Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/26/2004 10:31:19 PM EST
WHAT THE FUCK OVER?
These strap-on dildo wearing turkey baster inseminating wanna-be men want the right to be married, to have kids and to live like "normal" people, yet the fucking court gives (one of) them special treatment. Where is the outrage by the GLT community over this?

You better fucking believe that had it been a man who got the bitch pregnant (by either turkey baster or by the DICK method) he would be paying child support for the next 18 years.



Court rejects child support claim by lesbian

Mass. rules that ex-partner does not have help raise child

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:13 p.m. ET Aug. 25, 2004

BOSTON -
A woman who agreed to have a child with her lesbian partner but split up with the mother before the baby’s birth cannot be forced to pay child support, the state’s highest court ruled Wednesday.

The split ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court — which legalized gay marriage in a landmark ruling last year — comes in the case of a Hampshire County lesbian couple, identified in court documents as “T.F.” and “B.L.,” who lived together from 1996 to 2000.

B.L. at first resisted T.F.’s wishes to have a child but later changed her mind.

The couple broke up after T.F. got pregnant by artificial insemination. After the baby was born, T.F. sued her former partner for child support. A Probate and Family Court judge turned to the state Appeals Court, which in turned passed the case the case up to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Associate Justice Judith A. Cowin wrote that the informal agreement between the two women to have a child together did not constitute an enforceable contract, and B.L. can’t be forced to pay child support.

Three justices — including Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts — disagreed with the majority conclusion, saying that the implied contract between the woman is enforceable.

“The child may have been abandoned by the defendant, but he should not be abandoned by the court,” Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the dissent.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:34:57 PM EST
That is indeed bullshit.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:03:19 AM EST
Don't believe the "we want equal treatment" stuff, many of them want special treatment.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:10:32 AM EST
What do you want to bet that if they could find the sperm donor, HE'D be found liable for child support?
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:19:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By KBaker:
What do you want to bet that if they could find the sperm donor, HE'D be found liable for child support?



+1
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:30:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By KBaker:
What do you want to bet that if they could find the sperm donor, HE'D be found liable for child support?



Already happened...I think it was in Sweden.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:34:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 12:46:44 PM EST by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By KBaker:
What do you want to bet that if they could find the sperm donor, HE'D be found liable for child support?



The biological parents are the only ones who should ever be liable for support.

Unless you support those outdated laws that say when a child is born into a marraige, the man is responsible for the child, even if the wife is an adulteress and the child is not her husbands.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:43:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:44:22 AM EST
Hahahaha... wow isn't society just so "progressive"!
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:19:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 12:21:53 PM EST by StonerStudent]
Ok boys....what am I missing here........the one of the mothers bail and now has to pay support just like everybody else.


Ok my bad.......but that was the Judge made a screwy call
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:20:55 PM EST
You seem to be missing the ability to comprehend....


Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
Ok boys....what am I missing here........the one of the mothers bail and now has to pay support just like everybody else.

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:29:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:

BOSTON -




Sadly...that is enough ...
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:29:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
You seem to be missing the ability to comprehend....


Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
Ok boys....what am I missing here........the one of the mothers bail and now has to pay support just like everybody else.




My arn't we quick on the draw....see above

But again.....it not like str8 MEN don't try the "run out on the kid deal"......oh I forgot the worse screwed up str8 is still better the any gueer.

MY BAD
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:31:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By RiffRandall:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
What do you want to bet that if they could find the sperm donor, HE'D be found liable for child support?



Already happened...I think it was in Sweden.



thought that was here in the UK, and it certainly seemed wrong to me...

/PHil
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:08:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
You seem to be missing the ability to comprehend....


Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
Ok boys....what am I missing here........the one of the mothers bail and now has to pay support just like everybody else.




My arn't we quick on the draw....see above

But again.....it not like str8 MEN don't try the "run out on the kid deal"......oh I forgot the worse screwed up str8 is still better the any gueer.

MY BAD



Holy crap dude. Get the chip off your shoulder already. This isn't about being straight or gay, it's about bullshit double standards. The majority of us that have a problem with what occured here would be equally pissed if a guy tried to pull that shit and wasn't made to pay child support.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 12:19:25 AM EST
You're a fucking tard.
I'll give you the Readers Digest version.

Two people make a decision to have a child.
They split up before the child is born.
The mother of the child wants child support from her ex partner (the one that AGREED to have a child with her partner).
The judge rules that the non-birth mother does not have to pay child support.

Try reading what you ORIGINALY posted.
Here, let me help you out:


Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
Ok boys....what am I missing here........the one of the mothers bail and now has to pay support just like everybody else.



What are you missing?
THE FUCKING FACT THAT THE CUNT DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR A CHILD SHE AGREED TO HAVE WITH HER PARTNER.


If it had been a straight couple you better fucking believe that the man (even if he is not the actual father) would be paying child support on that kid.

It's a fucking double standard.

I agree with you on straight men running out on their children.
Had this been a straigt couple I would still be outraged.




Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
You seem to be missing the ability to comprehend....


Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
Ok boys....what am I missing here........the one of the mothers bail and now has to pay support just like everybody else.




My arn't we quick on the draw....see above

But again.....it not like str8 MEN don't try the "run out on the kid deal"......oh I forgot the worse screwed up str8 is still better the any gueer.

MY BAD

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 12:39:17 AM EST
What I want to know is this:


What part of Lesbia are these two from?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 12:47:42 AM EST
I think one is from Upper Labia and the other is from Vulva


Originally Posted By piccolo:
What I want to know is this:
What part of Lesbia are these two from?

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:33:18 AM EST
Ok KAB3 lets start with the question

Where is the outrage by the GLT community over this?

Boston, MA) Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today expressed disappointment in a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a case involving two lesbians who were in a relationship and mutually decided to conceive and raise a child together by the insemination of one of the women. In the case T.F. v. B.L. (SJC No. 09104), the SJC ruled that after the couple’s breakup, the non-biological partner did not have an obligation to support the child, even though the Court acknowledged that she intentionally and purposefully acted to bring the child into the world. GLAD represented the biological mother, T.F.
“The Court’s decision is disappointing because it does not reflect the reality of children’s lives today. Many couples, both gay and straight, use reproductive technologies to bring children into the world, where one parent has a biological relationship to the child and the other parent does not. These children deserve the same legal protections as any other children,” said Bennett H. Klein, a GLAD attorney and counsel for T.F. Klein added, “Children do not control the circumstances of their birth and should not be harmed when a parent who intentionally and purposefully brings a child into the world disavows support for the child.”

T.F. and B.L., a lesbian couple, were in a relationship from 1996 to 2000. They wanted to start a family and agreed to conceive a child together and both raise and parent the child. After discussing alternatives, they agreed that T.F. should bear the child. T.F. and B.L. jointly selected an anonymous donor and T.F. became pregnant in December 1999. But in April 2000, B.L. broke up with T.F. T.F. gave birth to the child in July 2000. T.F. sued for support and after a three-day trial in Hampshire County Probate and Family Court, Judge Gail Perlman found that B.L. and T.F. made an agreement to have a child, but asked the Massachusetts Appeals Court to decide whether such an agreement could be enforced. The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review and heard oral argument on March 4, 2004.

While the SJC’s decision today was an important one, GLAD attorney Klein noted that “the decision is limited to narrow circumstances where an unmarried couple breaks up during a pregnancy.”

T.F.’s position in this case was supported by numerous child welfare organizations and reproductive technology providers, who signed “friend of the court” briefs, including the Child Welfare League of America, Massachusetts Citizens for Children, National Association of Social Workers, Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, Psychoanalytic Institute of New England, Ellen Perrin, M.D., a pediatrician at Tufts New England Medical Center, Barry Zuckerman, Chairman of Pediatrics at Boston University Medical School and Boston Medical Center, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Baystate Reproductive Medicine, Reproductive Science Center, Resolve: The National Infertility Association, and Resolve of the Bay State.




Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:48:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:57:15 AM EST
Dear Lord, come quickly!
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:03:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:

The split ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court — which legalized gay marriage in a landmark ruling last year — comes in the case of a Hampshire County lesbian couple, identified in court documents as “T.F.” and “B.L.,” who lived together from 1996 to 2000.





anyone wanna guess what the initials stand for?

“T.F.” - tongue fokker?

and “B.L.,” - bush licker?



Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:06:48 AM EST
IMO if you sign-on to have a child then you support the child......... period.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:07:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:30:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 6:31:50 AM EST by StonerStudent]

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
IMO if you sign-on to have a child then you support the child......... period.



Agreed, but not everyone is so honorable--and this case is about legalities, not morals.



I agree....and to a point I would agree with KA3B, but this thread isn't about child support. It's about queers and how much some people on this board hate them. I could post stories about LGBT parents who didn't run out on support and are good parents who raised "normal kids". And the same people would call bs,and claim that the same kids would be molested by the same parents.

As an example

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts — disagreed with the majority conclusion, saying that the implied contract between the woman is enforceable.

Sounds to me like she is "walking it, like she talked it"....so where is the double standard?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:34:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:47:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 6:49:30 AM EST by bvmjethead]
nevermind.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:50:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 8:43:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
oh I forgot the worse screwed up str8 is still better the any gueer.




No, but being homosexual should disqualify you from being a parent!

They should not let adjudicated homosexuals be foster parents, adoptive parents or artificially-inseminated parents and, in the case of custody battles, if both parents are either unfit or homosexual, the child should go to foster parents or an orphanage.

Homosexuality is no more biological than being any other type of criminal. It's a learned behavior, one that can be taught to children by homosexual parents. That's why they should be disqualified.



Link Posted: 8/28/2004 11:24:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
oh I forgot the worse screwed up str8 is still better the any gueer.




No, but being homosexual should disqualify you from being a parent!

They should not let adjudicated homosexuals be foster parents, adoptive parents or artificially-inseminated parents and, in the case of custody battles, if both parents are either unfit or homosexual, the child should go to foster parents or an orphanage.

Homosexuality is no more biological than being any other type of criminal. It's a learned behavior, one that can be taught to children by homosexual parents. That's why they should be disqualified.






And you can prove that how?....and how do people learn to be gay anyway? is there a class I must have missed ?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 12:11:44 PM EST
Lordy, you are one of those "wronged" people, you put yourself on the cross without asking if anyone else thinks it's a good idea.

