The idea that two straight men are going to get married so that they can enjoy the so-called benefits sounds like tinfoil hat material to me.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter MililaniBuckeye
- Start date
gbearbuck
Herbie for President
Nixon,
You stated:
"It does affect you, indirectly at least. If gays are married and their insurance covers their spouse, that's going to increase the cost of insurance. What's to stop two straight guys from getting "married" to enjoy the benefits?"
The cost of insurance will not go up... how on earth did you come up with that. They would pay just like I pay for my wife. Are you trying to tell me that my insurance is going up because your wife is on your health insurance plan...??
Who cares if the get "married" for the benefits. If they do, and you can only have one spouce (poligamy is illigel), then that is their spouce... are you trying to tell me that hetro couples get married for the health benefits...?
I don't understand how you could make such statements... maybe a few get married for insurance. After a couple ugly divorce settlements (remember they would be married so all prop. is now joint owned) I doubt it would happen any more frequent than that of hetro folks doing it now.
You stated:
"It does affect you, indirectly at least. If gays are married and their insurance covers their spouse, that's going to increase the cost of insurance. What's to stop two straight guys from getting "married" to enjoy the benefits?"
The cost of insurance will not go up... how on earth did you come up with that. They would pay just like I pay for my wife. Are you trying to tell me that my insurance is going up because your wife is on your health insurance plan...??
Who cares if the get "married" for the benefits. If they do, and you can only have one spouce (poligamy is illigel), then that is their spouce... are you trying to tell me that hetro couples get married for the health benefits...?
I don't understand how you could make such statements... maybe a few get married for insurance. After a couple ugly divorce settlements (remember they would be married so all prop. is now joint owned) I doubt it would happen any more frequent than that of hetro folks doing it now.
Upvote
0
Nixon
Wears Scarlet-colored glasses
Ok, you're probably right about the insurance stuff. But...
"Who cares if the get "married" for the benefits. If they do, and you can only have one spouce (poligamy is illigel)"
Why should polygamy be illegal? If people are in a loving relationship, who are you to tell them they can't be married? Is there some kind of standard of sexual morality that says it's ok to be with one other guy but not with two other women? And if there is, why should we impose that standard on everybody else? I mean, the standard that a monogomous heterosexual relationship is the only acceptable one has been thrown out...why limit it to 2 people? Who are you to judge others?
I mean, to use your arguments, how will 3 people living together hurt you? There are some people who do this already anyway? Why not let them get married too?
"are you trying to tell me that hetro couples get married for the health benefits...?"
If you listen to advocates of gay marriage moan about the benefits gay couples don't get, you'd conclude they must be pretty darn good. Why else do they need a government sanctioned marriage? Only that county in Tenessee is telling them they can't do what they want in their bedroom.
"Who cares if the get "married" for the benefits. If they do, and you can only have one spouce (poligamy is illigel)"
Why should polygamy be illegal? If people are in a loving relationship, who are you to tell them they can't be married? Is there some kind of standard of sexual morality that says it's ok to be with one other guy but not with two other women? And if there is, why should we impose that standard on everybody else? I mean, the standard that a monogomous heterosexual relationship is the only acceptable one has been thrown out...why limit it to 2 people? Who are you to judge others?
I mean, to use your arguments, how will 3 people living together hurt you? There are some people who do this already anyway? Why not let them get married too?
"are you trying to tell me that hetro couples get married for the health benefits...?"
If you listen to advocates of gay marriage moan about the benefits gay couples don't get, you'd conclude they must be pretty darn good. Why else do they need a government sanctioned marriage? Only that county in Tenessee is telling them they can't do what they want in their bedroom.
Upvote
0
gbearbuck
Herbie for President
Nixon,
Currently some couples can become a legal couple, and other couples can not become a legal couple. Either make it legal or all or illegal for all, why discriminate against some?
If the gov. wants to make poligamy legal, so be it... the issue of allowing more than one legal spouce is a totally different issue.
You are basically useing the argument that blacks and whites had to use different restrooms, and if we let all people use the same restrooms what is to say that a farmers horse can not go and leave a mess in that restroom. Totally different isssues, don't make the mistake to assume it is the same.
"If you listen to advocates of gay marriage moan about the benefits gay couples don't get, you'd conclude they must be pretty darn good. Why else do they need a government sanctioned marriage? Only that county in Tenessee is telling them they can't do what they want in their bedroom."
