Gay Cowboy Loses Everything When His Partner Dies

[jAZ]

...do you know what NAMBLA is? Talk about disturbing..

North American Man/Boy Love Association is about Gay men who prey on Boys. Yay. Let's all get bumper stickers to show we are, like you may be, a homomaniac

And if you are to ban such "speech", then you and I wouldn't be able to have this conversation. Think about that.

 

[GotZoom]

And if you are to ban such "speech", then you and I wouldn't be able to have this conversation. Think about that.

So the whole NAMBLA example IS ok with you?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I keep all bumper stickers off my car. No matter WHAT you put on there, it's almost a guarantee someone will key your car.

 

[jAZ]

To not have any paperwork at all is incredibly irresponsible; I don't care who you are. Not having anything on paper could be dis-advantageous to a straight couple also when it comes to a possible dispute. If I don't "say" I am leaving everything to my wife, my children, too, can dispute what I "leave" behind.

Not only is estate planning is the issue, but just being a responsible "couple" is a bigger issue.

Gay Cowboy (GC) 1 and GC 2 are together. Just as any other couple, they want to make sure the other is provided for should something happen to one of them.

What is the best way to do this? Leave a will and have the survivor subject to taxes? Or better yet, make an estate and make each other the executor so there won't be any taxes; hence, more money and property (value) to the survivor.

Who ever they talked to, who "left off the one signature" was irresponsible.

The state ruled the way they did because of a paperwork issue - not "who the paperwork was for" issue.

There are many gay couples who have gone the "estate" route - and the government can't do a thing about it.

So you would suggest rolling back the existing default propertly laws regarding marriage and leaving it all up to personal responsibility to manage their estates properly? Of course, it's obviously very important so everyone will do it and thus there is no value to having well defined default property rights through marriage.

 

[jAZ]

So the whole NAMBLA example IS ok with you?

As a bumper sticker?

I would most certainly find it offensive, but I don't feel it necessary to ban everything I find offensive. If that were the case most of the people here wouldn't be permitted to speak. Ever.

If that's means it's "OK" in your eyes, so be it. I just think it's a horrible idea to ban the use of the word.

Am I really talking to people who want to actually make it illegal for people to speak publicly about being gay?

 

[dilloduck]

So you agree with me then...

Yup--This is the way I think the situation should be handled.

 

[GotZoom]

So you would suggest rolling back the existing default propertly laws regarding marriage and leaving it all up to personal responsibility to manage their estates properly? Of course, it's obviously very important so everyone will do it and thus there is no value to having well defined default property rights through marriage.

Let's see....people taking care of themselves?

More personal responsiblity?

I don't see the down side.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Originally Posted by dmp
...do you know what NAMBLA is? Talk about disturbing..

North American Man/Boy Love Association is about Gay men who prey on Boys. Yay. Let's all get bumper stickers to show we are, like you may be, a homomaniac

And if you are to ban such "speech", then you and I wouldn't be able to have this conversation. Think about that.

So you believe the promotion of pedophilia should be legal?

 

[GotZoom]

As a bumper sticker?

I would most certainly find it offensive, but I don't feel it necessary to ban everything I find offensive. If that were the case most of the people here wouldn't be permitted to speak. Ever.

If that's means it's "OK" in your eyes, so be it. I just think it's a horrible idea to ban the use of the word.

Am I really talking to people who want to actually make it illegal for people to speak publicly about being gay?

If allowing NAMBLA to proclaim their views on a bumper stucker is ok with you, then they should be allowed to have a meeting at the park gazebo adjacent to your kid's elementary school.

After all, free speech.

No worries though, it won't be a long meeting.

The KKK is scheduled right after them.

None of my posts have even come remotely close to saying that gays can't speak in public about being gay.

I have limited my statements to their lack of planning.

 

[jAZ]

You see, this is where your mentality counts. You're a believer in big government. Most of us on this board are not. Therefore, when we say something is innappropriate and that we don't want to see it, most of us here would probably not advocate a legal ban on it, just some common sense and civility from ordinary people. I see all this gay pride stuff everywhere, and it's basically the same thing as wearing a shirt that says "I have sex with other men/women," which is something I really am better off not knowing, or at least not thinking about.

You can't win on this issue. Either someone wants to "ban" the use of the word (not you) or someone wants to be the "PC police" (you) and require people not talk about some topic in their presence ("keep away the creepy homo talk!").

It appears to me that conservatives often appear to only hold their conservative principles when it selfishly suits their needs to create an immediate environment in which they personally want to exist.

As far as gays go with this default stuff in case of marriage, it's quite simple. Marriage is an age old institution with the purpose of creating stable families capable to having and raising kids in a stable environment. Since this has a positive effect on society, the government accomadates it in order to encourage people to do it, or at least remove some of the obstacles.

