Features

kahljorn · #51

Quote:

If you are against gay marriage, answer this same question and please tell us HOW they could possibly affect you, your family or your marriage (or relationship / possible future marriage if your not married).

I said this in something like the second post in this thread but anyway, "I can name a few differences, though. if you give everyone the same benefits as straight people, then tax/insurance and other benefits will cease to be as good. Insurance companies couldn't afford to give homos the same benefits as heterosexuals so the insurance will NATURALLY have to adjust the way they distribute their benefits. Thus, an actual affect which heterosexuals could suffer at the hands of homosexual marriage."

Dimnos · #52

I wasnt aiming that question at you. I know your answer to that one. But... to an insurance company or even the IRS your just a name on a file that sends them money. Your gender or sexual orientation doesnt play into rates or tax bracket. If they pick up 100 new married couples they are still going to take your money then deny coverage when you need it weather your straight or gay.

10,000 Volt Ghost · #53

From working in the insurance industry there wouldn't have to be that much of a change actually. A lot of companies already offer "Partner" benefits that are they same coverage as if they are married.

Tax breaks might be an issue.

Neen · #54

Aren't gays, like, only a small margin of the population? Wouldn't Insurance have to compensate for the growing population (straights' fault, there) anyway? Households with an excess of childeren are a bigger drain on taxes/insurance than a handful of poofters; outlaw those.

kahljorn · #55

Quote:

A lot of companies already offer "Partner" benefits that are they same coverage as if they are married.

Well, then gay people have options. So what are they bitching about? I mean really, what rights and benefits are they ultimately being denied?

Quote:

Households with an excess of childeren are a bigger drain on taxes/insurance than a handful of poofters; outlaw those.

We need excess children, though, especially right now with our type of demographic growth. Gay married people don't do anything for society other than be happy or maybe adopt children. We don't need them. That's why you give people rights and benefits, so that they can fulfill some sort of social obligation. What social obligation do gay people fulfill?

i don't really know about them being a small margin of society, though. But it's not really a matter of if they are a small margin of society, but what margin they would be of married couples.

Dimnos · #56

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

That's why you give people rights and benefits, so that they can fulfill some sort of social obligation. What social obligation do gay people fulfill?

Really now?

kahljorn · #57

yep.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap226.htm

one example ;/

Notice it talks about privilege. Is marriage a right or a privilege? that was just the first thing that came up when i typed "rights and duties"

Quote:

The fulfillment of duty by each individual is a prerequisite to the rights of all. Rights and duties are interrelated in every social and political activity of man. While rights exalt individual liberty, duties express the dignity of that liberty

Dr. Boogie · #58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

I'm not likening gay marriage to bestiality - but you tell me - where does it end?

Just past allowing consenting adults being allowed to marry each other, and just short of allowing adults to marry children, animals, and inanimate objects.

Colonel Flagg · #59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

Be careful about likening gay marriage to bestiality. The last guy who did that publicly wound up getting his name turned into a synonym for anal leakage.

In a strange, sick way, I miss Senator "Frothy Mixture".

Dr. Boogie · #60

There will always be someone else to create amusing Daily Show/Colbert Report clips.

Tadao · #61

This thread is so gay.

kahljorn · #62

Quote:

Just past allowing consenting adults being allowed to marry each other, and just short of allowing adults to marry children, animals, and inanimate objects.

Its easy to say that, but more difficult to give a reason why it should stop there if it doesn't stop at homosexuals and group marriages. People say, "LET THE HOMOSEXUALS HAVE WHAT THEY WANT AND BE HAPPY." Well, why not let people who are in to bestiality have what they want and be happy?

As for consenting adults, a man could marry 50 consenting women. Is there anything wrong with that?

Why shouldn't "adults" be able to marry mature "adolescents"? The only reason most people can think of is because the law says that adults can't fuck children (and they can't enter legally binding contracts...). Well, WHAT IF THEY DONT FUCK THEM until they are 18? Are all marriages about sex?
And the law isn't really a viable means to assess competency and the ability to consent, so maybe some adolescents should have the right to be able to marry

Colonel Flagg · #63

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

We need excess children, though, especially right now with our type of demographic growth. Gay married people don't do anything for society other than be happy or maybe adopt children. We don't need them. That's why you give people rights and benefits, so that they can fulfill some sort of social obligation. What social obligation do gay people fulfill?

