For Sweetie, gay marriage is bad because...

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Shelli

hellooooooo??? And you have the nerve to call Beth "not too smart"?

*snort*

You're amusing, at the very least. I'm not too smart because I called you on a severe grammatical error which caused your sentence to be ultimately incomprehensible, which you then turn around and try to accuse me of an inability with reading comprehension......and this somehow proves that I am in no position to call Beth none too smart.

I'll tell ya another secret, k? I've been here since July of 2004. I've had regular interactions with people here, whatever Beth is or is not, I at least have some foundation to make some judgements, from two years worth of interacting with and reading about and from others what they have to say, and their reasonings, and their problems, etc. If I make a judgement, I usually have a reason for it, not just one episode in one thread, etc., but I'm sure you have some sort of special powers of divination which makes it so that you can jump in anywhere with an opinion and have it mean something.

Get your head out of your ass before you kill anymore braincells, sweetkins.

Right.

[Sweetie]

So, for future reference Shel, your sentence would have been different had you worded it like this:

Who cares?

"Not I any more than you do about what I think, but I still would like to point out your errors."


I can point out errors too.

anymore
1. any longer

I don't love you anymore.

any more

"I don't have any more apples than John does."

...or would you argue that this is a correct sentence?:

"I don't have anymore apples, than John does."


Can't find the correct usage of "any more" in the dictionary because it's two words, not one, but, sounds right to me to seperate the word in order to suggest a quantity as opposed to a duration.

[Sweetie]

Or better:

Not I, any more so than you do about what I think,.......

Two different ways of wording the same thought which would have made your original thought comprehensible. The second I think, sticks closer to your original intended way of wording it, if your aim would have been to be both grammatically correct and comprehensible, though even if it's not grammatically perfect, it's much more comprehensible the second way.

So we're done with that then? Yes, no? Irregardless........

[Shelli]

This coming from someone from whom I've seen more insults and misconceptions than I can count on this board?

This coming from someone who thinks a person on this board is really an old man posing as a young man and is "stalking" you?

I've seen enough of your posts on this board to know that you are so full of yourself that you're overflowing with .

If anyone is "bi-polar", it's you "sweetie".

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Shelli

This coming from someone from whom I've seen more insults and misconceptions than I can count on this board?

lol

Yeah, you've been here so long.

This coming from someone who thinks a person on this board is really an old man posing as a young man and is "stalking" you?

He is not stalking me, however, on this board, he is harassing me. I've known him for at least three years, and he is not a young man, and I am not saying he is a young man or is posing as one. Beth assumed wrongly that since he is in law school, which as far as I can tell, is entirely public information, that he must be young, he is not young. Granted, I won't say his age lest that be construed as private information though he did make it public where we used to be, at another forum, and perhaps he does so too at another forum that many here frequent.

Either way, I made no accusations of stalking, I made accusations of harassment, because this is getting to be a very old problem with him and because this problem has already been addressed once in the past, and he agreed to put me on ignore and hadn't bothered me since. I think it's both immature and irresponsible for a man like him to feel the need to target me, but who am I to say what is right or is wrong?

The problem looked like it would be arising again, whence I thought it should be addressed again lest he felt the urge to start back up in full again. Apparently, he has put me back on ignore. Problem solved, ie: if he decided to do so, agreed to do so, mayhaps there's a reason, no?

He said in this thread, "is she done talking about me yet?" In other words, he doesn't like it, and I hope not, because I don't like him not being able to leave me alone either.

So now that you know some of the history.......

I've seen enough of your posts on this board to know that you are so full of yourself that you're overflowing with .

If anyone is "bi-polar", it's you "sweetie".

Woman.......I'm just.....can't believe people like you, where you're coming from, why you think you can make accurate judgements about anybody in so short a time, like it's September, you joined in July? Two months. Fuck man, I've hardly even been posting at all.

It's a very interesting phenomenon, people like you.

And you keep at it too, like, it's interesting, really.

What is the motivation, and what is it that makes people believe they can enter among others who've been interacting regularily with each other for literally years, and just.......show up, and start making judgements.

Has it ever occurred to you, that even if the people surrounding you aren't saying anything, who know some of the interactions and the stories unlike you do, actually might look upon you as just as idiotic for speaking impossible to found opinons? It would be an embarassment really, for you if someone said to you, look man, you really don't know what you're talking about and it's very clear to us. Granted, not everything is clear to everybody about everything, but........

Anyways, have fun with that.

[Shelli]

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Shelli

How profound.

You're so astute, and your case and your opinions are so much more clearer now, and justified, I see the light.

