Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 02:31 AM
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 09:25 PM)
Our laws are set up for domestic partnerships. Children are not a commodity, nor should they be mass produced.
Never heard of a three or more member partnership?
And where did anyone, besides you, say anytihing about mass producing children? Well maybe Catholics and Muslims.
SpaceCowboy
Oct 2 2004, 02:31 AM
Welcome to SherryB.!
More and more, the old gang is getting here.
Power to the pipples!
Ward
Oct 2 2004, 02:31 AM
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 07:17 PM)
Well, they exist, social acceptance should be a given.
Why should a heterosexual couple get more consideration than any other couple, regardless of age, race, or sex?
For the same reason you think monogamy merits more consideration than polygamy. Tradition.
QUOTE
Why cling to social structures that are largely unsucessful (see the divorce rate), and discriminate against an increasing number of new ones?
Why force equivalancy of same-sex marriages upon an unwilling public when we know same-sex marriages are not a viable model for raising non-troubled kids?
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 02:32 AM
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 09:27 PM)
Maybe you ought to source your outlandish assertions.
How did you miss it? After all this time you still can't tell when you are being set up by someone who already knows the
facts?
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 02:35 AM
QUOTE (Ward @ Oct 1 2004, 09:28 PM)
For the same reason you think monogamy merits more consideration than polygamy. Tradition.
Why force equivalancy of same-sex marriages upon an unwilling public when we know same-sex marriages are not a viable model for raising non-troubled kids?
Why try to force society to be accepting of such a change in the first place? In these other societies people are so fond of referencing, their stuff didn't happen just overnight.
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Oct 1 2004, 09:11 PM)
a group of people with a socially defined relationship THAT MAY INVOLVE sexual possession rights, joint economic property rights, and intergenerational property rights, whether they are biologically connected or not Ok, how does that look? To me, it doesn't look good. The point is that a definition of "social relationship X" cannot be so totally inclusive as to include practically anything. And, with all due respect, what you call "orgies" (is that what you think polygamy is about?) is, technically, definable as an arrangement of enforceable sexual/erotic possession rights.
What
MUST said socially defined relationship involve to be accepted as family in, say, law?
2 adults cohabitating in the same residence commited for life together.
Keep it simple.
davis¹³
Oct 2 2004, 02:36 AM
That is a weird dancing cat Katz.
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 02:37 AM
Stay away from my kitties, dog catcher.
QUOTE (Ward @ Oct 1 2004, 09:20 PM)
Yes, but the incidence of some dysfunctional traditionally configured families is not justification for demanding widespread social acceptance of equvilancy for a controversial new form of family arrangement.
It is neither new, nor particularly controversial. It is reality. It is time to end the discrimination.
Loclynn
Oct 2 2004, 02:39 AM
QUOTE (Repub_Bub @ Oct 1 2004, 07:22 PM)
I evidently did not express my point adequately....Simply was taken aback by your willing acceptance of processes that could radically impact our present society....legal acceptance of gay marriage.
My point is extremely simple....just a matter of where, when, and by whom are the lines to be drawn. The more and the more quickly we push the lines outward...the less definition the line will have.
Simply put, the notion that something is outrageous today certainly doesn't preclude it from being tomorrow's banality.
Agreed. That, and the preceeding twenty or so posts is why I feel that the government should leave this alone. As soon as an ammendment is passed, the courts will be tied up for the forseeable future trying to interpret the law, and deal with all the discrimination cases that will surely follow. Also, it is still a state's right; Doma has still not been challenged.
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 02:39 AM
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 09:35 PM)
It is neither new, nor particularly controversial. It is reality. It is time to end the discrimination.
Give it another 50 to 100 years and it might be accepted. In the meantime try not to let it upset you so much.
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Oct 1 2004, 09:29 PM)
How did you miss it? After all this time you still can't tell when you are being set up by someone who already knows the
facts?My correction of your statement appears to be correct.
Thanks for making that clear.
Quite obviously a form of commitment is needed which is what I contended in the first place
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 02:45 AM
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 09:41 PM)
My correction of your statement appears to be correct.
Thanks for making that clear.
Quite obviously a form of commitment is needed which is what I contended in the first place
My statement was perfectly correct and
factual
as well.
Ward
Oct 2 2004, 02:57 AM
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 07:35 PM)
It is neither new, nor particularly controversial. It is reality. It is time to end the discrimination.
Bee, you have a point in that traditional marriages are not working out that well anymore. I am not opposed to new attempts at family arrangements. I just don’t see why favoring monogamy is any less of a discriminatory prejudice than favoring heterosexuality.
Homosexual marriage still leaves 3-ways, polygamists, and lesbian communes discriminated against.