It's alot more than health insurance and "doing what they want in the bedroom", here a a couple things off the top of my head, and I'm sure if I really gave this some thought I would have a laudry list of many, many more:
Filing a joint tax return, allowing a taxfree transfer of assets upon the death on one spouce to another, not having to go to court at the death on one spouce because the family doesn't want the other spouce to have any assets of the deceased, joint ownership of all assets (right now if one gifts more than $11k to the other it effects their unified credit), spoucal disability insurance, reg. life insurance (if there isn't a "vested interest" in the life of a person you can not take out life insurance on the other... a spouce is deemed to have vested interest, a boyfriend/girlfriend isn't), spoucal social security benefits (both the pension as well as death benefit parts of SS), having the ability to set up a spoucal IRA if one isn't working, having the ability to put living wills/power of attorney/other leagal documents in place without fighting family memebers on them, and just living life as a citizen of the US not a second class citizen of the US.
In short a woman has rights if he likes guys, a guy has rights if he like ladies, but a guy who likes guys or a gal who likes gals doesn't have those rights... if that isn't discrimination I don't know what is...
Currently some couples can become a legal couple, and other couples can not become a legal couple. Either make it legal or all or illegal for all, why discriminate against some?
If the gov. wants to make poligamy legal, so be it... the issue of allowing more than one legal spouce is a totally different issue.
You are basically useing the argument that blacks and whites had to use different restrooms, and if we let all people use the same restrooms what is to say that a farmers horse can not go and leave a mess in that restroom. Totally different isssues, don't make the mistake to assume it is the same.
"If you listen to advocates of gay marriage moan about the benefits gay couples don't get, you'd conclude they must be pretty darn good. Why else do they need a government sanctioned marriage? Only that county in Tenessee is telling them they can't do what they want in their bedroom."
It's alot more than health insurance and "doing what they want in the bedroom", here a a couple things off the top of my head, and I'm sure if I really gave this some thought I would have a laudry list of many, many more:
Filing a joint tax return, allowing a taxfree transfer of assets upon the death on one spouce to another, not having to go to court at the death on one spouce because the family doesn't want the other spouce to have any assets of the deceased, joint ownership of all assets (right now if one gifts more than $11k to the other it effects their unified credit), spoucal disability insurance, reg. life insurance (if there isn't a "vested interest" in the life of a person you can not take out life insurance on the other... a spouce is deemed to have vested interest, a boyfriend/girlfriend isn't), spoucal social security benefits (both the pension as well as death benefit parts of SS), having the ability to set up a spoucal IRA if one isn't working, having the ability to put living wills/power of attorney/other leagal documents in place without fighting family memebers on them, and just living life as a citizen of the US not a second class citizen of the US.
In short a woman has rights if he likes guys, a guy has rights if he like ladies, but a guy who likes guys or a gal who likes gals doesn't have those rights... if that isn't discrimination I don't know what is...
Upvote
0
Nixon
Wears Scarlet-colored glasses
"Currently some couples can become a legal couple, and other couples can not become a legal couple. Either make it legal or all or illegal for all, why discriminate against some?"
Every couple is a legal couple. Nobody is arrested for being gay. Just not all couples are recognized as being married.
"If the gov. wants to make poligamy legal, so be it... the issue of allowing more than one legal spouce is a totally different issue."
What's the difference? Why is it ok to say "2 people", but not ok to say "1 man and 1 woman"?
"You are basically useing the argument that blacks and whites had to use different restrooms, and if we let all people use the same restrooms what is to say that a farmers horse can not go and leave a mess in that restroom. Totally different isssues, don't make the mistake to assume it is the same."
That analogy is silly. A horse is not a person. It doesn't use a bathroom.
There's a difference between "rights" and "privleges". I'm single, and I don't have these "rights" either. Why? Because I'm not eligible.
No single person is being discriminated against. Groups of two people are being discriminated against. No one person is ineligible to get married. They choose not to because of their sexual orientation, just like I choose not to or any other non-married person chooses not to.
I simply do not for the life of me understand how someone can say I'm discriminating because I think marriage(if sanctioned by the govt at all) should be between 1 man and 1 woman, while it's not discriminatory to limit it to 2 people. You are "imposing your morality" of monogomy on everyone just as I am "imposing my morality" of hetorosexual monogomy.
Every couple is a legal couple. Nobody is arrested for being gay. Just not all couples are recognized as being married.
"If the gov. wants to make poligamy legal, so be it... the issue of allowing more than one legal spouce is a totally different issue."
What's the difference? Why is it ok to say "2 people", but not ok to say "1 man and 1 woman"?
"You are basically useing the argument that blacks and whites had to use different restrooms, and if we let all people use the same restrooms what is to say that a farmers horse can not go and leave a mess in that restroom. Totally different isssues, don't make the mistake to assume it is the same."
That analogy is silly. A horse is not a person. It doesn't use a bathroom.
There's a difference between "rights" and "privleges". I'm single, and I don't have these "rights" either. Why? Because I'm not eligible.
No single person is being discriminated against. Groups of two people are being discriminated against. No one person is ineligible to get married. They choose not to because of their sexual orientation, just like I choose not to or any other non-married person chooses not to.