[Shelli]

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Shelli

And someone who is attracted to their own gender can't... why?

I answered that many pages ago.

[Shelli]

And of course it made perfect sense.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Shelli

And of course it made perfect sense.

Then why are you asking again?

[Shelli]

[Veritas]

Gays are, like, totally cunt.

[Sweetie]

Anyways, for erimir, I think that if some people are going to argue from emotions, as some homosexuals and some who support a homosexual's whatevers do, not saying you, but you know they're out there as do I, then I'm not sure what I am supposed to say.

If someone says, "it hurts my feelings if I can't be married, I want to express my love through marriage, and I need a JP there to say I'm married," and if someone else says, "Gay marriage disgusts me, that the government would agree to it makes me feel outrage, etc.", these two arguments are equivalent. They are both appeals to emotions, they both do not stand up to scrutiny.

And even then, why should the government want to appease homosexuals in this way, any more so than they should appease those against homosexuals in this way?

So my point is, I am against appeals to emotions as argument for anybody. I don't care if you are straight or gay, black, white, theist or non-theist, if I judge an argument an appeal to emotion, then I consider it whining. So, if you're going to accuse me of being "mean" to gays, or what have you, at least you know I don't just target gays , I'm consistent in that I'm then "mean" to potentially everybody equally, if they want me to buy similar things. I give everyone an equal opportunity to be considered a whiner in my estimation, or at least, for their arguments to be considered whining. I can't hate the whiner, I can hate the whining. Hey, I don't care who, how many, or what gender you fuck, I'm not discrimatory as far as that goes, I'm easy.

[Sweetie]

Anyways, about the issue of benefits. We have regular Health Care, if you have a really low income, Health Care will I think, cover even more for you than others.

Now, me and my husband buy our own private insurance for us and the kids for things like our dental plans and such. Single coverage is much cheaper than family coverage.

If you are two homosexuals living together, you can each buy your own insurance through Blue Cross, as one example. I can't imagine it would be much more for two single persons than it is for a family plan, but we can check into it if you like.

Other than that, if you are a homosexual bringing kids into a relationship, you can still buy your own private insurance, for you and your two kids say. For the other homosexual in the relationship, since family coverage is much more expensive than personal coverage, though granted it would just naturally include you, but either way, I can't see it being much more to have a family and a personal plan, but I don't know, I'd have to check the figures.

All I know is that getting it through my husband's one job cost us double monthly, then we pay now, for the same things.

So that's one aspect of the question of benefits to consider.

Benefits

-Health Care
-private insurance

I would like to know all the rules about adoption in several different places, like Canada, the US, certain states, that could make a big difference if we know the way things are, if they should be that way, and what changes each place may or may not need to make.

Life Insurance

-You can name anybody you want, as a beneficiary.

Hospital Legalities

-You can appoint any one you want, provided they are of sound mind, I assume, to make your decisions for you, through a living will and power of attorney.

Adoption

In the case where one of the gay peoples in question brings one or more children into the relationship and the other seeks to adopt, and on the event of their death, or incacipation, whether or not the children belongs with a non-related spouse of their parent's, or with biological family.

My step-father sought to adopt me, but by the time they were married and what have you, I was already like twelve or so, so it would have been just a technicality for no real purpose. Chances are if my Mom died during that time, my aunt and grandparents, my step-dad and me would have all been fine with me staying with him, no need to make it official.

Hehe, I warned my man, you can so get married again if I pass away, but don't you dare bring some stupid ho into my kids life, make sure she'll be good to my kids, don't pick someone just because you are attracted.


Just some thoughts. What other issues are there?

[Watser?]

If someone says, "it hurts my feelings if I can't be married, I want to express my love through marriage, and I need a JP there to say I'm married," and if someone else says, "Gay marriage disgusts me, that the government would agree to it makes me feel outrage, etc.", these two arguments are equivalent.

No, they are not. One affects a person directly, they are denied something. The other example is of somebody who wants to deny someone else something that does not affect him. Totally different things.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

duh.

Look at that. Again you ignored what I said.

My marriage/relationship has produced three very

Like I give a fuck. They serve no purpose to me. And certainly no purpose to me that required you to be married.

It's about children, and biology, and cultural identity.

Uh huh... You still haven't explained how it's relevant. You're gonna need to be a little more specific.

---------------------------------

Anyway... let's start from the beginning.

Marriage may have originated as a natural extension of pair-bonding, to promote children for the benefit of society. Some other things I might mention are that in the past, men were much more in control and women adulterers were punished much more harshly because when a woman has a child, she knows it's hers. A man, however, needs to be more certain, because he wouldn't want to expend energy raising someone else's child, since it does not advance his interests. However, I'm pretty sure you don't want to return to that, so let's leave the historical roots of marriage out of it, since they're pretty irrelevant.