Try to imagine your distaste for 3-ways and polygamy becoming part of the mainstream for the distaste 40% of Americans have for mainstreaming same-sex marriages.
QUOTE (Ward @ Oct 1 2004, 09:54 PM)
Bee, you have a point in that traditional marriages are not working out that well anymore. I am not opposed to new attempts at family arrangements. I just don’t see why favoring monogamy is any less of a discriminatory prejudice than favoring heterosexuality.
Homosexual marriage still leaves 3-ways, polygamists, and lesbian communes discriminated against.
Try to imagine your distaste for 3-ways and polygamy becoming part of the mainstream for the distaste 40% of Americans have for mainstreaming same-sex marriages.
I am not disgusted by them. There is a lot of that in Mideastern culture, and I do not think they are disgusting. I am just concerned with parity in this Country right now.
Once again. Heterosexual couples are currently allowed certain rights and privleges. When we achieve parity for other types of couples, then come back and talk to me about polygamy. Polygamy is not enjoyed by any group legally now, is it?
I am saying that this discrimination against any other sort of
couple must go.
Is that clear now? If there were heterosexual polygamists currently entitled to special treatment but homosexual polygamists or lesbian communes were being descriminated against at the same time, then I could see the argument.
As it is polygamy is against the law for different reasons, and creates a whole new set of legal problems then does same sex marriage or other domestic partnerships.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 04:03 AM
Loclynn, all...
The idea that gay "marriage" somehow threatens "traditional" marriage is bull. The numbers of gay marriages are insignificant, and would be even if allowed in all 50 states.
The biggest harm gay marriage is doing is by shining the light on the reality that "traditional" marriage is in trouble because, um, because traditional man-and-woman marriage is breaking down under the weight of social changes.
But it's so much easier to blame gays than it is to address the reality that 'traditional' marriages are breaking down under their own weight, regardless.
SpaceCowboy
Oct 2 2004, 04:30 AM
Speak of the devil-
Spain approves gay marriage bill
The Spanish government has approved a draft law which will legalise homosexual marriages.
The bill gives same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to adopt children.
The Roman Catholic Church and conservative opposition have fiercely opposed the move, which opinion polls suggest has the public's support.
If the bill is approved by parliament, it will make Spain the third EU country to authorise gay marriages.
The government, which estimates around 10% of Spaniards are gay, says it expects homosexuals to be able to marry as early as next year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3706414.stm
Ward
Oct 2 2004, 04:38 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 1 2004, 09:00 PM)
Loclynn, all...
The idea that gay "marriage" somehow threatens "traditional" marriage is bull. The numbers of gay marriages are insignificant, and would be even if allowed in all 50 states.
The biggest harm gay marriage is doing is by shining the light on the reality that "traditional" marriage is in trouble because, um, because traditional man-and-woman marriage is breaking down under the weight of social changes.
But it's so much easier to blame gays than it is to address the reality that 'traditional' marriages are breaking down under their own weight, regardless.
Isn't it enough to be free from real discrimination?
Where I live there is little homosexual discrimination in any facet of life. If you are straight, it's fashionable to have gay friends in the Bay Area. There is level of tolerance or accomodation that is NOT WORTH the in-yer-face mockery of traditional marriage.
Gay marriage is a conceit, and the gay fools who whine about the disadvantages are blind to the backlash it might produce. And for what? Tax advantages?
lil bart
Oct 2 2004, 04:40 AM
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 04:38 PM)
Really.
By that logic so is beastiality and pedophilia. They do not, however, belong in a discussion about same sex marriage.
Distinction with all the difference:
consenting adults.
QUOTE (Bee @ Oct 1 2004, 04:41 PM)
Agreed. The word "marriage" needs to be thrown out or redefined to include civil unions, as well as other domestic partnerships between adult human beings.
Perzactamento.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 04:47 AM
QUOTE (Ward @ Oct 1 2004, 10:35 PM)
Isn't it enough to be free from real discrimination?
I suppose that depends on whether you consider lack of the 50% exemption = $600,000 exempt to be "real discrimination", and inability to cover one's partner under health insurance as "real discrimination", and not being able to receive one's partner's pensions survivor annuity as being "real discrimination", and not being able to gain custody of one's dead partner's child as "real discrimination", and not being able to take tax deductions for one's nonworking, stay-at-home partner as "real discrimination".
I must ask, though. If these things aren't "real discrimination", Ward, what DO you consider to be "real discrimination"?
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 04:50 AM
QUOTE (Ward @ Oct 1 2004, 08:54 PM)
Bee, you have a point in that traditional marriages are not working out that well anymore. I am not opposed to new attempts at family arrangements. I just don’t see why favoring monogamy is any less of a discriminatory prejudice than favoring heterosexuality.