This is about child support.
You are the one who thinks it's about something else.

Yes, go ahead and pull up the liberal dummycrat defense of "I could give you stories about...." defense.

Well guess what, this is not about those who do the right thing.
It's not about gay bashing either.
It's about a couple of lesbians who made a decision to have a child together.

It's about how fucked up B.L is, about how fucked up the courts in Boston are and about how fucked up that when a man who has no biological connection to a child (due to artificial insemination) can and is forced to pay child support.

It's about the fact that the GL community wants to be treated like "everyone else", yet when it's time to pay the piper they are held to a different standard.

Like I said, if an unmarried man and woman got pregnant as a couple through artificial insemintation (not his sperm) the courts would hold the man responsible.

SS, you keep pulling out little snippets of facts yet exclude the big picture.

Who gives a flying fuck what the judge who wrote the same-sex ruling thinks.
It's about the ENTIRE court's decision.

The two people made a choice to bring a child into the world.
One of them flaked.
She should be made to pay child support.
End of story.

<­center>

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

I agree....and to a point I would agree with KA3B, but this thread isn't about child support. It's about queers and how much some people on this board hate them. I could post stories about LGBT parents who didn't run out on support and are good parents who raised "normal kids". And the same people would call bs,and claim that the same kids would be molested by the same parents.

As an example

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts — disagreed with the majority conclusion, saying that the implied contract between the woman is enforceable.

Sounds to me like she is "walking it, like she talked it"....so where is the double standard?

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 12:51:58 PM EST
I'm with TBK1 on this.

You have to go back to what marriage is for.

Marriage does three things:

A) Ensure the continuation of the society itself. A marriage usually results in kids; kids raised in the society's traditions and mores will ensure that the society will not die. Any tradition which hinders the ability for kids to become functioning members of that society (and therefore continue that society) is a bad thing.

B) Protect the weaker members of society (women and children) by providing a societal structure to feed, clothe, house them. This isn't as crucial as it used to be (due to the evolution of the modern welfare state and the ability of women to support themselves), but, regardless of what the feminazis want you to believe, a man and a woman, married, are still the best way to ensure children are raised in a sheltered environment, instead of being raised by a wolfpack someplace.

C) Provide for the legal transfer of property. Marriage provides a societal structure to ensure family property gets handed down efficiently and easily. As such, marriage evolved from a societal bond into a legal bond. Otherwise, there would be incredible chaos every time someone died, and any children would be left unprotected (See B above).

As a legal bond, marriage has both rights and responsibilities. Both members in a marriage agree to A) the responsibility to protect, provide and raise any children in the relationship, and B) the right of equal shares in all real and financial property brought into the marriage.

Unfortunately, gay marriage doesn't do any of these three things. There are no children to provide for the continuity of society, does not adequately protect and properly nurture children in a relationship, and cannot ensure the legal transfer of property throughout the ages.

In this case, since the couple weren't legally married, there is no "husband" to hang child support on to ensure B) above. The other woman is just that--another woman; legally, she has no standing as a parent in the eyes of the law. Making her responsible for child support would be the legal equivalent of picking a stranger off the street and making THEM responsible for child support.

Remember, gay marriage doesn't have ANYTHING to do with love, or honor, or "the right thing to do."

Gay marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the gay community wanting to dip into the financial rewards of marriage--health care benefits, mainly, because you can give anyone your estate in your will--without the responsibilities of raising and providing for children inherent in marriage (yes, I know it's a generalization, but by definition a gay couple cannot have children....they must adopt or for lesbians artificially inseminate).

And, since the gay lifestyle is inherently more risky, from a health care standpoint, than a monogamous marriage (remember that pesky thing called AIDS?), and since those risks spring directly from the behavior of their lifestyle, what they REALLY want is for society to pick up the tab for the consequences of their behavior.

Short answer, after a long story--gay marriage is about the money, not the love.....
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 7:04:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 7:06:08 PM EST by StonerStudent]
.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 7:17:36 PM EST
Hey, where are we going? And why do I have this handbasket?


Woody
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 10:16:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 10:33:34 AM EST by Kacer]

Originally Posted By KA3B:

WHAT THE FUCK OVER?

These strap-on dildo wearing turkey baster inseminating wanna-be men want the right to be married, to have kids and to live like "normal" people, yet the fucking court gives (one of) them special treatment. Where is the outrage by the GLT community over this?

You better fucking believe that had it been a man who got the bitch pregnant (by either turkey baster or by the DICK method) he would be paying child support for the next 18 years.





Court rejects child support claim by lesbian

Mass. rules that ex-partner does not have help raise child

The Associated Press

Updated: 12:13 p.m. ET Aug. 25, 2004

<snip>




First, just FYI, I know NO lesbians who use dildoes, this is MOSTLY (though not ENTIRELY) wishful thinking by the straight male population. And VIRTUALLY NO lesbians "want to be "men" I know _I_ do NOT...

Secondly, IMO is one of the MANY reasons why GLBT folks SHOULD be permitted to marry... IF these 2 HAD been "married" I doubt you'd get the same result... thing is you (straights) can't have it BOTH ways... but it does seem that IS what you want... we should have ALL the "responsibilities" of being "married", just none of the "benefits" ...

IMO this WAS a "bad" decision, BUT from what I've seen (legally) a SOUND decision... however had they BEEN "married" the same decision _wouldn't_ have been on legally solid ground....


Originally Posted By Demordrah:

Holy crap dude. Get the chip off your shoulder already. This isn't about being straight or gay, it's about bullshit double standards. The majority of us that have a problem with what occured here would be equally pissed if a guy tried to pull that shit and wasn't made to pay child support.



Okay, so what YOU are trying to say is if a STRAIGHT couple were "living together" and the male went to the sperm bank and got some sperm (instead of using his own - maybe he is has low motility) and he and she use a "turkey baster" and have a kid "together" then later, BEFORE the baby is born, they "break up" that the judge would have ruled differently? (IF you're right about that, and I DO NOT think you are, then we agree.) Thing is, LEGALLY there is NOTHING binding them, nor HE to that baby, (technically) therefore I DO think it would have been ruled the same way - no child support. Sad, but true.

So in REALITY it is YOU who desire the double standard, you want US to have ALL the RESPONSIBILITIES, but NONE of the BENEFITS of "marriage".


Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

No, but being homosexual should disqualify you from being a parent!

They should not let adjudicated homosexuals be foster parents, adoptive parents or artificially-inseminated parents and, in the case of custody battles, if both parents are either unfit or homosexual, the child should go to foster parents or an orphanage.

Homosexuality is no more biological than being any other type of criminal. It's a learned behavior, one that can be taught to children by homosexual parents. That's why they should be disqualified.




First, where are the "studies" that prove this opinion? Answer: they don't exist.

Second, then can you POSSIBLY explain how so many QUEERS had straight parents? AND can you explain how I "knew" at age 3 (or possibly 4) if it is NOT "biological"?

And Third, being "homosexual" isn't a crime anymore, Thanks to the SCOTUS ;)


Originally Posted By limaxray:

Unfortunately, gay marriage doesn't do any of these three things. There are no children to provide for the continuity of society, does not adequately protect and properly nurture children in a relationship, and cannot ensure the legal transfer of property throughout the ages.




Um... did you notice THESE lesbians were having a kid? Therefore they WOULD be at least [partly "providing for the continuity of society"...

Also, then since "children" are so "necessary" in YOUR mind (or at least what passes for same ;) what about childless hets? Should they not be permitted to marry? Should there be a "fertility test" given to hets along w/the requisite "physical exam" and if they or one of them are infertille, they too be denied a marriage license? Perhaps after say, 5 years of marriage if no child has been produced, then the marriage should be automatically "annulled" since they have not "performed" their function? And forget senior citizens.... a couple in their 60's or 70's should NEVER be "permitted" to marry as they OBVIOUSLY will NOT bear any childen at THEIR age!


Originally Posted By limaxray:

Remember, gay marriage doesn't have ANYTHING to do with love, or honor, or "the right thing to do."




Well. if _I_ were attempting to be married, (at this time I'm NOT, but it's a fair bet I will be in the future). It WOULD BE POINTLESS to ME if it did NOT have anything to do w/love, honor and "the right thing to do", granted, it ALSO would be "easier" and CHEAPER than having to hire a lawyer and getting a score of legal documents that granted SIMILAR legal "protections" as marriage does... plus I don't TEND to like lawyers... but MORE than I like DOCTORS....


Originally Posted By limaxray:

Gay marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the gay community wanting to dip into the financial rewards of marriage--health care benefits, mainly, because you can give anyone your estate in your will--without the responsibilities of raising and providing for children inherent in marriage (yes, I know it's a generalization, but by definition a gay couple cannot have children....they must adopt or for lesbians artificially inseminate).

You would THINK so, that a "will" would "take care" of everything, but it doesn't always... not even OFTEN when we're talking "queer relationship", IF the family contests the will, which they often do, and MUCH of the time they do so SUCCESSFULLY, so no banana, try again.


Originally Posted By limaxray:

And, since the gay lifestyle is inherently more risky, from a health care standpoint, than a monogamous marriage (remember that pesky thing called AIDS?), and since those risks spring directly from the behavior of their lifestyle, what they REALLY want is for society to pick up the tab for the consequences of their behavior.




So then by YOUR logic, LESBIANS are superior then to BOTH straights AND gay men? The # of lesbians who have died of AIDS are in the (barely) double digits.... while heterosexuals are in the hundreds of thousands. And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....

Originally Posted By limaxray:

Short answer, after a long story--gay marriage is about the money, not the love.....



Short answer, after a long story, your story is SO full of holes and contradictions that it is laughable.

Link Posted: 9/1/2004 10:30:50 AM EST
IBTL
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:50:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/4/2004 8:05:12 AM EST by limaxray]

Originally Posted By Kacer:


Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

No, but being homosexual should disqualify you from being a parent!

They should not let adjudicated homosexuals be foster parents, adoptive parents or artificially-inseminated parents and, in the case of custody battles, if both parents are either unfit or homosexual, the child should go to foster parents or an orphanage.