Modern civil marriage is a contract between two individuals and the state. It does not require that the married couple be young enough to reproduce. It does not require that they have not been sterilized. It does not require that the people getting married be capable of being good parents (e.g. they could be destitute drunkards who would almost certainly have their children taken away by social services). What does the government require of a male/female couple in order to marry? Pretty much nothing, except that they be male and female.

The only thing that points to a concern for children is prohibition on certain incestuous relationships. These prohibitions are, however, partly out of concern for one of the parties of the relationship (e.g. the child in a parent-child case), and partly (IMO) due to it just being taboo in our society. But that is the only indication I will grant that suggests a connection between marriage and children that is inherent in the law. However, in a large majority of the areas that outlaw incestuous marriages, any incestuous vaginal sex is also outlawed. Marriage/sex between adopted relatives is not as likely to be illegal. So we can see that there is generally an expectation that a married couple will have sex, and since sex between those those parties is banned, so is their marriage.

So the ban on incest is out of a concern for children - does that demonstrate that the purpose of civil marriage is to provide for children? I would say no. The ban is to protect children, but the laws against incest would remain even if the government did not do anything related to marriage.

So, what reasons do men and women in Western societies generally get married? Well, children do often figure into the equation. They might get married because they plan on having children (or the woman is already pregnant). But, they might also marry because they love each other. They might marry for more political or financial reasons. They don't necessarily love each other, or plan on having children. So, we can see that the societal meaning of civil marriage certainly is not exclusively about children. And we can also see that the laws reflect that, since it requires nothing except that you not be related in specific ways, be male and female, pay the fees, etc. It doesn't even require any nominal declaration related to children, love, etc.

---------------------------------

It is more important to address that last part, but three other issues that I might bring up, since you're unlikely to drop this "marriage is all about the children" crap. If we're talking about marriage AND benefits related to children (I don't think they're exactly equivalent), then I would mention:

1. Joint adoption. Gay parents have not been shown to be meaningfully different from straight parents in their effects on children. Their children are not more likely to be gay, or dysfunctional, etc. So I don't see any reason that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt anyway. Any argument concerning biological relatedness is irrelevant, since adopted children will always be unrelated to both parents, whether they're gay or straight.

There are more children in need of homes than parents willing to adopt. So, the question isn't between "gay parents" or "straight parents" but between "no parents" and "gay parents". I think the choice ought to be clear.

2. Gay families already exist. Regardless of what you think of them, or whether they should have been allowed to form, they exist. So - why shouldn't they get the same protections as straight families? If you say that those families get all the benefits they need without marriage, then clearly straight families don't need marriage at all, so we ought to get rid of it. If marriage does provide significant benefits, why wouldn't the children in gay families deserve those benefits?

3. You're going to lose the battle about gays having children by artificial means anyway. You know it's gonna happen, so you also have to recognize that there will be plenty more gay families in the future. You may disagree with the gay couples for creating these families, but if you're as concerned about the children as you say you are, you also have to take into account their interests, given that they will exist, and have gay parents. This is essentially the same as point 2.

It is possible to argue, for example, that only gays who already have children should be allowed to get married and this would not be inconsistent with the view that marriage is about children, nor with your positions on gays having children artificially.

Given those points, it doesn't make sense to act as if gay marriage = childless marriage. Also, given point 1, you might want to promote bonding between same sex couples so that they will be more likely to adopt a child who needs a home. They might not intend to at first, but they're more likely to change their minds in the context of a long-term committed relationship.

[BDS]

So, what reasons do men and women in Western societies generally get married? Well, children do often figure into the equation. They might get married because they plan on having children (or the woman is already pregnant). But, they might also marry because they love each other. They might marry for more political or financial reasons. They don't necessarily love each other, or plan on having children. So, we can see that the societal meaning of civil marriage certainly is not exclusively about children. And we can also see that the laws reflect that, since it requires nothing except that you not be related in specific ways, be male and female, pay the fees, etc. It doesn't even require any nominal declaration related to children, love, etc.

That’s all very reasonable, erimir. But why do you conclude from these facts that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else? If marriage confers “political” or “financial” advantages, doesn’t it discriminate against single people? If it does discriminate against single people (as is obviously the case in some respects, like spousal health insurance at work), why should we single people want MORE people to have these advantages, instead of fewer?