Dunno. Are you thinking that a polygamist should be able to claim 10 "spousal exemptions" on his income tax?
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 04:53 AM
Maybe just exemptions for the 20 to 30 kids from the production line.
lil bart
Oct 2 2004, 05:04 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 1 2004, 09:47 PM)
Dunno. Are you thinking that a polygamist should be able to claim 10 "spousal exemptions" on his income tax?
My biggest "perzactamento." As I have asked time & time again, long before same-sex marriage was topic du jour, why are married and single people -- children aside -- taxed differently? Where is that
parity?
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:07 AM
QUOTE (lil bart @ Oct 2 2004, 12:01 AM)
My biggest "perzactamento." As I have asked time & time again, long before same-sex marriage was topic du jour, why are married and single people -- children aside -- taxed differently? Where is that
parity?
It's all part of a juggling act they make people go through trying to figure out which is the best way to file.
Ward
Oct 2 2004, 05:11 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 1 2004, 09:44 PM)
I suppose that depends on whether you consider lack of the 50% exemption = $600,000 exempt to be "real discrimination", and inability to cover one's partner under health insurance as "real discrimination", and not being able to receive one's partner's pensions survivor annuity as being "real discrimination", and not being able to gain custody of one's dead partner's child as "real discrimination", and not being able to take tax deductions for one's nonworking, stay-at-home partner as "real discrimination".
I must ask, though. If these things aren't "real discrimination", Ward, what DO you consider to be "real discrimination"?
Real discrimination is to be abjectly poor, unjustly imprisoned or be subjected to brutality. Being systematically discriminated against in the workplace is the next category.
Real victims don't have any deductions, health insurance, or pensions. Therefore, most of your complaints do not register on the victimology whine-O-meter.
Child custody issues should be handled case-by-case. Sometimes kids SHOULD go to extended family rather than step-parents, hetero or gay.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:15 AM
OK, so, reality check, to verify your opinion.
In your opinion, economic losses are NOT "real discrimination"?
And children are, as now, automatically considred 'better off' with a blood relative, regardless of the usual considerations of stability, financial support, and established emotional ties?
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:18 AM
QUOTE
Real victims don't have any deductions, health insurance, or pensions. Therefore, most of your complaints do not register on the victimology whine-O-meter.
Fer shure, fer shure.
Ward
Oct 2 2004, 05:23 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 1 2004, 10:12 PM)
OK, so, reality check, to verify your opinion.
In your opinion, economic losses are NOT "real discrimination"?
And children are, as now, automatically considred 'better off' with a blood relative, regardless of the usual considerations of stability, financial support, and established emotional ties?
Oh, your inablility to take advantage of tax loopholes your SINGLE freinds ALSO are not able to use, is an economic hardship on your upper-middle-class gay ass? Break out the violins.
As to the children issue, read my post rather than creating a straw man.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:23 AM
Awaiting Ward's reply, as to how "I lost $114,000 because my chosen partner was of my own gender, if she'd been the opposite sex, I'd be $114,000 richer" isn't "real discrimination".
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:25 AM
Far as I can tell, Ward's position is that only physical violence, or the threat thereof, is "real discrimination".
lil bart
Oct 2 2004, 05:30 AM
Yeah, well I'm waiting for a single "gay" person to say they give a rat's rump about tax parity for those single friends.
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:32 AM
QUOTE (lil bart @ Oct 2 2004, 12:27 AM)
Yeah, well I'm waiting for a single "gay" person to say they give a rat's rump about tax parity for those single friends.
Snowballs chance in Mexico for that.
Ward
Oct 2 2004, 05:34 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 1 2004, 10:20 PM)
Awaiting Ward's reply, as to how "I lost $114,000 because my chosen partner was of my own gender, if she'd been the opposite sex, I'd be $114,000 richer" isn't "real discrimination".
Do you realize how vain you sound by whining about paying a large amount of capital gain on a property sale in which you no doubt made a huge profit?
Are the 80% of heterosexual people who are in a lower social class supposed to feel sorry for you and share your queer outrage?
lil bart
Oct 2 2004, 05:36 AM
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Oct 1 2004, 10:29 PM)
Snowballs chance in Mexico for that.
I even offered tit for tat. Came up with the sound of my own voice in a canyon. So it's just easier for me to buy the "politically correct cause du jour" line than any ostensible real "parity."
lil bart
Oct 2 2004, 05:38 AM
QUOTE (Ward @ Oct 1 2004, 10:31 PM)
Do you realize how vain you sound by whining about paying a large amount of capital gain on a property sale in which you no doubt made a huge profit?