Homosexuality is no more biological than being any other type of criminal. It's a learned behavior, one that can be taught to children by homosexual parents. That's why they should be disqualified.




First, where are the "studies" that prove this opinion? Answer: they don't exist.



www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html And, yes, it's a conservative web site, so let's get that out of the way. If you can point out problems with it's METHODOLOGY, not source, I'll listen. And if you post a countering web page from a homosexual-friendly web site, I'd be happy to look at their conclusions only AFTER I can determine that they actually used the scientific method to reach them.



Originally Posted By limaxray:

Unfortunately, gay marriage doesn't do any of these three things. There are no children to provide for the continuity of society, does not adequately protect and properly nurture children in a relationship, and cannot ensure the legal transfer of property throughout the ages.




Um... did you notice THESE lesbians were having a kid? Therefore they WOULD be at least [partly "providing for the continuity of society"...



Um, did you notice where I made this statement:

(yes, I know it's a generalization, but by definition a gay couple cannot have children....they must adopt or for lesbians artificially inseminate).


Also, then since "children" are so "necessary" in YOUR mind (or at least what passes for same ;) what about childless hets? Should they not be permitted to marry? Should there be a "fertility test" given to hets along w/the requisite "physical exam" and if they or one of them are infertille, they too be denied a marriage license? Perhaps after say, 5 years of marriage if no child has been produced, then the marriage should be automatically "annulled" since they have not "performed" their function? And forget senior citizens.... a couple in their 60's or 70's should NEVER be "permitted" to marry as they OBVIOUSLY will NOT bear any childen at THEIR age!


This is such a hollow false argument I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer. Out of curiosity, I would like the GPS coordinates of where you are, because you're so far off the map from what I said that I think you're lost. I stated an indisputable truth--gay couples cannot, medically, have a child naturally, but must adopt or artifically inseminate; that has implications that MUST be addressed. when relating to the purpose of marriage. I have no EARTHLY idea how you got from a discussion of why society instituted the legal construct of marriage to this....but I do know that I resent the HELL out of any insinuation that I want any kind of Nazi-like world that you discribe--and I DEMAND an apology!


Originally Posted By limaxray:

Remember, gay marriage doesn't have ANYTHING to do with love, or honor, or "the right thing to do."



Well. if _I_ were attempting to be married, (at this time I'm NOT, but it's a fair bet I will be in the future). It WOULD BE POINTLESS to ME if it did NOT have anything to do w/love, honor and "the right thing to do", granted, it ALSO would be "easier" and CHEAPER than having to hire a lawyer and getting a score of legal documents that granted SIMILAR legal "protections" as marriage does... plus I don't TEND to like lawyers... but MORE than I like DOCTORS....



Once again, that "wooshing" sound was my point going about two miles over your head. The arguments advanced by the GAY community for GAY marriage all focus on the fact that only through marriage can they have access to the health care and property benefits provided to heterosexual couples. I have no doubt that the commitment of gay couples to each other is just as strong as between heterosexual couples, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument. The gay community has made this an argument about benefits....so, I'm just extending the discussion along those lines.



Originally Posted By limaxray:

Gay marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the gay community wanting to dip into the financial rewards of marriage--health care benefits, mainly, because you can give anyone your estate in your will--without the responsibilities of raising and providing for children inherent in marriage (yes, I know it's a generalization, but by definition a gay couple cannot have children....they must adopt or for lesbians artificially inseminate).



You would THINK so, that a "will" would "take care" of everything, but it doesn't always... not even OFTEN when we're talking "queer relationship", IF the family contests the will, which they often do, and MUCH of the time they do so SUCCESSFULLY, so no banana, try again.



No, YOU don't get a banana.....you see, that also holds true for heterosexual marriages; anyone in the family can contest the automatic transfer of property. Remember Anna Nichole Smith?



Originally Posted By limaxray:

And, since the gay lifestyle is inherently more risky, from a health care standpoint, than a monogamous marriage (remember that pesky thing called AIDS?), and since those risks spring directly from the behavior of their lifestyle, what they REALLY want is for society to pick up the tab for the consequences of their behavior.



So then by YOUR logic, LESBIANS are superior then to BOTH straights AND gay men? The # of lesbians who have died of AIDS are in the (barely) double digits.... while heterosexuals are in the hundreds of thousands. And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....



Okay, I'm officially speechless.

Let's review my comment--the GAY community (which, as a group, includes both homosexual and lesbian populations) suffers from AIDS. AIDS is, in general, a behaviorally-transmitted disease. Therefore, the health-care costs the gay (remember, both homosexual and lesbian) community wants society to pick up for them would involve care for this behaviorally spread disease.

And your number of "hundreds of thousands" of heterosexuals with AIDS is a flat-out LIE. That number is in the "thousands" range.

And I am totally lost on your point here: And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....

I'd say you need to be a little clearer before I can properly rebut.



Originally Posted By limaxray:

Short answer, after a long story--gay marriage is about the money, not the love.....



Short answer, after a long story, your story is SO full of holes and contradictions that it is laughable.



Odd you should come to that conclusion, because you haven't proven a single hole or contradiction

To quote Shakespeare--"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


Edited to fix board code.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 7:17:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Kacer:

Second, then can you POSSIBLY explain how so many QUEERS had straight parents?



Same way you can explain why many Crackheads have parents who aren't druggies - It's a moral issue!



AND can you explain how I "knew" at age 3 (or possibly 4) if it is NOT "biological"?



Perhaps that's when you were first molested.



And Third, being "homosexual" isn't a crime anymore, Thanks to the SCOTUS ;)



Another bad decision along with the Dred Scott decision.
I don't think "being" homosexual was ever illegal here. But the disgusting behaviors were illegal and should be illegalized again.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 7:39:13 PM EST
::::::::ding ding ding ding ding::::::::

And round one goes to limaxray...
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 2:52:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 3:14:07 PM EST by Kacer]

Originally Posted By limaxray:

Originally Posted By Kacer:


Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

No, but being homosexual should disqualify you from being a parent!

They should not let adjudicated homosexuals be foster parents, adoptive parents or artificially-inseminated parents and, in the case of custody battles, if both parents are either unfit or homosexual, the child should go to foster parents or an orphanage.

Homosexuality is no more biological than being any other type of criminal. It's a learned behavior, one that can be taught to children by homosexual parents. That's why they should be disqualified.




First, where are the "studies" that prove this opinion? Answer: they don't exist.



www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html And, yes, it's a conservative web site, so let's get that out of the way. If you can point out problems with it's METHODOLOGY, not source, I'll listen. And if you post a countering web page from a homosexual-friendly web site, I'd be happy to look at their conclusions only AFTER I can determine that they actually used the scientific method to reach them.



Okay, I've no clue who you are, nor what you do/don't know. I'm not TRYING to be an ass, if I'm telling you things you know, sorry.

REAL scientific STUDIES have various components: Typically consisting of: BACKGROUND; OBJECTIVE; DESIGN; RESULTS; and CONCLUSIONS. And USUSALLY there is also an "abstract" which is somewhat similar to the alleged "summary" provided in the "study" you cite. Only it is shorter and more concise.... there is NO way to tell if these kids were a really a "random" sample, or if these were kids who were sent to the principal's office who ALSO GLB or T. Also there are NO kids w/ straight parents also questioned. So no "control" group.

The cite is what I've come to expect from groups such as the one who did the alleged "study".


Also, then since "children" are so "necessary" in YOUR mind (or at least what passes for same ;) what about childless hets? Should they not be permitted to marry? Should there be a "fertility test" given to hets along w/the requisite "physical exam" and if they or one of them are infertille, they too be denied a marriage license? Perhaps after say, 5 years of marriage if no child has been produced, then the marriage should be automatically "annulled" since they have not "performed" their function? And forget senior citizens.... a couple in their 60's or 70's should NEVER be "permitted" to marry as they OBVIOUSLY will NOT bear any childen at THEIR age!

This is such a hollow false argument I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer. Out of curiosity, I would like the GPS coordinates of where you are, because you're so far off the map from what I said that I think you're lost. I stated an indisputable truth--gay couples cannot, medically, have a child naturally, but must adopt or artifically inseminate; that has implications that MUST be addressed. when relating to the purpose of marriage. I have no EARTHLY idea how you got from a discussion of why society instituted the legal construct of marriage to this....but I do know that I resent the HELL out of any insinuation that I want any kind of Nazi-like world that you discribe--and I DEMAND an apology!



Nice try, NO appology. You have an issue w/GLBT folks getting married. The REASON you cite for this is: As a legal bond, marriage has both rights and responsibilities. Both members in a marriage agree to A) the responsibility to protect, provide and raise any children in the relationship, and B) the right of equal shares in all real and financial property brought into the marriage.
Unfortunately, gay marriage doesn't do any of these three things. There are no children to provide for the continuity of society, does not adequately protect and properly nurture children in a relationship, and cannot ensure the legal transfer of property throughout the ages.

Since the MAJORITY of your opposition seems to necessitate "children", it only makes sense you would also oppose marriage by sterile couples, the elderly etc.... So, you come up with a better ARGUMENT that I am NOT able to expose as facist, then I won't DO that. You have, I did. I'm like that. I call bigots bigots, not "racially, gender equity nor ethnical diversity" challenged. Not PC. I'm just not that type of dyke.

And YOU sir are the one so far off the map... you stated: " I stated an indisputable truth--gay couples cannot, medically, have a child naturally, but must adopt or artifically inseminate; that has implications that MUST be addressed. when relating to the purpose of marriage. " So if I substitute the word "gay" for "infertile couple".... where is the difference? Answer. NO difference. I got the concept from YOUR WORDS, I simply applied the SAME CRITERIA to a different group. You don't like it because it shows YOU in a poor light. Either your ideas are facist, or they are poor arguments. Your choice... I don't know.... but I've found, usually, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. ;)


Originally Posted By limaxray:
Once again, that "wooshing" sound was my point going about two miles over your head. The arguments advanced by the GAY community for GAY marriage all focus on the fact that only through marriage can they have access to the health care and property benefits provided to heterosexual couples. I have no doubt that the commitment of gay couples to each other is just as strong as between heterosexual couples, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument. The gay community has made this an argument about benefits....so, I'm just extending the discussion along those lines.