I’ll admit that the current marriage laws discriminate against gays, and are thus inappropriate and should be changed. But why usher MORE people to the public trough, instead of fewer? It’s as if we were to say, “Obviously, not ALL black people should be allowed to drink at the white water fountains, but why discriminate against those black people with University degrees? We’ll let them drink. And we’ll let same-sex couples who are married enjoy spousal health insurance and other financial and political benefits.”

But why? Why SHOULD married couples enjoy these benefits, while single people do not? Why does the gay community, which could be fighting for fairness and equal rights FOR ALL, simply embrace the notion of inequality, IF and ONLY IF they can get more than their fair share, like other married people do?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by BDS

That’s all very reasonable, erimir. But why do you conclude from these facts that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else? If marriage confers “political” or “financial” advantages, doesn’t it discriminate against single people?

Hmmm? Those advantages are inherent in certain relationships (e.g. a poorer person married to a rich person), the marriage just solidifies the advantage and provides for inheritance, etc.

I wasn't referring specifically to government provided advantages there - although the government does mediate between parties, so it does help the golddigger get his/her money in that sense.

If it does discriminate against single people (as is obviously the case in some respects, like spousal health insurance at work), why should we single people want MORE people to have these advantages, instead of fewer?

That is not an argument that straight people should have those advantages and gays should not...

I’ll admit that the current marriage laws discriminate against gays, and are thus inappropriate and should be changed.

... as you recognize.

So, in the meantime, discrimination against gays? Or if you can't succeed in changing marriage the way you want, we should allow discrimination against gays?

But why usher MORE people to the public trough, instead of fewer?
[...]
But why? Why SHOULD married couples enjoy these benefits, while single people do not? Why does the gay community, which could be fighting for fairness and equal rights FOR ALL, simply embrace the notion of inequality, IF and ONLY IF they can get more than their fair share, like other married people do?

Well, that's a topic that is about marriage in general, rather than about gay marriage specifically. I wouldn't say that I necessarily disagree with you, BUT... it's just not relevant to the current topic. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the merits of marriage in general tho... but I was trying to get the discussion back to relevancy.

I personally think there ought to be more changes to marriage than just allowing gay marriage (starting with changing the name of civil marriage to "civil union"), but I was leaving those out. I don't need certain less-than-bright people assuming that I think they're logically related (as I'm sure they'd disagree with me about the other changes I'd make as well).

[Shelli]

Now that I'm home rather than at work and therefore have the time to better form a reply:

Originally Posted by Sweetie

lol
Yeah, you've been here so long.

Exactly. I've only been here a short while and I have read demeaning and condescending post after post of yours on this and other threads. You don't seem to be able to conduct yourself any other way toward those you disagree with and even those with whom you agree and I am far from the only person on this board who has made this assessment of you.

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Either way, I made no accusations of stalking, I made accusations of harassment

Technically, yes, you did use the word "harass" rather than "stalk"; however, the following quote of yours regarding this issue on this thread is worded to imply that he is stalking you, otherwise, it was unnecessary of you to add "young girl" for emphasis and you know it.

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Go find some other young girl to harass.

I don't know if you're bi-polar or not, but I do think that you have an inferiority complex masquerading as a superiority complex as is most often the case with people that conduct themselves as you do. It's sad really because little do you realize that in the process of hurting others with your behavior, you are also hurting yourself.

[Shelli]

Originally Posted by erimir

Modern civil marriage is a contract between two individuals and the state. It does not require that the married couple be young enough to reproduce. It does not require that they have not been sterilized. It does not require that the people getting married be capable of being good parents (e.g. they could be destitute drunkards who would almost certainly have their children taken away by social services). What does the government require of a male/female couple in order to marry? Pretty much nothing, except that they be male and female.

[BDS]

Originally Posted by erimir

]Well, that's a topic that is about marriage in general, rather than about gay marriage specifically. I wouldn't say that I necessarily disagree with you, BUT... it's just not relevant to the current topic. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the merits of marriage in general tho... but I was trying to get the discussion back to relevancy.

I personally think there ought to be more changes to marriage than just allowing gay marriage (starting with changing the name of civil marriage to "civil union"), but I was leaving those out. I don't need certain less-than-bright people assuming that I think they're logically related (as I'm sure they'd disagree with me about the other changes I'd make as well).

Fair enough. I admit that simply legalizing same-sex marriage is simpler and easier than renovating the whole system. My only complaint is that the gay community was once allied with other single people in inveighing against the unfair benefits of marriage, and now has changed its tune (because it sees that gays can benefit from marriage, whether unfairly or not, just like straight people do).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

If you are two homosexuals living together, you can each buy your own insurance through Blue Cross, as one example. I can't imagine it would be much more for two single persons than it is for a family plan, but we can check into it if you like.