Are the 80% of heterosexual people who are in a lower social class supposed to feel sorry for you and share your queer outrage?
WHAM.
Son of Cleaver wins the
politically INcorrect
prize.
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:43 AM
QUOTE (lil bart @ Oct 2 2004, 12:33 AM)
I even offered tit for tat. Came up with the sound of my own voice in a canyon. So it's just easier for me to buy the "politically correct cause du jour" line than any ostensible real "parity."
I gotta check to see if I get a break (if any) for all of 2004 since I turn 65 in Dec.
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:44 AM
QUOTE (lil bart @ Oct 2 2004, 12:35 AM)
WHAM.
Son of Cleaver wins the
politically INcorrect
prize.
And a great prize it should be. Got cookies?
lil bart
Oct 2 2004, 05:46 AM
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Oct 1 2004, 10:40 PM)
I gotta check to see if I get a break (if any) for all of 2004 since I turn 65 in Dec.
What you
gotta do is register your birthday here so you get greetings & cakes!
Sez me! Greeter/baker/partymaker.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:46 AM
QUOTE (Ward @ Oct 1 2004, 11:31 PM)
Do you realize how vain you sound by whining about paying a large amount of capital gain on a property sale in which you no doubt made a huge profit?
Are the 80% of heterosexual people who are in a lower social class supposed to feel sorry for you and share your queer outrage?
I was not speaking at all about any capital gains from anything.
I was speaking of the value of a $882 Social Security check, received for 17 years, as a typical benefit for a surviving spouse.
lil bart
Oct 2 2004, 05:47 AM
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Oct 1 2004, 10:41 PM)
And a great prize it should be. Got cookies?
Birthday cake, man. All day in the Possum Room.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:48 AM
QUOTE (lil bart @ Oct 1 2004, 11:27 PM)
Yeah, well I'm waiting for a single "gay" person to say they give a rat's rump about tax parity for those single friends.
I'm bisexual, and I give a rat's hump about parity for my single friends, bds!
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:50 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 2 2004, 12:43 AM)
I was not speaking at all about any capital gains from anything.
I was speaking of the value of a $882 Social Security check, received for 17 years, as a typical benefit for a surviving spouse.
What the hell are you talking about, surviving spouse? Please give a few specifics here.
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:51 AM
QUOTE (lil bart @ Oct 2 2004, 12:44 AM)
Birthday cake, man. All day in the Possum Room.
Kewl.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:52 AM
Oh, and yeah, bds.
In keeping with the custom of my family, you don't get a b-day cake, you get a b-day PIE.
So please consider yourself the recipient of one of my special homemade Pineapple-Peach Pies, sweetened with no sugar at all, just pineapple juice, and spiced with cloves, cinninimon and ginger, with 10 polite candles and a rendition of "Happy Birthday to You"!
Ward
Oct 2 2004, 05:55 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 1 2004, 10:43 PM)
I was not speaking at all about any capital gains from anything.
I was speaking of the value of a $882 Social Security check, received for 17 years, as a typical benefit for a surviving spouse.
My condolences for the loss of your life partner.
Using your methodology of claiming government pensions I never had any rights to, I'm out $187,369 for not taking that government job many years ago that had a good retirement plan.
SpaceCowboy
Oct 2 2004, 05:55 AM
Good on ya, Ward. That whining do get old.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:56 AM
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Oct 1 2004, 11:47 PM)
What the hell are you talking about, surviving spouse? Please give a few specifics here.
I'm speaking of exactly what it SOUNDS like I'm speaking of.
The surviving heterosexsual stay at home spouse of a deceased worker who contributed the max to SS receives 70% of that worker's SS benefit, for life, which is on average 17 years.
And the surviving homosexual life partner of said worker receives exactly NOTHING.
This isn't real hard to understand.
SpaceCowboy
Oct 2 2004, 05:58 AM
Everybody makes choices in life. Some are more financially rewarding than others.
FriendJudy
Oct 2 2004, 05:58 AM
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Oct 1 2004, 11:52 PM)
Good on ya, Ward. That whining do get old.
Space, you think it's fair that a heterosexual spouse receives benefits based on his/her partner's earnings and contributions, and a homosexual partner receives nothing?
Bart Katz
Oct 2 2004, 05:59 AM
QUOTE (FriendJudy @ Oct 2 2004, 12:53 AM)
I'm speaking of exactly what it SOUNDS like I'm speaking of.
The surviving heterosexsual stay at home spouse of a deceased worker who contributed the max to SS receives 70% of that worker's SS benefit, for life, which is on average 17 years.
And the surviving homosexual life partner of said worker receives exactly NOTHING.
This isn't real hard to understand.
All I got was the parltry burial allowance. Go figger.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.