You have a "Proud 53%er" sig and a America-committed-suicide-by-electing-Obama avatar. People like you are part of the problem.
Come November I think I'll be part of the solution that votes the train wreck of a president out. I mean I'm already in the ~ 1/2 that are net tax payers, so isn't that part of the solution already?
__________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
I do, in fact, believe that I am more brilliant, compassionate, moral, elightened, perceptive, and courageous than the majority of people who call themselves "conservatives."
That is not because I'm liberal. That's what makes me liberal.
/pretentiousness, or something
Of course you do. Generally, lack of life experience makes one liberal, not some type of innate intellectual superiority.
__________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
It's really not specific to that post but more of a, in the words of our president, composite of a number of posts.
Well I don't know about you, but usually the red thumb/green thumb is based on the content of the actual post, not on your "composite of a number of posts." I assure you if I do either it's based on the content of the post not any composite. I have two greens from El Caliente and he has one from me. Trying to make it out to be "oh here's a group of idiots who just red thumb everything by me [or El Caliente]" is a way to rationalize a crappy post.
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson
Of course you do. Generally, lack of life experience makes one liberal, not some type of innate intellectual superiority.
Wrong again. Lack of ife experience generally makes a person be what they learned from their upbringing. Mom/Dad conservative, they are conservative...
What specific benefits of marriage are in question here? Financial (inheritance, tax purposes), legal (next of kin, POA), etc? I see a lot of posts about the 'benefits' of marriage but not many in way of specifics.
Also, if who are we to question a legal bonding of two consenting adults under the term 'marriage', should we allow sibling, father/daughter, mother/son marriages for simply legal benefits? What about someone who wishes to have more than one spouse? I'm not really trying to equate these with gay marriage, but I don't think the complete redefining of traditional marriage should occur without some careful consideration.
Also, if who are we to question a legal bonding of two consenting adults under the term 'marriage', should we allow sibling, father/daughter, mother/son marriages for simply legal benefits? What about someone who wishes to have more than one spouse? I'm not really trying to equate these with gay marriage, but I don't think the complete redefining of traditional marriage should occur without some careful consideration.
IMO we should, and i have long advocated for such.. and in an ideal world, those arrangements, gay, straight, elderly mother & daughter, whatever-- would be termed 'civil (legal) unions' and anyone who desired to be married could then go off to their church (since 'marriage' is more of a religious thing anyway) and be married... but we do not live in an ideal world, which is why i support gay marriage.
What specific benefits of marriage are in question here? Financial (inheritance, tax purposes), legal (next of kin, POA), etc? I see a lot of posts about the 'benefits' of marriage but not many in way of specifics.
Also, if who are we to question a legal bonding of two consenting adults under the term 'marriage', should we allow sibling, father/daughter, mother/son marriages for simply legal benefits? What about someone who wishes to have more than one spouse? I'm not really trying to equate these with gay marriage, but I don't think the complete redefining of traditional marriage should occur without some careful consideration.
You pay less in taxes.
Inheritance is tax free goes to partner without a will.
You qualify government survivor benefits as a married partner like social security and medicare.
The ability to jointly adopt a child.
Parental rights towards children.
Next of kin status at hospitals.
Able to immigrate (Friend of mine is unable to bring his husband into the United States due to this, even though they are legally married in his husbands country).
Veterans benefits.
I personally think any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult. Period. I'm even okay with polygamy as long as it's between consenting adults and not brainwashed religious teens in cults. Polygamy would involve some legal defining to make it jive with the rest of marriages.
However those are different fights.
Our idea of what marriage is right now (Between a loving man and woman) is not something that goes back thousands of years like some say. It is something that's is fairly recent. In the past marriage was much more about economical gains and reasons, even political reasons for the noble and wealthy. Hell, even the idea that you shouldn't have sex before marriage is new; before you started after a formal engagement (engagements could last years, generally waiting until the man came far enough in life to fully support his new wife and future children.
I fully expect that in 100 years marriage will look almost nothing like what it does now.
Look at marriage 100 years ago from now. People married for life, wives had little say, it wasn't uncommon for men to have a mistress and wives were expected to ignore it, etc etc.
It's changing rapidly today already. Divorce is much easier. Many people are no longer getting married. Sex before marriage is common. We're waiting later to get married.
The pace of change is increasing. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Also, if who are we to question a legal bonding of two consenting adults under the term 'marriage'
which we already allow...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleading the Fif
should we allow sibling, father/daughter, mother/son marriages for simply legal benefits? What about someone who wishes to have more than one spouse?
