|
1 registered (1 invisible),
11
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Unregistered users may only post in the handyman forum. If you register, you may post in any forum and use of CAPTCHA code is not required.
|
|
|
#724987 - 08/18/12 01:33 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: Uncle_Alvah]
|
Search and Rescue
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 20800
Loc: Somewhere under the sun
|
may stand corrected but I was under the impression that, in the states that provide for them, "Civil Unions" provided all the same "perks" as a "marriage". Is that not the purpose of these legal unions?????
Only perks are what the state offers, which "could" include things like power of attorney over health care issues, hospital visitation rights, etc. But no perks through the govt like federal tax breaks, social security & medicare benefits, etc.. And no gauranteed benefits through employee health care insurance, FMLA leave for spouse, etc.
_________________________
Life is about using the whole box of crayons!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#724989 - 08/18/12 01:51 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: dora]
|
Handyman
Registered: 01/19/08
Posts: 1000
Loc: Connecticut, USA
|
To offer those same legal rights, to couplings which can never produce a new generation, is not an expense I am willing to pay. I wish to receive value for my money. Again, according to this thought process then NO one should be allowed to be married and get any of the tax advantages unless they produce children. Really, that's really what you think justifies marriage Hmmm, Me thinks your entire argument/justification is really a front for your biases which is discrimination. Really! Think as you like, and invent totally impractical ("No one should be allowed" etc.) extensions to what I have stated. However, I note that no one here has offered any other reason for governments subsidizing marriage. They subsidize it as an incentive to establish a sound atmosphere for the raising of the next generation. Doesn't always work, but that's the reason. And, I haven't called you any names, or attacked your integrity, I don't think your attack on me (biases, discrimination) was called for.
_________________________
Fred
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#724990 - 08/18/12 01:55 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: FredDwyer]
|
veteran
Registered: 03/21/04
Posts: 1538
|
Then you must believe that a man and woman who can't produce children should not be allowed to marry.
No, that is not something I "must believe." It is a reasonable assumption that a marriage between a man and a woman may produce children. Look around, I think you'll see that it does happen frequently. To be consistent in your thought process, you would believe that the only reason to be allowed to be married would be if you could prove that you can produce children. As an aside, what about lesbian couples? One or both of them could give birth to quite a large family if they wanted. Why would you not want them to be married? You believe marriage is only for people who can produce a family, don't you? In fact, look around, you'll see that lesbian couples have their own children quite frequently. Also, there are gay men who are fathers. It happens more than you probably want to believe.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#724992 - 08/18/12 02:23 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: Joe_Guy]
|
Handyman
Registered: 01/19/08
Posts: 1000
Loc: Connecticut, USA
|
Then you must believe that a man and woman who can't produce children should not be allowed to marry.
No, that is not something I "must believe." It is a reasonable assumption that a marriage between a man and a woman may produce children. Look around, I think you'll see that it does happen frequently. To be consistent in your thought process, you would believe that the only reason to be allowed to be married would be if you could prove that you can produce children. As an aside, what about lesbian couples? One or both of them could give birth to quite a large family if they wanted. Why would you not want them to be married? You believe marriage is only for people who can produce a family, don't you? In fact, look around, you'll see that lesbian couples have their own children quite frequently. Also, there are gay men who are fathers. It happens more than you probably want to believe. No, to be consistent in my thought process I only need to believe that historically those who governed thought financial incentives for marriage, would result in a better protected new generation. Yes, female homosexual pairings often do include children, as do some male homosexual pairings (more than I want to believe??) I just don't see that enfolding them into the ranks of the "married" with the financial perks and legal responsibilities that would entail, is of any benefit to society. I think at this point, we can agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughts.
_________________________
Fred
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#725003 - 08/18/12 03:49 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: FredDwyer]
|
Search and Rescue
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 20800
Loc: Somewhere under the sun
|
I didn't call you any names Fred, not one. I said I felt you have discrimanatory biases towards your fellow human beings that happen to be different than you. So tell me if I'm wrong. And I never mentioned your integrity but if that attacks your integrity then I'd think about changing your ways.
_________________________
Life is about using the whole box of crayons!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#725005 - 08/18/12 04:44 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: FredDwyer]
|
veteran
Registered: 03/21/04
Posts: 1538
|
I think at this point, we can agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughts.
I accept your offer to agree to disagree. But I would like to comment on this -
I just don't see that enfolding them into the ranks of the "married" with the financial perks and legal responsibilities that would entail, is of any benefit to society.
Any law that gives equal rights to people, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, etc is good for society. Disallowing a legal right or legal benefit to a couple because of their sexual orientation is clearly discrimination. Discrimination: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment You aren't obligated to reply, but I offer my thoughts for others to respond if they are so inclined
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#725007 - 08/18/12 05:09 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: Joe_Guy]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/28/01
Posts: 27380
Loc: Eagle, CO USA
|
Equal rights for odd sexual orientation? How about equal rights for murderers and child molesters? It's all a matter of what you consider normal human rights.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#725020 - 08/18/12 07:35 PM
Re: Shooting at Pro-Family Headquarters
[Re: Bob_Fleming]
|
veteran
Registered: 03/21/04
Posts: 1538
|
Equal rights for odd sexual orientation? How about equal rights for murderers and child molesters? It's all a matter of what you consider normal human rights. Please explain what murderers and child molesters have in common with homosexuals.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
