Homosexual Marriage

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone, Freeman. So don't get your panties in a wad. I'll be back, around mid-May, but for now am engaged in a project that is sapping my time like never before. In the meantime, I think the above article pretty much illustrates one of my key arguments - that once we legalize same-sex marriage, then the entire system is compromised to the point where it's absurd to offer benefits to anyone. In this case, a school legalized same-sex partner benefits, only to find that roommates were applying for the benefits when they weren't even engaged in a relationship - to the point where it became rampant. So the school now absurdly requires that partner benefits are only granted to those who file an affadavit of sexual activity. So once again, I ask - why is sexual activity a requirement for gay people to collect benefits? Gay sexual unions are meaningless when it comes to the school - in other words, the school is not affected in the least by homosexual intercourse. Surely you people see the absurdity in all of this, right? Regardless of your emotion-laden responses, I'll be back soon enough. Hopefully by then you'll have a real argument.

One proposal when the City of Colorado Springs was considering such things was to include benefits for one adult other than the employee plus dependent children. Such benefits would be offered at the marginal cost of insurance to add another person. That person could be a spouse, significant other, parent, any other adult that the employee had a formal relationship with.

I see this as ultimately fair. If a couple has both people working and an elderly parent needs insurance, they could obtain it. If a same sex couple wishes benefits, it would be available. If roommates had one person who didn't have insurance available through their employer, group insurance would be made available to them.

Such a proposal could be set up such that it didn't cost the employer anything more, as I said, marginal costs would be paid by the employee. But, it would make group rate insurance available to other people who otherwise might not have insurance. This would address a number of concerns that people have with the uninsured and underinsured.

This seems like a great solution to a number of issues to me.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Dirty Name And again, you would be wrong. The meaningful connection can be found in welfare statistics, where out-of-wedlock births are the primary source of drag on our welfare system. SMACK. Wake up.

Which is exactly why we should allow more forms of marriage. Allowing a greater variety in the form of marriage, including gay marriage, will reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births, and adoptions and other forms of child rearing, by increasing the number of married couples eligible for the benefits of the marriage contract.

By your point, gay marriages should be encouraged.

Keith

[underbear1]

I see by the last several pages this thread resurrected, and it's exactly as I left it, a paid opinon, driving all of the arguments to his desire to keep stirring his same old arguments.Been on this merry-go-round, and it turned out not very productive or enjoyable, and the only one gaining, is the one getting paid to keep it turning.

[Morgan_Freeman]

underbear, that's because no one on our side has produced any evidence. Dirty Name has made a claim, a perfectly valid one, and it's up to us to refute it. To do that, you need cold hard facts, not emotion.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman underbear, that's because no one on our side has produced any evidence. Dirty Name has made a claim, a perfectly valid one, and it's up to us to refute it. To do that, you need cold hard facts, not emotion.

Which claim is that? that it's no different than growing soy beans or corn? Maybe it's the totally unproven "facts"that a male and female couple make superior parents? It's always the same old tired shit, been done 50 times on these pages, at least.

[italiangm]

Quote by: italiangm January 19, 2006 Dying Officer Again Turned Down on Benefits for Companion By DAMIEN CAVE

This decision was reversed. See more at http://www.volconvo.com/forums/thread8891.html

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: underbear1 Which claim is that? that it's no different than growing soy beans or corn? Maybe it's the totally unproven "facts"that a male and female couple make superior parents? It's always the same old tired shit, been done 50 times on these pages, at least.

I guess you haven't actually read the thread.

The claim is that no one is denied the right to contract by the legal institution of marriage.
If that's true, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Aquietguy1 Besides the Consttution, each state has it's own contitution. Every state constitution says that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and thats the way it should be.

Incorrect. Not all state constitutions have this requirement. Massachusetts is one that doesn't. There are many more.

Quote by: Aquietguy1 Also, the people have spoken. Every time the people were aloud to vote on same sex marriages, they voted against it.

People voted to outlaw liquor by constitutional amendment then voted to rescind it. It was bad law that restricted personal liberty.

An argument could and will be made that any state constitutional amendment restricting marriage to just a man and a woman also goes against the US constitution's concepts of personal liberty. States must offer compelling reasons for such restrictions. "I don't like it" or "my religion says so" just ain't good enough reasons in the US.

[underbear1]

By the time this thread settles the matter, all the young gay or lesbian couples interested in marriage, will have MIGRATED to another country.

AmeriKa's LOSS!

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: underbear1 By the time this thread settles the matter, all the young gay or lesbian couples interested in marriage, will have MIGRATED to another country.

If you are more willing, or more capable, of emigrating to another country rather than presenting a valid argument for your case, that's fine with me. The last thing we need around here is more dogma.

[underbear1]

I'm ancient (in gay years), and neither my lover or I have the least interest in marriage.
Those that are young,capable, and have the means to earn their living elsewhere, I'd encourage them to run for the border.Just the same as I'd tell queers and Jews in the old Soviet Union, to run quickly while it's possible.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: underbear1 I'm ancient (in gay years), and neither my lover or I have the least interest in marriage. Those that are young,capable, and have the means to earn their living elsewhere, I'd encourage them to run for the border.Just the same as I'd tell queers and Jews in the old Soviet Union, to run quickly while it's possible.

Oh brother... And go to where? No, lemme guess: Canada. That mecca of social justice that liberals constantly talk about moving to, but never actually seem to actually find their way there....

[underbear1]

Belgium, Netherlands, Spain all have legal marriages for same sex couples. Most other EVOLVED Western nations have domestic partners/ civil unions. For Christ sakes even South Africa is ahead of the US in gay rights.So whether you think it's wise or not, there are many choices for American ex patriots.

Many African American artists and musicians chose to go live in Europe in the 1950's and 1960's because they were treated with more respect there. Also many inter-racial married couples during those decades decided to live outside the United States, especially in Paris. So this may not be forever for these ex patriots to be away,maybe just a couple decades.But I sure understand the motivation to be treated as EQUALS, for the first f*ckin time in their lives!

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: underbear1 Belgium, Netherlands, Spain all have legal marriages for same sex couples. Most other EVOLVED Western nations have domestic partners/ civil unions. For Christ sakes even South Africa is ahead of the US in gay rights.

There's no such thing as a "right to be married". If a country was truly "evolved", they wouldn't have marriage, civil unions, or any other such nonsense to begin with.

[underbear1]

They are evolved enough to give ALL their citizens EQUAL choices.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: underbear1 They are evolved enough to give ALL their citizens EQUAL choices.

True, but equality in and of itself is meaningless.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quote by: underbear1 They are evolved enough to give ALL their citizens EQUAL choices. True, but equality in and of itself is meaningless.

Spoken like some one who's never been UNEQUAL.
It's a helluva START ! Empires have been destoyed for less.

[PatrickHenry]

Homosexual stuff other than marriage can get off this thread please...

You two take it to PM or risk gettin spanked.

[Matt W]

Agreed. Stay on-topic.

Do not respond to me in this thread. PM myself or Sean if you have any questions.

[B/right]

Should be NO discustion on this topic any further......Mariage is between two or more person's, companies, or countries and the LAW is very clear.

Very simple....But I d not agree with GAY person's being married under the stat as same as hetro marriage...But the Law is The Law.........unless You want to change the whole statuted regarding the FULL interpertatianion of MARAGE....Leave the form....The Argument is the meaning of the WORD and not the when it should be applied.