Marriage Equality: we will never give up.

ryynÃ¤nen47 · Jun 3, 2009

I'm not too clear on Prop 8 but I dont understand how the gay marriage question was put to a vote in the first place. Since when do people vote on a civil rights issue?

Clearly Confused, :help:

Ryynänen47

Green Gaia · Jun 3, 2009

waacman said:
Question here: What does a homosexual couple gain by becoming married?

The same thing heterosexuals gain by becoming married.

Green Gaia · Jun 3, 2009

3.14 said:
think he means more of

Assumption of Spouses Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victims Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partners Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partners Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

most of these can be exploited if gay marriage is legalised,
1 kill a person, just marry the witness to shut him/her up
2 want to get out of work? just marry a sick person
3 want someone's money just marry him/her then kill him/her (if neccacery repeat step 1)

You mean the exact same things heterosexuals can do now?

Green Gaia · Jun 3, 2009

ryynänen47;1568822 said:
I'm not too clear on Prop 8 but I dont understand how the gay marriage question was put to a vote in the first place. Since when do people vote on a civil rights issue?

Clearly Confused, :help:

Ryynänen47

Good question. When you found the answer, let me know. You're right in that a group's civil rights shouldn't be voted on by the public.

Storm · Jun 3, 2009

waacman said:
Question here: What does a homosexual couple gain by becoming married? This is an honest question, I really mean no offence, because it seems like homosexual people that talk about this are mainly concerned with the "loss of their freedom". Is it that fact that you are being denied the rights you think your deserve (of being able to marry) or is it some other reason i.e. financial, benefits, etc? Pardon my ingnorance on this part of the issue, the question just actually occured to me

Benefits of Marriage

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

The thing is, even when a state goes all the way and grants us marriage, it's still unequal. We're denied federal benefits due to DOMA.

3.14 · Jun 3, 2009

yes, and with a 100% increase of the marryable people the amount of expliotation will also increase, and since gay's don't care how they get the right it will become increasingly easy to exploit it

Green Gaia · Jun 3, 2009

3.14 said:
yes, and with a 100% increase of the marryable people the amount of expliotation will also increase, and since gay's don't care how they get the right it will become increasingly easy to exploit it

And why do you think gays will exploit this more than heterosexuals already do?

Magic Man · Jun 3, 2009

3.14 said:
yes, and with a 100% increase of the marryable people the amount of expliotation will also increase, and since gay's don't care how they get the right it will become increasingly easy to exploit it

That makes sense. Something has a down side, so we should only allow some people to have it to minimize the problems it causes. Airplanes have a big down side. Should we be selective on how many we use or who we let use them? That way we can minimize the problems that occur due to them.

You're really too much. You're trying way too hard to rationalize this. Then again, you have to try pretty hard because your position is not rational or logical.

The Voice of Reason · Jun 3, 2009

3.14 said:
yes, and with a 100% increase of the marryable people the amount of expliotation will also increase, and since gay's don't care how they get the right it will become increasingly easy to exploit it

So, since it is obvious that such exploitation really grates on you, can I expect to see you starting threads championing the elimination of marriage for everyone? Heterosexuals are currently exploiting each other and the system.

Your position gets more indefensible with every post you make. You would be better off to simply refrain from posting in threads that require a logical defense.

painted wolf · Jun 3, 2009

yes, and with a 100% increase of the marryable people the amount of expliotation will also increase, and since gay's don't care how they get the right it will become increasingly easy to exploit it

that has to be one of the oddest arguments I've heard....

wa:do

The Voice of Reason · Jun 3, 2009

painted wolf said:
that has to be one of the oddest arguments I've heard....

wa:do

You are too generous, Painted Wolf. Classifying that ramble of a thought as an argument is a miscarriage of justice.

waacman · Jun 3, 2009

While 3.14 might not have a great point on the issue of exploits, if ever the Federal Government made homosexual civil unions legal, wouldn't there be a rush to get these done. Initially this would probably create more jobs. More paperwork=more employees, which would be a good thing. I would be interested to know what type of strain that would do on the current system and the long term affects? While I disagree with homosexuality on moral grounds, I find it difficult to make the decision of whether to allow a behavior I disagree with to continue by allowing it to trickle down into an economic environment as well. Oh, and thanks to those who posted those benefits one would recieve if legalized civil unions occur for homosexuals. It's been eye opening on both fronts.

painted wolf · Jun 3, 2009

it's more economic than just paper pushing... marriage is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Far from straining things it would be the sort of economic jolt this country could desperately use.

wa:do

Magic Man · Jun 3, 2009

waacman said:
While I disagree with homosexuality on moral grounds, I find it difficult to make the decision of whether to allow a behavior I disagree with to continue by allowing it to trickle down into an economic environment as well.