They make the "argument" about "benefits" BECAUSE w/o these points, there would BE no "court case" ... LOSS of some sort must be shown. The STRONGEST case may be made pointing to FINANCIAL losses. The whooshing you heard, sir , was the concept floating over YOUR head. ;) OF COURSE the "gay community" is using the most likely argument that will win the battle. Would YOU go to a gunfight w/a slingshot? I think not. Neither would we. (okay, YES, some of the Twinks WOULD... but that's another argument...) I'm speaking to legal arguments. The "resons" stated are the AR-50's while "love" and all the fuzzy and mushy stuff is like a sling shot.... in LEGAL terms the "fuzzy" stuff is HIGHLY unlikely to win the legal battle, it's the OTHER stuff that has the "teeth".


No, YOU don't get a banana.....you see, that also holds true for heterosexual marriages; anyone in the family can contest the automatic transfer of property. Remember Anna Nichole Smith?


THANK YOU! For proving MY point! A MARRIAGE by a HET couple (which was MORE likely a SHAM of a marriage than 99% of GLBT relationships) Was held as MORE valid than if Anna was just "boinking" the old coot and THEREFORE she ATTAINED her goal! (IMO, though a dispicable one) Therefore a phobic parental unit who doesn't want the "gay lover" to get even his/her OWN STUFF will have MUCH MORE difficulty in ursurping a LEGAL WILL if legally "sanctioned" marriage is permitted, BECAUSE the two will be SEEN as "immediate family" (husband and husband OR wife and wife). Exactly my point.


And, since the gay lifestyle is inherently more risky, from a health care standpoint, than a monogamous marriage (remember that pesky thing called AIDS?), and since those risks spring directly from the behavior of their lifestyle, what they REALLY want is for society to pick up the tab for the consequences of their behavior.


First, ONLY because the "Casanova" that likely initially carried the virus to the states was a VERY pomiscuous GAY man... had it been a very pomiscous STRAIGHT MAN, likely this would NOT be the BS argument it is.... AND I guess I must explain some things to you given the following comments.... but don't worry, the little bigots that are trying to be "real tough men" don't know the difference either....

Homosexuals (this means individuals of one sex being attracted to members of the SAME sex, "homosexual" is not limited to JUST men nor "just" women.... it includes BOTH the gay male and lesbian populations. Typically only used by clinicians and/or bigots, usually, but NOT exclusive to religios bigots, as the "sexual" in homoSEXUAL seems more... "dirty". ;)

Faggots: this is basically a less than complimentary term used to describe gay men.

Dykes: this is basically a less than complimentary term used to describe lesbians.

Gays: While this may be used for either sex, large groups of lesbians prefer "gay" to be used to refer to the "guys" and the term lesbian be used to refer to the women. (DeGeneres didn't get the memo ;)

GLBT: Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered/sexual var: GLBTQ adds "Questioning"

Queer: Easier than saying Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transexual Questioning, .... and so on. CAN be used in a disparaging mmanner, but it's really lost it's "punch" ;)



So then by YOUR logic, LESBIANS are superior then to BOTH straights AND gay men? The # of lesbians who have died of AIDS are in the (barely) double digits.... while heterosexuals are in the hundreds of thousands. And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....

Okay, I'm officially speechless.

Let's review my comment--the GAY community (which, as a group, includes both homosexual and lesbian populations) suffers from AIDS. AIDS is, in general, a behaviorally-transmitted disease. Therefore, the health-care costs the gay (remember, both homosexual and lesbian) community wants society to pick up for them would involve care for this behaviorally spread disease.

And your number of "hundreds of thousands" of heterosexuals with AIDS is a flat-out LIE. That number is in the "thousands" range.
And I am totally lost on your point here: And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....

I'd say you need to be a little clearer before I can properly rebut.



I can't say I'm SURPRISED you got lost. I'll try to type slower and use smaller words ;) (the joke being even if _I_ type slower... get it? ;)

Okay, given available evidence, lesbians are at very little risk of exposure via female-to-female sex. (Of AIDS/HIV). While it may be difficult for women to infect other women with HIV or other STDs, it is not impossible, just highly unlikely. When a dick is involved, the risk INCREASES (for ALL STD's, but especially AIDS and HIV). AND being the "receptive" partner increases risk FURTHER. So what THAT means is while NOT impossible, it is LESS likely for an infected woman (or male "bottom" (not using his dick)) to infect her/his male partner than it is for a positive MALE (actively using his dick) to transmit it to a female (or male) partner.

So WE (lesbians) are forced to support the lifestyles of those w/dicks... which seem to be a LOT of the problem (ignorance and/or irresponsibility the rest).

And Hundreds of thousands is NO LIE... though I _did_ forget YOU were talking the U.S. ONLY, while I tend to think more globally. United States 17,402 (2001 est.) that's AIDS deaths. Of those I'm having difficulty finding the Gay/straight divide... but I'll get it.... I'm confident it's nowhere near 17,000 gay deaths. I'm certain few of those are lesbians who contracted the virus though sex... and yes, we have "druggies" just like you straights do. Might take me a week though, I a. have a life and b. am busy fighting for 2nd amendment rights, for YOU as well as myself.

Worldwide, the scourge is unimaginable. More than 36 million people are infected with the deadly AIDS virus. About 22 million have died -- 3 million deaths just in the year 2000. Sub-Saharan Africa is being decimated, and it's spreading to Asia, to China and India, and through Eastern Europe. tinyurl.com/4nmg3. And the vast majority of those deaths are HETEROSEXUAL in nature.

Edited `cause I mucked up the "quotes" parts.... formatted better now ;)
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 2:55:48 PM EST
That this issue should even arise gives little wonder why the Islamic fundamentalist hate us.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 3:38:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By 4v50:
That this issue should even arise gives little wonder why the Islamic fundamentalist hate us.



That is like saying, "Well, no WONDER he got mugged! Look, he was dressed in a nice suit, he had that Rolex... OF COURSE they mugged him!"

And frankly, I MAY be wrong, but I think YOU are better than that. It's NOT the fault of the "victim" it's the fault of the CRIMINAL. Period.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 3:38:26 PM EST
To quote a great movie:

You ain't shittin', Mister Einstein.



Originally Posted By KBaker:
What do you want to bet that if they could find the sperm donor, HE'D be found liable for child support?

Link Posted: 9/6/2004 4:37:35 PM EST
im not sure why this got so far off topic but there are a number of legal, moral, and social issues mixed up in here.

1.can homosexuals make good parents? based on this i would say no, the upshot of this case is that society is the one that must take care of this child should the biological mother decease.

2. does the other mother in this case have the ability to sue for custody? i would imagine not as she has no ties that bind to the child.

3. all is ok when it comes to lesbians yet case law would be very different with 2 gay en who would have to adopt and niether would have paternity to the child. or they would need one to go outside of their relationship as a matter of course to bring a child into the world through a third party.this would create a completely different legal construct with regards to having a child that sounds very similiar to adoption.

4. would GLT couples or singles make good parents? i would imagine as good as most other people or as bad as well. there is one issue that does need to be brought out. their lifestyle does involve certain risky behavior that could shorten their time on this earth. but as the man said earlier aids does happen to straight people as well.

5.marriage? marriage has always been between a man and a woman and so it should remain. there have always been other relationships in society and these relationships have different names so too should a legalized relationship that is between 2 people of the same sex be named. call it whatever you would like just not marriage.call it shamoozle and give it a legal standing and we'll have shamoozle lawyers in no time flat. there are those who argue that marriage is based on a union of 2 people in love and i will point out that if love is the basis for marriage i can love 2 women or 3 and you cannot prevent that marriage because its discriminatory to keep me from someone i love. break down the definition of marriage and theres a whole realm of hurt ready to emerge.

6. the courts are playing both sides on this issue and it will destroy the UCC if each state is allowed to decide if it will recognize another states marriage. shortly after the feds will step in under the guise interstate commerce and settle it one way or another. at this point theyre doing what all politicians do, walk the fence.

Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:26:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 5:42:38 PM EST by limaxray]

Originally Posted By Kacer:

Originally Posted By limaxray:

Originally Posted By Kacer:


Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

No, but being homosexual should disqualify you from being a parent!

They should not let adjudicated homosexuals be foster parents, adoptive parents or artificially-inseminated parents and, in the case of custody battles, if both parents are either unfit or homosexual, the child should go to foster parents or an orphanage.

Homosexuality is no more biological than being any other type of criminal. It's a learned behavior, one that can be taught to children by homosexual parents. That's why they should be disqualified.




First, where are the "studies" that prove this opinion? Answer: they don't exist.



www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html And, yes, it's a conservative web site, so let's get that out of the way. If you can point out problems with it's METHODOLOGY, not source, I'll listen. And if you post a countering web page from a homosexual-friendly web site, I'd be happy to look at their conclusions only AFTER I can determine that they actually used the scientific method to reach them.



Okay, I've no clue who you are, nor what you do/don't know. I'm not TRYING to be an ass, if I'm telling you things you know, sorry.

REAL scientific STUDIES have various components: Typically consisting of: BACKGROUND; OBJECTIVE; DESIGN; RESULTS; and CONCLUSIONS. And USUSALLY there is also an "abstract" which is somewhat similar to the alleged "summary" provided in the "study" you cite. Only it is shorter and more concise.... there is NO way to tell if these kids were a really a "random" sample, or if these were kids who were sent to the principal's office who ALSO GLB or T. Also there are NO kids w/ straight parents also questioned. So no "control" group.

The cite is what I've come to expect from groups such as the one who did the alleged "study".



You're right, the link I posted didn't have what I wanted--I got my links wrong; my apologies. Try this one: www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

The article actually explains why most of the studies showing homosexual parents have no effect on their children aren't scientifically sound.



Also, then since "children" are so "necessary" in YOUR mind (or at least what passes for same ;) what about childless hets? Should they not be permitted to marry? Should there be a "fertility test" given to hets along w/the requisite "physical exam" and if they or one of them are infertille, they too be denied a marriage license? Perhaps after say, 5 years of marriage if no child has been produced, then the marriage should be automatically "annulled" since they have not "performed" their function? And forget senior citizens.... a couple in their 60's or 70's should NEVER be "permitted" to marry as they OBVIOUSLY will NOT bear any childen at THEIR age!