I agree 100%.

Gays, however, cannot provide any of these effects. A gay couple cannot reproduce, no matter what the Massachussetts birth certificates say, and it has been statistically shown that children who do not have both a mother and a father are far less likely to succeed in the real world. Therefore, those obstacles are not removed for them, and they have to fill out inheritance and power of attorney paperwork instead of a simpler marriage liscense.

As with most things, there is a practical, business-like reason for not having gay marriage.

All of the above is patently false.

Gays are capable of "having ... kids" (your words). First by way of adoption, which is a HUGE need as it stands right now, and even greater if cons get their way and abolish most or all abortions. Second, by the Melissa Ethridge model of invitro firtilization with donated sperm a gay couple can actually genetically reproduce.

Gay couples are certainly capable of "raising kids" (your words). A commited gay couple will raise a child in a more "stable environment" (your words) than many heterosexual (or even asexual) single-parent families (what the study you referenced was in fact investigating) raise their kids today.

 

[jAZ]

So you believe the promotion of pedophilia should be legal?

Conspiring to commit a crime is still a crime.

 

[jAZ]

Let's see....people taking care of themselves?

More personal responsiblity?

I don't see the down side.

Just being clear that you are calling for the abolition of marriage as a legal institution (at least the property rights part) for all people. I'm pretty sure you are in the minorty view on this.

 

[Mr. P]

I keep all bumper stickers off my car. No matter WHAT you put on there, it's almost a guarantee someone will key your car.

Hate em all myself. Why deface even a $16000 car with that crap.
I don’t even allow the dealer to place their decal sticker on my car.

 

[GotZoom]

Conspiring to commit a crime is still a crime.

So it is OK for the government to declare that pedophilia is a crime but not OK for them to declare what is needed to pass assets on after death?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Just being clear that you are calling for the abolition of marriage as a legal institution (at least the property rights part) for all people. I'm pretty sure you are in the minorty view on this.

I'd like to see the word "marriage" removed from the legal institution and replaced with "civil union," personally. Makes more sense to me.

 

[GotZoom]

Just being clear that you are calling for the abolition of marriage as a legal institution (at least the property rights part) for all people. I'm pretty sure you are in the minorty view on this.

Big stretch. I never said I wanted marriage abolished.

Requiring married couples to be responsible for passing on their assets to whom they choose after death? Yes, I'm all for that.

The government wants citizens to NOT take this responsibility. If everyone did this, the government would lose a lot of moolah through inheritance tax, etc.

 

[dmp]

Gay couples are certainly capable of "raising kids" (your words). A commited gay couple will raise a child in a more "stable environment" (your words) than many heterosexual (or even asexual) single-parent families (what the study you referenced was in fact investigating) raise their kids today.

If my wife and I die, I'd rather our KIDS die to, than be raised by homosexuals. Talk about *******-up a kid's mind.

Homosexuals cannot be good parents because they condone self-indulgence and lack of control. They teach their kids destructive (emotionally and physically) behaviours.

 

[jAZ]

If allowing NAMBLA to proclaim their views on a bumper stucker is ok with you, then they should be allowed to have a meeting at the park gazebo adjacent to your kid's elementary school.

After all, free speech.

No worries though, it won't be a long meeting.

The KKK is scheduled right after them.

None of my posts have even come remotely close to saying that gays can't speak in public about being gay.

I have limited my statements to their lack of planning.

Depends on the content of the meeting. If the guys are there conspiring to commit child rape, that would be illegal. If the KKK is there planning a lynching, that's illegal.

If they are talking about their beliefs and feelings (racist or child sex) they aren't doing anything illegal.

None of this says anything about preventing the state from regulating WHERE such a meeting is permitted to take place. I would imagine a community would likely deny a permit to conduct such a meeting at a public park adjacent to a grade school. As it should have the right to do.

 

[dmp]

Depends on the content of the meeting. If the guys are there conspiring to commit child rape, that would be illegal. If the KKK is there planning a lynching, that's illegal.

If they are talking about their beliefs and feelings (racist or child sex) they aren't doing anything illegal.

None of this says anything about preventing the state from regulating WHERE such a meeting is permitted to take place. I would imagine a community would likely deny a permit to conduct such a meeting at a public park adjacent to a grade school. As it should have the right to do.

pssst....Pedophilia is against the law. NAMBLA supports pedophilia.

 

[jAZ]

If my wife and I die, I'd rather our KIDS die to, than be raised by homosexuals. Talk about *******-up a kid's mind.

Homosexuals cannot be good parents because they condone self-indulgence and lack of control. They teach their kids destructive (emotionally and physically) behaviours.

You have your opinions. They aren't wrong as opinions. At the same time, they aren't facually accurate just because you believe them.

I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I will say that I can't think of anything more disgusting than wishing for the death of your own child.