I simply do not for the life of me understand how someone can say I'm discriminating because I think marriage(if sanctioned by the govt at all) should be between 1 man and 1 woman, while it's not discriminatory to limit it to 2 people. You are "imposing your morality" of monogomy on everyone just as I am "imposing my morality" of hetorosexual monogomy.
Upvote
0
gbearbuck
Herbie for President
"Every couple is a legal couple. Nobody is arrested for being gay. Just not all couples are recognized as being married."
Legaly Recognized as a couple (single family unit), sorry if I wasn't specific...
"What's the difference? Why is it ok to say "2 people", but not ok to say "1 man and 1 woman?"
Because that is discriminating against those that want to be a legal family, however don't want a legal family with one of the opposite sex...
"That analogy is silly. A horse is not a person. It doesn't use a bathroom."
I know it is silly, that is why I used it... it is silly to not allow two loved ones to become a legal couple...
"There's a difference between "rights" and "privleges". I'm single, and I don't have these "rights" either. Why? Because I'm not eligible."
You don't have the "rights/privleges" because you are not married. If you become married, you will... these folks currently don't, and NEVER will enjoy the same rights as the others that form legal family units... The opportunity is there for you, it isn't for them soley because of the sexual preference (again discrimination).
"...Groups of two people are being discriminated against. No one person is ineligible to get married..."
If you are gay you currently are ineligible to get married to your love...
"I simply do not for the life of me understand how someone can say I'm discriminating because I think marriage(if sanctioned by the govt at all) should be between 1 man and 1 woman"
If the marriage takes place in a church I see your point, however with the sepreation of church and state, if a couple wants to marry each other, they should be allowed to (provided they are of legal age, etc) in a legal mannor... the gov. is basically saying, you are a second class citizen, you can not marry your love...
"while it's not discriminatory to limit it to 2 people. You are "imposing your morality" of monogomy on everyone just as I am "imposing my morality" of hetorosexual monogomy."
I stated I'm impartial to it (wouldn't do it)... allowing a couple to marry, and allowing a couple plus others to marry are two different things... this has nothing to do with "morality"...
Legaly Recognized as a couple (single family unit), sorry if I wasn't specific...
"What's the difference? Why is it ok to say "2 people", but not ok to say "1 man and 1 woman?"
Because that is discriminating against those that want to be a legal family, however don't want a legal family with one of the opposite sex...
"That analogy is silly. A horse is not a person. It doesn't use a bathroom."
I know it is silly, that is why I used it... it is silly to not allow two loved ones to become a legal couple...
"There's a difference between "rights" and "privleges". I'm single, and I don't have these "rights" either. Why? Because I'm not eligible."
You don't have the "rights/privleges" because you are not married. If you become married, you will... these folks currently don't, and NEVER will enjoy the same rights as the others that form legal family units... The opportunity is there for you, it isn't for them soley because of the sexual preference (again discrimination).
"...Groups of two people are being discriminated against. No one person is ineligible to get married..."
If you are gay you currently are ineligible to get married to your love...
"I simply do not for the life of me understand how someone can say I'm discriminating because I think marriage(if sanctioned by the govt at all) should be between 1 man and 1 woman"
If the marriage takes place in a church I see your point, however with the sepreation of church and state, if a couple wants to marry each other, they should be allowed to (provided they are of legal age, etc) in a legal mannor... the gov. is basically saying, you are a second class citizen, you can not marry your love...
"while it's not discriminatory to limit it to 2 people. You are "imposing your morality" of monogomy on everyone just as I am "imposing my morality" of hetorosexual monogomy."
I stated I'm impartial to it (wouldn't do it)... allowing a couple to marry, and allowing a couple plus others to marry are two different things... this has nothing to do with "morality"...
Upvote
0
Nixon
Wears Scarlet-colored glasses
"I know it is silly, that is why I used it... it is silly to not allow two loved ones to become a legal couple..."
To you it is. For me it is silly for two gay men to say they are married.
"You don't have the "rights/privleges" because you are not married. If you become married, you will..."
The reason I don't have those privleges is because I choose not to get married to a woman...and so do they.
"If you are gay you currently are ineligible to get married to your love..."
But you are eligible to get married to somebody. That's why the Civil Rights movement is a proposterous thing to bring up...blacks weren't allowed to ride in the front of the bus in Alabama, no matter what...all people could get married. If they feel they are gay or they don't want to get married, they can't. It's their choice--no one is stopping them. Your argument assumes that being gay or straight is a natural thing just like being black or being white is a natural thing...and I don't buy it.
"the gov. is basically saying, you are a second class citizen, you can not marry your love..."
And the govt is also telling polygamists they are second class citizens, they can't marry their love(s).
"this has nothing to do with "morality"..."