This is such a hollow false argument I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer. Out of curiosity, I would like the GPS coordinates of where you are, because you're so far off the map from what I said that I think you're lost. I stated an indisputable truth--gay couples cannot, medically, have a child naturally, but must adopt or artifically inseminate; that has implications that MUST be addressed. when relating to the purpose of marriage. I have no EARTHLY idea how you got from a discussion of why society instituted the legal construct of marriage to this....but I do know that I resent the HELL out of any insinuation that I want any kind of Nazi-like world that you discribe--and I DEMAND an apology!



Nice try, NO appology. You have an issue w/GLBT folks getting married. The REASON you cite for this is: As a legal bond, marriage has both rights and responsibilities. Both members in a marriage agree to A) the responsibility to protect, provide and raise any children in the relationship, and B) the right of equal shares in all real and financial property brought into the marriage.
Unfortunately, gay marriage doesn't do any of these three things. There are no children to provide for the continuity of society, does not adequately protect and properly nurture children in a relationship, and cannot ensure the legal transfer of property throughout the ages.

Since the MAJORITY of your opposition seems to necessitate "children", it only makes sense you would also oppose marriage by sterile couples, the elderly etc.... So, you come up with a better ARGUMENT that I am NOT able to expose as facist, then I won't DO that. You have, I did. I'm like that. I call bigots bigots, not "racially, gender equity nor ethnical diversity" challenged. Not PC. I'm just not that type of dyke.

And YOU sir are the one so far off the map... you stated: " I stated an indisputable truth--gay couples cannot, medically, have a child naturally, but must adopt or artifically inseminate; that has implications that MUST be addressed. when relating to the purpose of marriage. " So if I substitute the word "gay" for "infertile couple".... where is the difference? Answer. NO difference. I got the concept from YOUR WORDS, I simply applied the SAME CRITERIA to a different group. You don't like it because it shows YOU in a poor light. Either your ideas are facist, or they are poor arguments. Your choice... I don't know.... but I've found, usually, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. ;)



You have some very good points, NONE of which have any bearing on the reality that I stated, and therefore your argument is smoke and mirrors.

When you substitute the word "infertile" for "gay," yes, it appears there is no difference....except for one, which is MY sentence applied to classes, while YOUR sentence applied to individual cases. Any time you make that transition, it is very easy to make someone out to be Hitleresque. My original statement still stands, as it applies to CATEGORIES of marriage (i.e., man & woman vs. gay).

And, yes, my statements do seem to focus on the requirement for children to continue the society. And, yes, as a CLASS, man/woman marriages are MUCH more capable of continuing society through children than gay couples.

Let's rephrase it this way--a man/woman couple would need to adopt or use science to have a child SOME of the time--a gay couple would need to do it ALL of the time.


I'll take that apology now, thank you.





Originally Posted By limaxray:
Once again, that "wooshing" sound was my point going about two miles over your head. The arguments advanced by the GAY community for GAY marriage all focus on the fact that only through marriage can they have access to the health care and property benefits provided to heterosexual couples. I have no doubt that the commitment of gay couples to each other is just as strong as between heterosexual couples, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument. The gay community has made this an argument about benefits....so, I'm just extending the discussion along those lines.



They make the "argument" about "benefits" BECAUSE w/o these points, there would BE no "court case" ... LOSS of some sort must be shown. The STRONGEST case may be made pointing to FINANCIAL losses. The whooshing you heard, sir , was the concept floating over YOUR head. ;) OF COURSE the "gay community" is using the most likely argument that will win the battle. Would YOU go to a gunfight w/a slingshot? I think not. Neither would we. (okay, YES, some of the Twinks WOULD... but that's another argument...) I'm speaking to legal arguments. The "resons" stated are the AR-50's while "love" and all the fuzzy and mushy stuff is like a sling shot.... in LEGAL terms the "fuzzy" stuff is HIGHLY unlikely to win the legal battle, it's the OTHER stuff that has the "teeth".



Originally posted by Limaxray:
No, YOU don't get a banana.....you see, that also holds true for heterosexual marriages; anyone in the family can contest the automatic transfer of property. Remember Anna Nichole Smith?


THANK YOU! For proving MY point! A MARRIAGE by a HET couple (which was MORE likely a SHAM of a marriage than 99% of GLBT relationships) Was held as MORE valid than if Anna was just "boinking" the old coot and THEREFORE she ATTAINED her goal! (IMO, though a dispicable one) Therefore a phobic parental unit who doesn't want the "gay lover" to get even his/her OWN STUFF will have MUCH MORE difficulty in ursurping a LEGAL WILL if legally "sanctioned" marriage is permitted, BECAUSE the two will be SEEN as "immediate family" (husband and husband OR wife and wife). Exactly my point.



So we agree that the only reason the gay community is pulling the country apart is for the money. Thanks!



Originally posted by limaxray:
And, since the gay lifestyle is inherently more risky, from a health care standpoint, than a monogamous marriage (remember that pesky thing called AIDS?), and since those risks spring directly from the behavior of their lifestyle, what they REALLY want is for society to pick up the tab for the consequences of their behavior.



First, ONLY because the "Casanova" that likely initially carried the virus to the states was a VERY pomiscuous GAY man... had it been a very pomiscous STRAIGHT MAN, likely this would NOT be the BS argument it is.... AND I guess I must explain some things to you given the following comments.... but don't worry, the little bigots that are trying to be "real tough men" don't know the difference either....

Homosexuals (this means individuals of one sex being attracted to members of the SAME sex, "homosexual" is not limited to JUST men nor "just" women.... it includes BOTH the gay male and lesbian populations. Typically only used by clinicians and/or bigots, usually, but NOT exclusive to religios bigots, as the "sexual" in homoSEXUAL seems more... "dirty". ;)

Faggots: this is basically a less than complimentary term used to describe gay men.

Dykes: this is basically a less than complimentary term used to describe lesbians.

Gays: While this may be used for either sex, large groups of lesbians prefer "gay" to be used to refer to the "guys" and the term lesbian be used to refer to the women. (DeGeneres didn't get the memo ;)

GLBT: Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered/sexual var: GLBTQ adds "Questioning"

Queer: Easier than saying Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transexual Questioning, .... and so on. CAN be used in a disparaging mmanner, but it's really lost it's "punch" ;)



Not sure if you just called me a religious bigot in this section......if you did, we'll discuss it at a later time.

But, I also noticed you didn't dispute my point.



So then by YOUR logic, LESBIANS are superior then to BOTH straights AND gay men? The # of lesbians who have died of AIDS are in the (barely) double digits.... while heterosexuals are in the hundreds of thousands. And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....



Originally posted by limaxray:
Okay, I'm officially speechless.

Let's review my comment--the GAY community (which, as a group, includes both homosexual and lesbian populations) suffers from AIDS. AIDS is, in general, a behaviorally-transmitted disease. Therefore, the health-care costs the gay (remember, both homosexual and lesbian) community wants society to pick up for them would involve care for this behaviorally spread disease.

And your number of "hundreds of thousands" of heterosexuals with AIDS is a flat-out LIE. That number is in the "thousands" range.
And I am totally lost on your point here: And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....

I'd say you need to be a little clearer before I can properly rebut.



I can't say I'm SURPRISED you got lost. I'll try to type slower and use smaller words ;) (the joke being even if _I_ type slower... get it? ;)



I haven't insulted you personally, while you've already insulted me two, potentially three times; don't take the low road any further, and maybe we can actually discuss this like adults, mkay?


Okay, given available evidence, lesbians are at very little risk of exposure via female-to-female sex. (Of AIDS/HIV). While it may be difficult for women to infect other women with HIV or other STDs, it is not impossible, just highly unlikely. When a dick is involved, the risk INCREASES (for ALL STD's, but especially AIDS and HIV). AND being the "receptive" partner increases risk FURTHER. So what THAT means is while NOT impossible, it is LESS likely for an infected woman (or male "bottom" (not using his dick)) to infect her/his male partner than it is for a positive MALE (actively using his dick) to transmit it to a female (or male) partner.

So WE (lesbians) are forced to support the lifestyles of those w/dicks... which seem to be a LOT of the problem (ignorance and/or irresponsibility the rest).

And Hundreds of thousands is NO LIE... though I _did_ forget YOU were talking the U.S. ONLY, while I tend to think more globally. United States 17,402 (2001 est.) that's AIDS deaths. Of those I'm having difficulty finding the Gay/straight divide... but I'll get it.... I'm confident it's nowhere near 17,000 gay deaths. I'm certain few of those are lesbians who contracted the virus though sex... and yes, we have "druggies" just like you straights do. Might take me a week though, I a. have a life and b. am busy fighting for 2nd amendment rights, for YOU as well as myself.

Worldwide, the scourge is unimaginable. More than 36 million people are infected with the deadly AIDS virus. About 22 million have died -- 3 million deaths just in the year 2000. Sub-Saharan Africa is being decimated, and it's spreading to Asia, to China and India, and through Eastern Europe. tinyurl.com/4nmg3. And the vast majority of those deaths are HETEROSEXUAL in nature.

Edited `cause I mucked up the "quotes" parts.... formatted better now ;)




I stand corrected--yes, I was only thinking of the US, since we were talking about gay marriage here in this country. In this case, we were both right. You are correct that world-wide the heterosexual transmission of AIDS is in the hundreds of thousands.

But it still doesn't change my argument that here in the US AIDS is a behaviorally-spread disease, IN GENERAL limited to the homosexual community, and that one of the arguments to allow gay marriage is so that SOCIETY can pick up the cost of that behavior.

Edited to fix board code--I agree, it's hard to keep all these quotes straight!
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:31:02 PM EST
Me. I'm OK with the ruling. If he rules for the lesbian, he sanctifies the union.
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 8:23:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/7/2004 8:46:29 AM EST by Kacer]

Originally Posted By limaxray:

You're right, the link I posted didn't have what I wanted--I got my links wrong; my apologies. Try this one: www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

The article actually explains why most of the studies showing homosexual parents have no effect on their children aren't scientifically sound.



