parent.

Obviously you don't know much about Family Contract Law

The adoption agency can define parenthood however their attourney wishes; if anyone, including queers want to adopt, they can.

However, just because queers are married, doesn't mean they will be qualified to be adopting parent.

That is not what I said.

In most states, if a gay couple wants to adopt, they will have to pick one or the other to be the legal parent/guardian of the child. This is because they are unmarried. An unmarried straight couple would have to do the same thing.

If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights. Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.

 

[WinterBorn]

See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.

It is not about removing protections around children.

It is about couples wanting to raise a child. And what they are asking would certainly make it much more difficult to move out of a relationship with a child.

 

[WinterBorn]

See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.

Queers want to adopt children because it makes them fel like normal people instead of the deviant freaks that they really are.

They want to adopt children for the same reason straight couples want to adopt children. What they do in their bedroom is irrelevant.

None of my kids were ever effected by my sex life (other than their conception). And my step-daughter has never been effected by it at all.