Those don't have anything to do with gay marriage -- they are their own situations to be determined on their own merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleading the Fif
I'm not really trying to equate these with gay marriage, but I don't think the complete redefining of traditional marriage should occur without some careful consideration.
It's not a redefinition -- that's like saying voting got redefined when they allowed women to vote, or blacks to vote, or people who weren't part of the upper class. All it was (and is in this case) is removing a discrimination in the law because there is no reason for it to be there.
But going back to those "should we allow" situations -- what are the reasons to prevent them now? Those same reasons would be used after gay marriage -- allowing gay marriage shouldn't change the other disallowed types at all. Right now two people who have never met can decide to get married and as long as one is a male and one is a female it would be allowed, no questions asked. So what is the inherent difference between that and two males, or two females?
But looking even beyond that -- its about wanting to spend your life with someone and have all the legal rights of family. The marriage certificate bestows a lot of inherent rights that cannot simply be overcome by careful planning and other legal means. It's silly to make two men who are in love jump through all kinds of hoops to get the same benefits that a man and woman can have, even if they just met.
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson
No, I'm not criticizing the President. I'm criticizing his sycophants for making more of this than it is.
I think he's a cold, calculating politician, which is why his position was one thing in 1996, another in 2008, and back again in 2012. I recognize what he's done for what it is. I feel sorry for those who he might have helped by announcing his new old position months ago, instead of holding back for maximum political advantage. For example, in Minnesota, today they are running ads featuring the Presidents new old position and asking people to stand with him and against a proposed gay marriage law. Folks in North Carolina and elsewhere didn't have that opportunity.
What about all the folks that would be helped by GOP giving up on discriminating against gays? What about that, seriously? Don't be disingenuous, if you were actually sympathetic as you claim, then you wouldnt support the anti-gay candidates, which you always have, consistently since I've been on the board.
You're really going to sit there and **** on the president, for what exactly? His position in 2008 was that gay couples should be allowed to enter into civil unions with all of the same rights as marriage... his position in 2012 is the same exact thing with one semantic difference, now its ok to use the word "marriage" to describe a "civil union"... but basically its a semantic change, not substantive. Meanwhile we have the GOP candidate actually saying screw the gays, they get none of the rights of heterosexual couples. but you're going to take shots at President Obama's gay rights record while having nothing to say about the people you support. Totally, ridiculously partisan.
Come November I think I'll be part of the solution that votes the train wreck of a president out. I mean I'm already in the ~ 1/2 that are net tax payers, so isn't that part of the solution already?
I don't know if you believe in God, or karma, but you might want to be a little more humble before someday you find yourself in the other half.
What about all the folks that would be helped by GOP giving up on discriminating against gays? What about that, seriously? Don't be disingenuous, if you were actually sympathetic as you claim, then you wouldnt support the anti-gay candidates, which you always have, consistently since I've been on the board.
You're really going to sit there and **** on the president, for what exactly? His position in 2008 was that gay couples should be allowed to enter into civil unions with all of the same rights as marriage... his position in 2012 is the same exact thing with one semantic difference, now its ok to use the word "marriage" to describe a "civil union"... but basically its a semantic change, not substantive. Meanwhile we have the GOP candidate actually saying screw the gays, they get none of the rights of heterosexual couples. but you're going to take shots at President Obama's gay rights record while having nothing to say about the people you support. Totally, ridiculously partisan.
Amazing. I apparently have the same power as the President to influence politics in this country.
Of course you do. Generally, lack of life experience makes one liberal, not some type of innate intellectual superiority.
Jesus. I got out on my own at age 18, after finishing boot camp. Between my first and second tours, I started college. 2-year technical program put me to work in a hospital, but only after being dead broke the entire time, and working 40 hours a week on a graveyard shift to pay the bills for me and my wife (who I married at 21) while we both went to school.
After finishing, about a year past my second tour in Iraq with the Army Infantry, I started to build an actual career. I'm fairly successful, with a great administrative job in a hospital, and using my GI Bill to pursue a second degree. Currently, we're working to get approved as foster parents in MS, since we've been unable to have children.
I've worked in commission sales, sometimes door-to-door, casino security, a whole line of degrading service industry jobs where people treated me like a moron, all the while working my *** off to better myself. I AM the American Dream - I left my parents' home with the clothes on my back (No fault to them - they were great), I know what it's like to be so poor I couldn't afford gas for the heater in wintertime and wonder where the next meal is coming from - and now I'm a successful professional, and I've never taken a dime I didn't earn.
And I'm a committed liberal who is disappointed with Obama because he's too damn moderate for me.
But then, that's probably due to my lack of life experience.
Last edited by Severum; 05-12-2012 at 10:17 AM.
Reason: sent pm
Linear Mode