Again, REAL scientific STUDIES have various components: Typically consisting of: BACKGROUND; OBJECTIVE; DESIGN; RESULTS; and CONCLUSIONS. The example you cite isn't a STUDY, but rather a critique of OTHER studies - flawed studies? Perhaps. But the ORIGINAL point on this was a comment by TacticalMan:

Homosexuality is no more biological than being any other type of criminal. It's a learned behavior, one that can be taught to children by homosexual parents. That's why they should be disqualified.


To which I replied: First, where are the "studies" that prove this opinion? Answer: they don't exist.

And the area you cited (neither time) said squat about homosexuality being, or NOT being biological. Nor do they address gay parents "teaching" their children to be "gay". Those are the studies in Q. Please keep your eye on the ball, and also NOTHING you have referred to is an ACTUAL study.... lots of "opinions" no even pseudo-scientific methodology.



You have some very good points, NONE of which have any bearing on the reality that I stated, and therefore your argument is smoke and mirrors.

When you substitute the word "infertile" for "gay," yes, it appears there is no difference....except for one, which is MY sentence applied to classes, while YOUR sentence applied to individual cases. Any time you make that transition, it is very easy to make someone out to be Hitleresque. My original statement still stands, as it applies to CATEGORIES of marriage (i.e., man & woman vs. gay).

And, yes, my statements do seem to focus on the requirement for children to continue the society. And, yes, as a CLASS, man/woman marriages are MUCH more capable of continuing society through children than gay couples.

Let's rephrase it this way--a man/woman couple would need to adopt or use science to have a child SOME of the time--a gay couple would need to do it ALL of the time.

I'll take that apology now, thank you.



Okay, I'll give you an "A" for persistence, and an "E" for effort, but an "F" for execution. An INFERTILE couple would need to adopt or use to have a child ALL of the time. Hence an "infertile couple" is essentially, per YOUR "argument" in the same boat as a gay or lesbian couple. ONLY a heterosexual infertile couple is NOT bared from marriage. I'm NOT referring to individual cases. I am refering to a "class" of people, INFERTILE heterosexuals. You do NOT seem to have a problem w/THEM marrying, but you do with GLBT folks doing the same. The reasons you CITE for such opposition is basically the infertility of the coupling. (man/man or woman/woman) however you continue to dodge the question of, If it is okay by YOU for infertile hets to marry, then WHAT is the VALID reasoning behind not allowing a gay or lesbian couple from marrying? You keep falling back on semantics... it's just not working. One argument OR the OTHER is invalid. I'm just trying to determine which, in YOUR mind is.

Originally posted by Limaxray:

No, YOU don't get a banana.....you see, that also holds true for heterosexual marriages; anyone in the family can contest the automatic transfer of property. Remember Anna Nichole Smith?


THANK YOU! For proving MY point! A MARRIAGE by a HET couple (which was MORE likely a SHAM of a marriage than 99% of GLBT relationships) Was held as MORE valid than if Anna was just "boinking" the old coot and THEREFORE she ATTAINED her goal! (IMO, though a dispicable one) Therefore a phobic parental unit who doesn't want the "gay lover" to get even his/her OWN STUFF will have MUCH MORE difficulty in ursurping a LEGAL WILL if legally "sanctioned" marriage is permitted, BECAUSE the two will be SEEN as "immediate family" (husband and husband OR wife and wife). Exactly my point.




So we agree that the only reason the gay community is pulling the country apart is for the money. Thanks!


No, YOU state that's the only reason. _I_ on the other hand am stating that the only reson that the courts will LISTEN to (or at least listen to the MOST) is the monetary grounds/portions. Nice try though ;)


Originally posted by limaxray:
Okay, I'm officially speechless.

Let's review my comment--the GAY community (which, as a group, includes both homosexual and lesbian populations) suffers from AIDS. AIDS is, in general, a behaviorally-transmitted disease. Therefore, the health-care costs the gay (remember, both homosexual and lesbian) community wants society to pick up for them would involve care for this behaviorally spread disease.

And your number of "hundreds of thousands" of heterosexuals with AIDS is a flat-out LIE. That number is in the "thousands" range. And I am totally lost on your point here: And since the LESBIAN lifestyle is far LOWER risky (from a healthcare standpoint) than EITHER a straight OR gay male "lifestyle" and since the risks assumed are directly linked to their "behavior" straights really want for ALL of society to pick up the tab for the consequences of THEIR behavior....

I'd say you need to be a little clearer before I can properly rebut.

I can't say I'm SURPRISED you got lost. I'll try to type slower and use smaller words ;) (the joke being even if _I_ type slower... get it? ;)

I haven't insulted you personally, while you've already insulted me two, potentially three times; don't take the low road any further, and maybe we can actually discuss this like adults, mkay?



Okay, given available evidence, lesbians are at very little risk of exposure via female-to-female sex. (Of AIDS/HIV). While it may be difficult for women to infect other women with HIV or other STDs, it is not impossible, just highly unlikely. When a dick is involved, the risk INCREASES (for ALL STD's, but especially AIDS and HIV). AND being the "receptive" partner increases risk FURTHER. So what THAT means is while NOT impossible, it is LESS likely for an infected woman (or male "bottom" (not using his dick)) to infect her/his male partner than it is for a positive MALE (actively using his dick) to transmit it to a female (or male) partner.

So WE (lesbians) are forced to support the lifestyles of those w/dicks... which seem to be a LOT of the problem (ignorance and/or irresponsibility the rest).

And Hundreds of thousands is NO LIE... though I _did_ forget YOU were talking the U.S. ONLY, while I tend to think more globally. United States 17,402 (2001 est.) that's AIDS deaths. Of those I'm having difficulty finding the Gay/straight divide... but I'll get it.... I'm confident it's nowhere near 17,000 gay deaths. I'm certain few of those are lesbians who contracted the virus though sex... and yes, we have "druggies" just like you straights do. Might take me a week though, I a. have a life and b. am busy fighting for 2nd amendment rights, for YOU as well as myself.

Worldwide, the scourge is unimaginable. More than 36 million people are infected with the deadly AIDS virus. About 22 million have died -- 3 million deaths just in the year 2000. Sub-Saharan Africa is being decimated, and it's spreading to Asia, to China and India, and through Eastern Europe. tinyurl.com/4nmg3. And the vast majority of those deaths are HETEROSEXUAL in nature.

Edited `cause I mucked up the "quotes" parts.... formatted better now ;)


I stand corrected--yes, I was only thinking of the US, since we were talking about gay marriage here in this country. In this case, we were both right. You are correct that world-wide the heterosexual transmission of AIDS is in the hundreds of thousands.

But it still doesn't change my argument that here in the US AIDS is a behaviorally-spread disease, IN GENERAL limited to the homosexual community, and that one of the arguments to allow gay marriage is so that SOCIETY can pick up the cost of that behavior.

Edited to fix board code--I agree, it's hard to keep all these quotes straight!



On keeping the board quotes straight - it's a mess, and a challenge! ;)

EVERYWHERE AIDS is a behaviorly spread disease. however, sorry, in 2000 you straights out stripped us queers in the AIDS cases. (in the U.S. - world cases you had us whipped a LONG time ago ;) And as I recall, that trend has continued. 13,562 queers vs. 15,061 straights. Now granted, only 6,530 were sexually transmitted, the other 8,531 were intravenous drug users. Still a het is a het is a het ;) (you MAY have beat us before THAT... it's a challenge finding actual NUMBERS... those I finally found were on the CDC's site. I knew straight cases had surpassed queer transmission.... but couldn't recall when or by how much as being a lesbian I'm not WHOLLY unconcerned, but I'm not AS concerned as I'd be if I were straight, or a gay guy.


Not sure if you just called me a religious bigot in this section......if you did, we'll discuss it at a later time.


Nope. Just letting you know who tended to use what terms so you'd not use verbiage that others might misinterpret is all. I've no idea what you are or are not. I just don't think I'd want you on my "debate team" is all... <shrug>


I haven't insulted you personally, while you've already insulted me two, potentially three times; don't take the low road any further, and maybe we can actually discuss this like adults, mkay?


Look, when you want to relegate ME to second class citizenTHAT to me IS an insult, and it IS personal. However IF I have insulted you that was NOT my intent. "Tweak" you, YES. But that, IMO is what "friendlies" do w/ one another when they disagree. "Tweak" eachother. That's all I intended, if it was taken otherwise I'll try to "lighten it up" ;)

So you'll have a better idea why I may be a bit more "coarse" than I'd prefer. I'm battling it out w/the non-second amendment queers DEFENDING you guys (as human beings), and the 2nd amendment in general, while at the same time being "beat up on" by those I'm defending (you guys). AND if that weren't ENOUGH I gotta defend the twinks and other assorted queers that are beating up on ME for BEING pro-second amendment with YOU guys `cause neither YOU guys NOR the twinks are being FAIR! But my point is, that you aren't making it EASY to defend you as human beings when you WANT a good "scapegoat", and scapegoats NEED to be weaker, and how better to do that than to relegate them (queers) to second class citizenship? So I apologize IF I've said anything that could be easily taken as an insult. I'm just frazzled. And I am NOT a masochist, though I'm doing a very convincing impression of one of late.

Edited in an attept to fix board codes. I think they're NOT all fixed at this point, but I give up ;)
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 11:21:22 AM EST
Kacer--I'm going to try to shortcut our above conversation because the board code on those posts is driving me nuts.

What it really boils down to is this.....I see no reason why gays need special treatment. We, as a society, put limits on marriage--we prevent an adult and a 6-yr old from legally marrying. We also prevent people from marrying more than one other person, animals, or someone whose dead, or marrying fictional personalities. All of those are illegal in the eyes of the law, and with good reason. And yes, I realize not all of these examples involve people or animals who do not have free will, or are not capable of making a decision. (NOTE: please realize that I am not saying that a relationship between two men is morally equivalent to bestiality, or marrying a dead person, etc. I am saying that LEGALLY, all those things are out-of-bounds for us as a society, because of what marriage does FOR that society)

Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, for all the reasons I've listed. Argue all you want about how that COULD play out (as in your case for infertility testing), or how failing to get those rights means being relegated to second-class citizen, or any other way you want to slice it, but what it boils down to to me is YOUR special-interest group wants to change a traditional and legal institution for personal financial gain. While you have told me how traditional marriage can also be for financial gain (and I don't dispute that, my point was that financial gain is the ONLY argument being presented for gay marriage), what you have not done is presented any OTHER reason why the gay community is pushing so hard for marriage.