So does that mean that an infertile couple will also be denied the right to be "married"?

Or is OK because they have the right set of "parts" and they just don't work right? Careful with this argument, it earned me a "C" on my final thesis paper in Philosophy 101.

The institution of marriage is one that has transcended the church, and has become part of the legal establishment. In this regard, I believe that the GLBT community is being denied a right that is afforded to heterosexual couples merely on the basis of orientation. Plain and simple, this is discrimination, it's repugnant and it has no place in our society.

Unfortunately, there it is.

Colonel Flagg · #64

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao

This thread is so gay.

10,000 Volt Ghost · #65

I guess we should just send them all to Monster Island then.

edit: Monster Peninsula

kahljorn · #66

Quote:

Careful with this argument, it earned me a "C" on my final thesis paper in Philosophy 101.

That's because you said gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't procreate. Not that we shouldn't stop having lots of children because they fulfill a social need, which is what somebody proposed.

I think that calling anti same sex marriage supporter discriminatory, prejudicial or any other negatively loaded word is wrong. Quite frankly, your philosophy professor would have probably accused you of a circumstantial/abusive ad hominem and been done with it ;o

Again, homosexuals aren't really being denied any rights. Its just that the right does not entail them being able to marry whoever they want. Its just like the right to free speech, if you're inciting a riot with hate speech and somebody slaps your mouth and hauls you off to jail, your right to free speech hasn't been infringed. Hate speech isn't protecting by the right to free speech. kind of accidenty...

DeadKennedys · #67

Quote:

A union by any other name is a union. As long as it's recognized by the state who fucking cares what it's called? Gays don't give a shit if you call it a Marriage or a Civil Union or MoMatrimony. They want their rights.

So yeah, sounds like you are on board. What was all that previous prattle about? You're concerned about semantics?

Basically, yeah. I'm 100% on board and I'll always support rights for gay people. It's just the principle of the name of marriage. I understand that it can be amended, but I'd just be happier if it wasn't.

Neen · #68

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

We need excess children, though, especially right now with our type of demographic growth. Gay married people don't do anything for society other than be happy or maybe adopt children. We don't need them. That's why you give people rights and benefits, so that they can fulfill some sort of social obligation. What social obligation do gay people fulfill?

i don't really know about them being a small margin of society, though. But it's not really a matter of if they are a small margin of society, but what margin they would be of married couples.

People with 5+ kids aren't doing society a favor, they're homogenizing the gene pool, and that's no good. And some fertile couples opt out of childeren altogether, not just infertile ones. By your definition, they're the worst offenders.

10,000 Volt Ghost · #69

Is anyone actually gay or interested in the same sex in this thread? Just wondering.

kahljorn · #70

it takes more than five children to homogenize the gene pool. And besides that, isn't there often more genetic variation between siblings than between the parents?

Quote:

And some fertile couples opt out of childeren altogether, not just infertile ones. By your definition, they're the worst offenders.

I'll get back to this in a second. It's kind of a good point, except that I was pointing to an affect that homosexual marriage has on heterosexual marriages (since people say that there isn't even one), you brought up children having a similar affect, and I mentioned that children are necessary for society whereas gay marriage is not. I did not say that children justify marriage.

Tadao · #71

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10,000 Volt Ghost

Is anyone actually gay or interested in the same sex in this thread? Just wondering.

Ssush you! We are trying to decide what is best for them.

kahljorn · #72

I'm transsexual and I've been with guys and girls ;/

Neen · #73

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

it takes more than five children to homogenize the gene pool. And besides that, isn't there often more genetic variation between siblings than between the parents?

I talking later on. If their childeren follow suit, that's working with exponentials. And seeing that families this big are out of the norm, that really bucks the genetic ratio.

Quote:

I'll get back to this in a second. It's kind of a good point, except that I was pointing to an affect that homosexual marriage has on heterosexual marriages (since people say that there isn't even one), you brought up children having a similar affect, and I mentioned that children are necessary for society whereas gay marriage is not. I did not say that children justify marriage.

Fair enough, but you bring importance of giving back to the whole. Many different lifestyles are in effect not best for the whole, but it follows the persuit of freedom and all that jazz.