Well then why limit it to couples? Why are you against a man who loves 2 women marrying both of them...if morality is not an issue, and all that matters is love...
To you it is. For me it is silly for two gay men to say they are married.
"You don't have the "rights/privleges" because you are not married. If you become married, you will..."
The reason I don't have those privleges is because I choose not to get married to a woman...and so do they.
"If you are gay you currently are ineligible to get married to your love..."
But you are eligible to get married to somebody. That's why the Civil Rights movement is a proposterous thing to bring up...blacks weren't allowed to ride in the front of the bus in Alabama, no matter what...all people could get married. If they feel they are gay or they don't want to get married, they can't. It's their choice--no one is stopping them. Your argument assumes that being gay or straight is a natural thing just like being black or being white is a natural thing...and I don't buy it.
"the gov. is basically saying, you are a second class citizen, you can not marry your love..."
And the govt is also telling polygamists they are second class citizens, they can't marry their love(s).
"this has nothing to do with "morality"..."
Well then why limit it to couples? Why are you against a man who loves 2 women marrying both of them...if morality is not an issue, and all that matters is love...
Upvote
0
gbearbuck
Herbie for President
why do you keep bringing up poligamy? That is a different issue all together.
The bottom line is you think married people can only be hetero. I don't have a problem with that so long as the gov. will allow gays to be a legal joint entity (same priv.'s as marrage, just don't call it marrage... to me marrage is a church word, not a gov. word... so I don't have a problem with the wording... call the gay unions something else if you want)
"To you it is. For me it is silly for two gay men to say they are married."
Again, don't call it a marrage, all I'm saying is allow them to be a legal union... straights can, have yet to hear a good reason why gays can not...
"The reason I don't have those privleges is because I choose not to get married to a woman...and so do they."
So by this you are saying lesbians can get married, gay men can not... you don't make any sense...
"It's their choice--no one is stopping them..."
The law is currently stopping them from becomeing a legal union, that is why we are having this convo in the first place...
"Your argument assumes that being gay or straight is a natural.."
Wrong, it assumes they are humans that are citizens of the US and should be treated the same as hetero folks...
The bottom line is you think married people can only be hetero. I don't have a problem with that so long as the gov. will allow gays to be a legal joint entity (same priv.'s as marrage, just don't call it marrage... to me marrage is a church word, not a gov. word... so I don't have a problem with the wording... call the gay unions something else if you want)
"To you it is. For me it is silly for two gay men to say they are married."
Again, don't call it a marrage, all I'm saying is allow them to be a legal union... straights can, have yet to hear a good reason why gays can not...
"The reason I don't have those privleges is because I choose not to get married to a woman...and so do they."
So by this you are saying lesbians can get married, gay men can not... you don't make any sense...
"It's their choice--no one is stopping them..."
The law is currently stopping them from becomeing a legal union, that is why we are having this convo in the first place...
"Your argument assumes that being gay or straight is a natural.."
Wrong, it assumes they are humans that are citizens of the US and should be treated the same as hetero folks...
Upvote
0
Because of their sexual orientation they are not allowed to have a legal union. I don't know how it can be said that "they choose not to because of their sexual orientation." This seems to be assuming that they choose to be gay, which I can't see why anyone would choose a path that is discriminated against. (I know that is another discussion, whether or not being homosexual is a free choice one makes or if it is somehow programmed into the individuals.)
Upvote
0
Sure, being gay isn't like being Black. One is a sexual identity, while the other is a racial classification. But both groups are born the way they are, and are not able to change it just by making a conscious decision (Exept maybe Michael Jackson, who has somehow gone from Black man to white woman)
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
woody
When considering gays being born into homosexuality you are once again making a unprooven assumption.
Basing your argument on unprooven theories is a bad idea.
You will end up having no facts or real data to qualify your points.
When considering gays being born into homosexuality you are once again making a unprooven assumption.
Basing your argument on unprooven theories is a bad idea.
You will end up having no facts or real data to qualify your points.
Upvote
0
OK, there is equal proof that gay people are gay by choice...your argument cuts both ways. The fact is that I have never met a gay person who made the assertion that they were gay by choice.
Upvote
0
gbearbuck
Herbie for President
ashland,
Nixon is assumeing it is a choice. And that is why he thinks it isn't discriminatory....
It isn't proven either way... so why not let all folks have the right to a legal union as far as the gov. is concerned. (again, nothing to do with churches... if God, Mohomad, Budah, etc. don't like it, that is up to the higher being and the person)...
Nixon is assumeing it is a choice. And that is why he thinks it isn't discriminatory....
It isn't proven either way... so why not let all folks have the right to a legal union as far as the gov. is concerned. (again, nothing to do with churches... if God, Mohomad, Budah, etc. don't like it, that is up to the higher being and the person)...
Upvote
0