All of the benefits the gay community says are relegated SOLELY to the legal institution of marriage are available through other legal means, with the exception of health care benefits. Those are also available, just not automatically, and at slightly greater PERSONAL financial cost.

So, if we fold, spindle, and mutilate the institution of marriage for one special interest group, when does it stop? How about when the Bigamists For Justice start whining about their loss of benefits, or when the NAMBLA crazies starts saying it's okay for an adult male to marry a 6-yr old boy? You have to draw the line somewhere,

In short, some things SHOULDN'T change. In my opinion, the institution of marriage is one of them.

As for relegating you to a second-class citizen, I don't see that at all. All of the things marriage provides are available elsewhere, with the exception of financial benefits and the societal stamp of approval which comes with the legal institution of marriage. In fact, I see gays as asking for SPECIAL treatment, outside of the normal bounds of society.

My personal opinion is the gay community is pushing hard for marriage rights because they want to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle on the disagreeing majority of the country. Legalizing gay marriage is a way to get a societal stamp of approval on their lifestyle and behavior.

Unfortunately, I also believe all that's going to do is get the general population even MORE upset at the gay community. I'm already pretty frustrated at the fact that I can't even THINK about critizing the lifestyle without being automatically labelled a homophobe or a bigot, but should gay marriage be approved I will be FORCED to accept the gay lifestyle as a legal equivalent to my own marriage, regardless of my opinion. That's the equivalent of being FORCED to a Christian worship service if you're a Muslim. I have a problem with being FORCED to accept anything.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:04:19 AM EST
limaxray,

Good, I give up on the board code BS too. ;)

The thing is YOUR version of "special treatment" is my version of EQUAL treatment. Why do you see my being able to enjoy the same benefits (and I'm talking emotional, physical, financial, spiritual as well as mental benefits, not JUST financial). YOU are able to enjoy, assuming you are married, or want to be?

Do you realize that the ONLY legal way RIGHT NOW that exists for GLBT people to be permitted to visit eachother in the hospital (if visitation is limited to family, such as in ICU) is for my lover to legally ADOPT ME? So in order to "protect our rights" in being able to have access to eachother in critical situations, SINCE we cannot marry is to basically for the younger to be adopted by the elder of the two. So to "be safe" we have to THEN commit incest, technically. Does THAT seem fair? However, were we permitted to MARRY, we'd be considered "family" automatically, and wouldn't have to circumvent the legal structures designed to descriminate against us.

I have MS (Multiple Sclerosis), right now I'm doing fairly well w/it. My partner has diabetes, and ditto for her. HOWEVER that COULD change, if it does, I have no more legal "right" to see her than YOU would. Yet I adore her, and WERE it legal for us to marry, I'm certain we'd AT LEAST be engaged. You don't even know her. Yet neither of us, in certain situations, would be permitted to see her in the hospital. I can't even attempt to LIE and SAY we're sisters, because she's originally South Korean, I'm Caucasion. MAYBE we'd get some human nurses/docs and MAYBE we'd be able to support eachother in such a case. There COULD be a "wink, wink - nod, nod" situation. However we cannot COUNT on that occurring. And all it takes is one bigoted medical professional, and we'd be s.o.l.

AND in order to receive all the other little BS legal benefiits of a marriage, things you hets take for granted, we'd have to spend around $6,000 in legal fees. (Last I checked, and that was over 8 or 9 years ago, I'm sure the price has gone up).

And not that long ago marriage was "traditionally" between a man and a woman of THE SAME RACE, and interracial marriage was NOT permitted.... now regardless of your feelings about THAT issue, it changed. Shoot woman USED to be considered PROPERTY - that changed. Things change, I know that stresses out you conservative types (yes, I'm a liberal... until it comes to firearms, and fisical responsibility) but change happens, and if it did NOT happen, we'd not grow, neither as individuals, nor as a nation. And growth is a positive (in most cases ;)

And frankly, marriage USED to be STRICTLY and ONLY about the money (I'm talking 1300's and before) it was actually us QUEERS that introduced the concept of romantic love INTO marriage (again sometime in the 1300's or maybe 1400's, I can look it up if you need "proof"). You hets married for $$ then had affairs to satify "love" .... THAT changed. Was that change a GOOD or a BAD thing?

And WE do NOT want to change things for ONLY financial gain.... I love an adore my partner. I wish it were legal to marry her. I definitely want to spend the rest of my life with her. The REASONS (and I keep SAYING this and you KEEP IGNORING it and it's begining to get on my nerves) the REASONS we WANT the right to marry, and the resons PRESENTED in the LEGAL areas of the case differ. We have TRIED to go the "love and honor" route in MANY cases past, MANY, MANY... and since we cannot show "loss" (mainly financial) the LEGAL SYSTEM deems it not worth their time/effort and KICKS the cases! That is the ONLY reason that the "reasons" you see refer ONLY to financial "loss" because that's pretty much all the legal system gives a REAL hoot about. That or physical assault.... and that's not even applicable. ;) You're damning us because we are presenting the best LEGAL argument. And that's not fair, because to do otherwise would insure a loss of our EQUAL rights. To marry who we LOVE.


All of the benefits the gay community says are relegated SOLELY to the legal institution of marriage are available through other legal means, with the exception of health care benefits. Those are also available, just not automatically, and at slightly greater PERSONAL financial cost.


Okay, let's say you and your wife could NOT be legally married (reson doesn't matter, you just CANNOT) so would YOU find it "acceptable" to adopt you wife AS your daughter so that you could visit her in the hospital should the unthinkable occur? THEN if you had children together, those children could NOT benefit from YOUR (through work) health insurance, because THEN you could be prosecuted for getting your daughter pregnant (incest). So your kids would be w/o the financial benefits you SHOULD be permitted to provide, but cannot, unless you do NOT want to be able to be w/her should she be hospitalized. Also you'd have to "hide" your REAL relationship, because otherwise again w/the incest issue.

So YES, we HAVE found legal ways to circumvent the legal BS.... BUT they are NOT acceptable ways, IMO. `Cause THEN the bigoted hets go OFF when they find out that "those 2 (fags/dykes) are "lovers" but did YOU know that the older one ADOPTED the YOUNGER one! How disgusting is that!?! I TOLD you they were perverted!" Nevermind it is our only real legal PROTECTION, but in doing THAT we're also under constant threat of legal action.... NICE way of "keeping us in our place" :/

You're not seeing the OTHER arguments because in the "eyes" of the law, they are invalid reasons for "granting" marriage rights. Does that mean they aren't important to the GLBT community? Hell no. It just means that they aren't important (enough) to the legal system.


In short, some things SHOULDN'T change. In my opinion, the institution of marriage is one of them.


Problem is it HAS changed, on NUMEROUS occasions! Women are no longer property of the "husband", women may now inherit property, and are considered equal in many marriages (and divorces) some women even pay the MAN alimony. Blacks can marry whites, whites can marry latinos (Jeb Bush). AND at the time that was legalized, ONLY 10% of the American population agreed that it SHOULD be changed. With the GLBT issue we have AT LEAST a 40%, possibly as high as in the low 50% of the population for it. The legalization is LONG past due.


As for relegating you to a second-class citizen, I don't see that at all. All of the things marriage provides are available elsewhere, with the exception of financial benefits and the societal stamp of approval which comes with the legal institution of marriage. In fact, I see gays as asking for SPECIAL treatment, outside of the normal bounds of society.


Okay, explain how me marrying the person I love is "special" treatment. Also explain to me how YOU being PERMITTED to marry the person you love WHILE denying ME that SAME right is NOT relegating me to second class citizenship? There's NO "special treatment" it's EQUAL treatment.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:14:57 AM EST
Sorry, I missed this part:


Unfortunately, I also believe all that's going to do is get the general population even MORE upset at the gay community. I'm already pretty frustrated at the fact that I can't even THINK about critizing the lifestyle without being automatically labelled a homophobe or a bigot, but should gay marriage be approved I will be FORCED to accept the gay lifestyle as a legal equivalent to my own marriage, regardless of my opinion. That's the equivalent of being FORCED to a Christian worship service if you're a Muslim. I have a problem with being FORCED to accept anything.


Okay. Let's play the analogy game. Let's even use YOUR analogy. What denying me the "right" to marry is like, is like OUTLAWING all OTHER religions OTHER than the Muslim religion. SO, IF I want to worship, the ONLY way I may worship as a Christian would be to do so is illegally, (in private) as a Christian, OR to go to a Mosque, and "fake it".... and HOW does MY being Christian violate YOUR rights as a Muslim (again, I'm guessing). AND what YOU are saying is like someone in the aformentioned situation saying:"But should Christian worship be approved I will be FORCED to accept the Christian worship as a legal equivalent to my own worship, regardless of my opinion."

Does THAT seem "right" to you?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:03:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 5:12:33 PM EST by limaxray]
.Okay, I'm going to try to keep the board code straight....wish me luck!


Originally Posted By Kacer:
limaxray,

Good, I give up on the board code BS too. ;)

The thing is YOUR version of "special treatment" is my version of EQUAL treatment. Why do you see my being able to enjoy the same benefits (and I'm talking emotional, physical, financial, spiritual as well as mental benefits, not JUST financial). YOU are able to enjoy, assuming you are married, or want to be?



First, a quick answer to the last line-- I am married, been so for 17 years on the 12th.

I think we need to separate "companionship" from "marriage." People live together—and love each other--all the time, without the benefit of marriage. In some states, that arrangement becomes a common-law marriage, but not in all. In short, "companionship"--which includes all the emotional "benefits," for lack of a better term, of marriage that you listed--is readily available to ANYONE outside of the legal institution of marriage. None of those things require the legal institution of marriage to get or keep. So, do you NEED a legal blessing of marriage to get companionship? I say the answer is NO—couples, both heterosexual and gay, have been doing it for centuries. In fact, many people get companionship OUTSIDE of marriage all the time, but then it’s called adultery.