Yeah, you don't even have to approve of it morally. The thing is that it doesn't hurt anyone, at least not in a real-world kind of way (meaning with effects that everyone can see). It's like atheism for you. You don't agree with it, but there's no good reason to make it illegal.

Also, remember that you're not deciding whether or not to allow the behavior to continue. Homosexuals are going to continue to have relationships regardless of whether or not they can marry legally, just as they've done up until now.

Oh, and thanks to those who posted those benefits one would recieve if legalized civil unions occur for homosexuals. It's been eye opening on both fronts.

Thanks to you for being open-minded and honest about the issue. I understand that it goes against your morality, and I'm glad you can get past that and look at it at least somewhat objectively.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 3, 2009

3.14 said:
yes, and with a 100% increase of the marryable people the amount of expliotation will also increase, and since gay's don't care how they get the right it will become increasingly easy to exploit it

That's rubbish.

If people are really is interested in marrying as part of a scam or a criminal enterprise, they can do it already. Exactly how many people out there do you think can't find an opposite-sex co-conspirator? How many of these do you think would be able to find a same-sex co-conspirator?

waacman said:
While 3.14 might not have a great point on the issue of exploits, if ever the Federal Government made homosexual civil unions legal, wouldn't there be a rush to get these done. Initially this would probably create more jobs. More paperwork=more employees, which would be a good thing. I would be interested to know what type of strain that would do on the current system and the long term affects?

In what way?

I'm not sure how long term you define "long term" to be, but same-sex marriage has been legal here in Canada for several years now and it's generally business as usual. There might be marginally more demand for certain wedding venues, and a small number of entrepreneurs now make a good living catering specifically to wedding planning for same-sex couples, but I have not personally seen or read about any sort of strain on any public or private system as a result of same-sex marriage.

Kilgore Trout · Jun 3, 2009

waacman said:
While 3.14 might not have a great point on the issue of exploits, if ever the Federal Government made homosexual civil unions legal, wouldn't there be a rush to get these done. Initially this would probably create more jobs. More paperwork=more employees, which would be a good thing. I would be interested to know what type of strain that would do on the current system and the long term affects?

Strain on what? It took us 15 minutes to get our marriage license. It's not like you're building a long-span bridge.

If anything, it will pump a lot more money into the economy through wedding-related businesses.

waacman · Jun 3, 2009

I'm talking about that sudden of a change. Crazy stuff happens when things change too quickly. Perhaps a state by state is best?

themadhair · Jun 3, 2009

waacman said:
Crazy stuff happens when things change too quickly.

On this issue I fail to see the problem with a change happening 'too quickly'.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 3, 2009

waacman said:
I'm talking about that sudden of a change. Crazy stuff happens when things change too quickly. Perhaps a state by state is best?

Why? Exactly what do you think will happen if same-sex marriage is legalized quickly?

And don't you think there would be problems with legalizing same-sex marriage one state at a time? Why would it be good for (to pull states out of the air) someone in Kentucky to have less rights than someone in Ohio, even if it's only for a while? And in that interim period while some states recognize same-sex marriage and others don't, wouldn't there be violations of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution all over the place?

Also, how would things work between the federal and state level? IMO, it would be a bizarre situation if, say, a US citizen could sponsor their same-sex spouse for immigration purposes, but their marriage wasn't recognized in the state where they make their home.

waacman · Jun 3, 2009

I'm just concerned, thats all. You might fail to see it, but there is enough history to take the issue seriously. Perhaps it might seem small, but you're introducing an entirely new set of standards/rules/regulations into a society that has never really "had" them before. This is America, but you never know.

Marriage Equality: we will never give up.

Little Old Heathen Lady

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Reaper of Conversation

Doctor of Thinkology

Grey Muzzle

Doctor of Thinkology

Restoration of everything

Grey Muzzle

Reaper of Conversation

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Misanthropic Humanist

Restoration of everything

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Restoration of everything