Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
Exactly. And that's all most gays want.
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
In reply to:
I've always wondered if lesbians use simulated male parts in the bedroom. My wife is too embarassed to ask her gay friends so I may never know.
Do you really have to wonder?
Perhaps you haven't heard this classic lesbian joke: "You know, I've got no problem with 'male parts.' It's just too bad they're attached to men."
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,021 Likes: 1
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,021 Likes: 1 |
Spiff, I am signing off now. I keep trying to had a dialog, and you and PMB keep sending HUGE links.
I am not interested in reading yet another 75 page link.
So we are clear - I want more freedom for every American.
Good luck to you all.
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 342
devotee
|
devotee
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 342 |
Spiff - Thanks for posting that list. I was hoping you would do so. I knew that there were many areas of government where marrital was a consideration, but I wasn't able to draw examples outside of taxation, etc.
Craig - Again, I do understand your position about wanting to revamp government rather than expand it. Trust me, being a Libertarian, I am definitely for smaller government. When it comes to those individual reforms, I got your back should you decide to march.
However, the root problem here is that the changes you recommend are massive and will take a significant amount of time to implement, if ever. During that time, you still have a glaring inequality in how the government treats and benefits one group of citizens over another.
Finally, if you take a look through that massive list that Spiff posted, you begin to see that the protection afforded to "Spouses" and "married" persons in the eyes of the law expand far beyond the reforms you are suggesting....domestic violence, divorce, allimony, bankruptcy, veteran benefits, inheritance, student loans (responsibility), political candidacy, welfare, social security, child support/"Deadbeat" laws, etc, etc... Therefore, even if you assume that all of the reforms you mention are implemented, government consideration of marital status will still be present and prevalent.
In the end, no matter how much you want to make marriage a religious institution, it's not in the eyes of the government. It's a classification that carries massive amounts of benefits, protections, and responsibilities that should not be denied to a segement of society because it goes against popular opinion and/or religious sentiment.
For the record, "civil unions" works for me, as long as the laws treat them the same as marriages. After all, I am only advocating for the change of laws here. The religious ramifications are for the churches to deal with, fight over, and hopefully eventually come to terms with.
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 619
aficionado
|
OP
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 619 |
You know spiff, I was wondering where you were for that whole conversation. I figured maybe you just didn't even want to go there Now I see you just weren't around, should've guessed.
[black]-"The further we go and older we grow, the more we know, the less we show."[/black]
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,021 Likes: 1
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,021 Likes: 1 |
Turbo... I will try this again, I AM NOT LOOKING AT MARRIAGE AS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. I am not sure HOW many times I need to say this. Your statement of "No matter how much you want to make marriage a religious institution" shows contempt.
As for your examples, and where they are just plain WRONG..
1. Violence against others is illegal, period. marital status is irrelevent.
2. Child support ? Child support has NOTHING to do with marriage, period. You have to determine who the birth mother and father are. That is the ONLY criteria for determining support.
3. Responsibility of student loans ? Ok... You want the right to pay off someone else's loan ? You can do that now.
4. Social Security ? I covered that. What I suggest WILL give EVERYONE more money, gay OR straight.
5. Bankruptcy... Nope. Both parties can file for bankruptcy now. There is no law preventing that.
6. Welfare ? Nope... Both parties can apply today, and doing so separately will yield more money than would filing as a married couple.
7. Divorce and Alimony can be handled by an agreement between any two people. Just draw up a contract beofre moving in together.
8. Inheritance... I covered that, too. With elimination of inheritance taxes.
9. Political Candiacy ? You REALLY lost me there. Show me the bills where a gay man cannot run for office.
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,501
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,501 |
Just an OT observation......this thread is HUGE!!!
Does anybody know if mySQL or UBB has any kind limitations on thread length. Hate to see you guys bring downt he server.
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,021 Likes: 1
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,021 Likes: 1 |
As the joke goes... "what DOES it mean when your server goes down on you?" ...
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,236
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,236 |
It means I'm going back the that resturaunt again!
|
|
|
Re: Holy crap
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,016
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,016 |
In reply to:
It means I'm going back to that resturaunt again!
well, be sure and leave a good tip!!
bigjohn
EXCUSE ME, ARE YOU THE SINGING BUSH??
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,964
Posts442,603
Members15,631
|
Most Online2,699 Aug 8th, 2024
|
|
0 members (),
1,030
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|