In the US, a group health plan through an employer is much less expensive, and offers better coverage.

We have to buy private insurance, since as a contractor I don't qualify for my companies group. It is 600.00/month for the premiums and each of us, including the baby has a 1000/year deductible. It doesn't cover well baby care, immunizations, routine physicals, or pap smears for me.

Other than that, if you are a homosexual bringing kids into a relationship, you can still buy your own private insurance, for you and your two kids say. For the other homosexual in the relationship, since family coverage is much more expensive than personal coverage, though granted it would just naturally include you, but either way, I can't see it being much more to have a family and a personal plan, but I don't know, I'd have to check the figures.

Here it's not about family vs personal, the baby only added 100/month, it's about a group plan vs private plans.

Group insurance defrays the costs and offers better coverage for less premiums and less out of pocket.

All I know is that getting it through my husband's one job cost us double monthly, then we pay now, for the same things.

Canada is a completely different system.

I would like to know all the rules about adoption in several different places, like Canada, the US, certain states, that could make a big difference if we know the way things are, if they should be that way, and what changes each place may or may not need to make.

Adoption in the US is mostly done through private businesses within state imposed guidelines,and then within Interstate agreements. Most states do not allow joint adoption by non married people, but allow people to adopt singly. Most gay couples do this, one partner adopts as a single and the other has no legal parental rights.

Adoption agencies may choose not to work with singles or may choose not to work with anyone for that matter.

Same with International, some countries will not allow singles to adopt, some will accept single women but not men.

Hospital Legalities

-You can appoint any one you want, provided they are of sound mind, I assume, to make your decisions for you, through a living will and power of attorney.

Yes, but your legal next of kin can contest those. For example if a married person named someone other than their legal spouse, the spouse can claim the benefits and their rights often supercede the documents.

Adoption

My step-father sought to adopt me, but by the time they were married and what have you, I was already like twelve or so, so it would have been just a technicality for no real purpose. Chances are if my Mom died during that time, my aunt and grandparents, my step-dad and me would have all been fine with me staying with him, no need to make it official.

In the US every minor child requires a legal guardian and in the case of a dispute preference goes to the legal parent or biological relatives. So if your scenario happened here, and your Aunt thought you should live with her, she and your step dad would have to go to court to present their respective cases spending much time and money.

[Sweetie]

Was pondering the issue of benefits, not sure how the Canadian Pension Plan works in the case of one spouse dies, does the survivor receive both benefits?

"The CPP pays retirement, survivor, death and disability benefits. The province of Quebec operates its own plan that is very similar to the CPP.

Survivor benefits

The CPP offers a lump-sum death benefit to the estate of the contributor. Male or female widowed spouses/common-law partners of CPP contributors can get survivor benefits. Surviving children are also eligible."

http://www.sdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp...3.shtml&hs=cpr

However, there's a problem even on that level as far as CPP is concerned:

TAKING CARE OF GRANNY AND GRAMPS

The Canada Pension Plan has reached a crisis because there isn't enough money in it to pay pensions to an aging population

When the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) was launched in the 1960s, the country had more employed people than retired people. But, the oldest members of the post - war baby boom are over 50 now and huge numbers of them will retire soon. That, combined with longer life expectancies and more disability payments, means the money going into the CPP is not enough to cover future costs.

In most pension plans, an individual's contributions paid today become benefits in the future. The CPP is a pay - as - you - go system. The contributions made by workers and their employers each year go to current retirees, along with widows and disabled people. The system works when there are more workers contributing to the plan each year than there are pensioners collecting benefits.

But, as things stand, the plan is going broke. Already, CPP pays out more in benefits than it takes in from contributions. This is eating into the system's $40 billion reserve fund, which was expected to stay at a level equal to two years worth of benefits. By 2015, the fund is expected to run out of money. So, there's big trouble ahead unless workers start paying more into the system and benefits are reduced."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_n8748806

In other words, I wouldn't be depending on it, RRSP's sound like a better idea if you are gay or straight, and I would assume as well, that you can name any beneficiary. Granted, it keeps being brought up that that can be contested, but , everything can, and sometimes that's a good thing.

But anyways, homosexuals wouldn't qualify if they can't get married. If the government has to pay back pay, that's even worse for CPP which is apparently, already in crisis.

So I mean, even the benefits that homosexuals might gain in that area, sounds like they wouldn't get it anyways personally, or even as a survivor of a spouse who dies. Doesn't sound like it would be in a lot of people's best interests.

Just a thought on the issue of benefits.