Do you realize that the ONLY legal way RIGHT NOW that exists for GLBT people to be permitted to visit eachother in the hospital (if visitation is limited to family, such as in ICU) is for my lover to legally ADOPT ME? So in order to "protect our rights" in being able to have access to eachother in critical situations, SINCE we cannot marry is to basically for the younger to be adopted by the elder of the two. So to "be safe" we have to THEN commit incest, technically. Does THAT seem fair? However, were we permitted to MARRY, we'd be considered "family" automatically, and wouldn't have to circumvent the legal structures designed to descriminate against us.

I have MS (Multiple Sclerosis), right now I'm doing fairly well w/it. My partner has diabetes, and ditto for her. HOWEVER that COULD change, if it does, I have no more legal "right" to see her than YOU would. Yet I adore her, and WERE it legal for us to marry, I'm certain we'd AT LEAST be engaged. You don't even know her. Yet neither of us, in certain situations, would be permitted to see her in the hospital. I can't even attempt to LIE and SAY we're sisters, because she's originally South Korean, I'm Caucasion. MAYBE we'd get some human nurses/docs and MAYBE we'd be able to support eachother in such a case. There COULD be a "wink, wink - nod, nod" situation. However we cannot COUNT on that occurring. And all it takes is one bigoted medical professional, and we'd be s.o.l.


I will admit that hospital visitations was not something I had thought about as part of the marriage package, and you're right, that is a serious issue.

But I will disagree that this policy was "designed" to discriminate against YOU, or any other group. It was designed to protect the privacy of people in the hospital. Would you want a complete stranger to have the ability to see you at any time in ICU? Without such a policy, that’s exactly what can happen. Now, whether or not that policy can or should change is something else entirely. I agree that it SHOULD, but I don’t think the way to do it is by rewriting what marriage means.

AND in order to receive all the other little BS legal benefiits of a marriage, things you hets take for granted, we'd have to spend around $6,000 in legal fees. (Last I checked, and that was over 8 or 9 years ago, I'm sure the price has gone up).

So it costs you money. My point still stands--those legal benefits are available outside of marriage. If someone wants it bad enough, they’ll figure out how to get it—that’s the American way. But why should the institution of marriage be rewritten because a special-interest group wants some benefits at a discount? Sounds to me like you’re saying “everybody else should pay, because I don’t want to.”

And not that long ago marriage was "traditionally" between a man and a woman of THE SAME RACE, and interracial marriage was NOT permitted.... now regardless of your feelings about THAT issue, it changed. Shoot woman USED to be considered PROPERTY - that changed. Things change, I know that stresses out you conservative types (yes, I'm a liberal... until it comes to firearms, and fisical responsibility) but change happens, and if it did NOT happen, we'd not grow, neither as individuals, nor as a nation. And growth is a positive (in most cases ;)

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, but I will also say that change must be for the right reasons. It was right, morally, to change the laws against interracial marriage, because that is a physical trait, not a behavioral proclivity. The blacks in this country were prevented from participating in society in general with those laws, and were considered less than citizens IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

Unfortunately, that analogy doesn’t work for the gay community. A GLBT has the right to vote, work, own property, firearms, drink/eat/sleep anywhere you want to, etc. In short, the gay community already has all the legal rights our society confers on ALL individuals. You cannot get married, but as I mentioned, that’s not a general right, according to the state—it’s limited in many different ways (for example, bigamy, or adult/child marriage) because of what marriage means to the society.

Look at it from a different angle. Should society have ANY restrictions on the institution of marriage? If the answer is yes, then who determines those restrictions? I say the majority of that society does. Otherwise, you’re talking about exactly the same kind of fascist state you accused me of wanting—testing for infertile couples, etc.

So, what is the moral reason why we must change the institution of marriage to include gays?

And frankly, marriage USED to be STRICTLY and ONLY about the money (I'm talking 1300's and before) it was actually us QUEERS that introduced the concept of romantic love INTO marriage (again sometime in the 1300's or maybe 1400's, I can look it up if you need "proof"). You hets married for $$ then had affairs to satify "love" .... THAT changed. Was that change a GOOD or a BAD thing?

All true. This matches my original post about the legal reasons for marriage. Once again, though, you are confusing the differences between why people get married and why the STATE recognizes marriage. Yes, when people get married, they have announced to the world their love for one another; but to the state, that doesn’t matter—all that matters is the legally binding construct that marriage provides.

And WE do NOT want to change things for ONLY financial gain.... I love an adore my partner. I wish it were legal to marry her. I definitely want to spend the rest of my life with her. The REASONS (and I keep SAYING this and you KEEP IGNORING it and it's begining to get on my nerves) the REASONS we WANT the right to marry, and the resons PRESENTED in the LEGAL areas of the case differ. We have TRIED to go the "love and honor" route in MANY cases past, MANY, MANY... and since we cannot show "loss" (mainly financial) the LEGAL SYSTEM deems it not worth their time/effort and KICKS the cases! That is the ONLY reason that the "reasons" you see refer ONLY to financial "loss" because that's pretty much all the legal system gives a REAL hoot about. That or physical assault.... and that's not even applicable. ;) You're damning us because we are presenting the best LEGAL argument. And that's not fair, because to do otherwise would insure a loss of our EQUAL rights. To marry who we LOVE.

I agree with you that the reasons gays want to marry and the legal issues in court are completely different. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear earlier. Our conversation started with the legal issues, and didn’t touch on the “love, honor and cherish” aspect of gay marriage, so that’s where I have kept going.

I agree that gays want marriage to express their love for one another. I also believe that marriage, in the LEGAL sense, isn’t about love at all. You’re talking about the differences between companionship and marriage again.

To use your example of interracial marriage…..the black community did not try to overturn those laws with the argument that the black community couldn’t have access to their white partner’s money or health care benefits….they did it with the argument that it was morally wrong to prevent someone from marrying—and therefore participating in society—based solely on the color of their skin.

Once again, what is the moral argument to changing the legal institution of marriage to include gays?


All of the benefits the gay community says are relegated SOLELY to the legal institution of marriage are available through other legal means, with the exception of health care benefits. Those are also available, just not automatically, and at slightly greater PERSONAL financial cost.


Okay, let's say you and your wife could NOT be legally married (reson doesn't matter, you just CANNOT) so would YOU find it "acceptable" to adopt you wife AS your daughter so that you could visit her in the hospital should the unthinkable occur? THEN if you had children together, those children could NOT benefit from YOUR (through work) health insurance, because THEN you could be prosecuted for getting your daughter pregnant (incest). So your kids would be w/o the financial benefits you SHOULD be permitted to provide, but cannot, unless you do NOT want to be able to be w/her should she be hospitalized. Also you'd have to "hide" your REAL relationship, because otherwise again w/the incest issue.


Horrible scenario—but the fact of the matter is, since marriage in this society IS designed specifically to allow a man and a woman to deal with just those kinds of issues, it’s like starting a scenario with “lets say the zombies attack.” And that’s my point. Marriage does EXACTLY what it is supposed to. I’m sorry that you’re not included in it, but then again, my taxi driver isn’t included in it either. In the 35 states where common-law marriages are not recognized, the same scenario you mentioned happens for heterosexual couples (without the incest part).

So YES, we HAVE found legal ways to circumvent the legal BS.... BUT they are NOT acceptable ways, IMO. `Cause THEN the bigoted hets go OFF when they find out that "those 2 (fags/dykes) are "lovers" but did YOU know that the older one ADOPTED the YOUNGER one! How disgusting is that!?! I TOLD you they were perverted!" Nevermind it is our only real legal PROTECTION, but in doing THAT we're also under constant threat of legal action.... NICE way of "keeping us in our place" :/

You're not seeing the OTHER arguments because in the "eyes" of the law, they are invalid reasons for "granting" marriage rights. Does that mean they aren't important to the GLBT community? Hell no. It just means that they aren't important (enough) to the legal system.


And they shouldn’t be. The laws simply reflect the morals of the society that passed them. When the society changes its morals, then the laws will change. When we, as a country, decided that the Jim Crow laws were wrong, we changed them. When we decided, as a country, that alcohol was wrong, we passed Prohibition. Then we decided that was a bad idea, so we repealed it. That’s how the system is supposed to work.. And, until society agrees with you, you’re out of luck.

That’s why legislating from the bench bothers so many people—it does not reflect the will of the people, only the will of an activist judge.


In short, some things SHOULDN'T change. In my opinion, the institution of marriage is one of them.


Problem is it HAS changed, on NUMEROUS occasions! Women are no longer property of the "husband", women may now inherit property, and are considered equal in many marriages (and divorces) some women even pay the MAN alimony. Blacks can marry whites, whites can marry latinos (Jeb Bush). AND at the time that was legalized, ONLY 10% of the American population agreed that it SHOULD be changed. With the GLBT issue we have AT LEAST a 40%, possibly as high as in the low 50% of the population for it. The legalization is LONG past due.



Please provide your source that only 10% of Americans agreed that interracial marriages should be allowed.

Yes, marriage has changed. So, let me be more specific—in my opinion, marriage shouldn’t change to meet the desires of the gay community, since those changes don’t significantly right a moral wrong, and don’t support the three reasons of marriage I mentioned earlier.

And if the majority of Americans agree with your position, the put it to a vote….let the population change the law to reflect the new morals of society.

And, no, I don’t think you have anywhere near 50% of the population supporting you.



As for relegating you to a second-class citizen, I don't see that at all. All of the things marriage provides are available elsewhere, with the exception of financial benefits and the societal stamp of approval which comes with the legal institution of marriage. In fact, I see gays as asking for SPECIAL treatment, outside of the normal bounds of society.


Okay, explain how me marrying the person I love is "special" treatment. Also explain to me how YOU being PERMITTED to marry the person you love WHILE denying ME that SAME right is NOT relegating me to second class citizenship? There's NO "special treatment" it's EQUAL treatment.


Simple. Marriage isn’t designed to show love, and it’s not a universal INDIVIDUAL right—it’s a legal construct of the state, that can be withheld by the state for reasons decided by the state.. You can show love without a marriage license. And, since heterosexual non-married couples suffer under the same handicaps you mentioned, that tells me it’s not a condition unique to the gay community. Therefore, equal treatment. You're not a second-class citizen because you still have all the other individual rights of any other citizen.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top