Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyamory

[CraigKrill 1]

It turns out if you're drunk, and everyones drunk, and you have sex with a random chick in the pool/garage, and it seemed like everyone was into it, I mean, it's not like anybody tried to stop what was clearly going on, you may get into a spot of trouble.

 

Interesting, busy few weeks. I will expound upon later.

[GWCGWC 83]

Who has a freaking pool in their garage....and why? Doesn't matter. I need pics. You may very well have the absolute coolest garage in the world.

[MPaler 72]

Gay marriage. Look, I have nothing against anyone who wants to sleep with whosoever they want. Frankly, it really is none of my business. That being said, it just makes no sense to me whatsoever. Not just because marriage is “my thing”, heterosexuality is “my club” (Why are you insisting we are the exact same? We are not. That is not good or bad, but it truly is different. So, why not do your own thing?) It is because of the word itself. Why to you think it is called marriage in the first place? If it was just about love, it would be called something else. So, why the word “marriage”? Well, you are joining two similar, yet different things (A man and a Woman) together. And, therefore, they can also be split apart. So, you can “marry” two ingredients together (apple juice and orange juice, slat and pepper). Yet, you would never say “marry these two ingredients together...Salt and Salt, Apple juice and apple juice...Why can’t the LGBT folks forge their own path? Why hi-jack mine? I feel the same about "men only" or "women only" clubs. What is the problem? If you do not like it, start your own club.

As for polygamy...well, hell, I don't know. I always figured the more wives you have, the more that everything, both good and bad, is magnified. Mostly, the bad! Husbands and wives? Well, now you have lost me. What's the point? A monogamous group? But, hey, if you are happy, then why care what others think? Don’t live your life by that. If you are happy, they are happy...then I’m happy for you. But if you all want to get “married”, I’m simply not going to vote to accept that. It’s really no different from what I said above. No offense, I just do not agree. Get your own club, let me have mine.

[GWCGWC 83]

Your club has legal protections that the gay population doesn't have.

 

 

What's up with that font size?

[MPaler 72]

Your club has legal protections that the gay population doesn't have.

 

 

What's up with that font size?

 

Oh, by all means, just what laws are those? I hear that alot, never can seem to get an answer. Odd. Please, however, make it more than one, after all; you said "protections". This would indicate a gaggle of laws that protect only people who are straight. By all means, enlighten me. Frankly, I'm not aware of ANY laws that do not protect BOTH Gay and STRAIGHT. But you go right ahead and list them. I will apologise full heartedly for my ignorance if this turns out to be true.

 

As for the text size, hey, I'm new here, cut me some slack. You should have seen the first run. I could not even get my signature pic to load properly. Had to try 3 different browsers before I got it, lol.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Oh, by all means, just what laws are those? I hear that alot, never can seem to get an answer. Odd. Please, however, make it more than one, after all; you said "protections". This would indicate a gaggle of laws that protect only people who are straight. By all means, enlighten me. Frankly, I'm not aware of ANY laws that do not protect BOTH Gay and STRAIGHT. But you go right ahead and list them. I will apologise full heartedly for my ignorance if this turns out to be true.

 

As for the text size, hey, I'm new here, cut me some slack. You should have seen the first run. I could not even get my signature pic to load properly. Had to try 3 different browsers before I got it, lol.

 

From an article posted today.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/what-are-the-possible-outcomes-when-the-u-s-supreme-court-rules-on-same-sex-marriage-this-week/

 

What happens if the court upholds Section 3 of DOMA, defining marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman?

 

Upholding DOMA would not affect state laws regarding marriage but would keep in place federal statutes and rules that prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving a range of benefits that are otherwise available to married people. These benefits include breaks on estate taxes, health insurance for spouses of federal workers and Social Security survivor benefits.

 

 

What if the court strikes down the DOMA provision?

 

A ruling against DOMA would allow legally married gay couples or, in some cases, a surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage, to receive benefits and tax breaks resulting from more than 1,000 federal statutes in which marital status is relevant. For 83-year-old Edith Windsor, a New York widow whose case is before the court, such a ruling would give her a refund of $363,000 in estate taxes that were paid after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. The situation could become complicated for people who get married where same-sex unions are legal, but who live or move where they are not.

[Balloon guy 158]

Funny how liberals hate people paying more taxes when it suits their purpose.

 

Estate tax laws were always designed around the notion of passing wealth from one generation to another, or to support the wife who traditionally avoided a career in exchange for raising a family.

 

It's not a gift for being monogamous.

 

Considering that traditionally 2 gay men will have a much higher income over their life then a man and woman raising a family, it's really weak to argue they should be given a tax break to make it 'fair'

[MPaler 72]

​Alright! Well, if the feds do not recognize Gay marriage, but certain states do not either, then the law is not "protecting" straights over gays in those states that do not have gay marriage, are they? Nope. Yet, in the states that do allow it, the Feds are "protecting" straights over gays? Nope.

 

Just how are they "protecting" anyone with this law? They are simply applying rules to receive additional benefits; are these rules unfair to single people as well? I guess you could say that they are. Are they unfair to those with more than one wife? Again, you could say that they are. Are they “protecting” straights over gays, singles and multiple wife/husband marriages with this law? I don’t see it. Can you still marry the opposite sex, even though you are gay, and get the same benefits that I can? Sure you can. You are then following the rules as it applies to receiving these benefits. So, if you are single, you don't meet the rules to get the benefits. Nor do you if you are married in any way not covered by federal law. It’s not a protection. It’s just the requirements you have to meet in order to get these additional benefits! IT IS NOT A PROTECTION. Should my long time girlfriend get my death benefit? No. Is that fair? No, I suppose not. Are they protecting married people over single people? Of course not.

 

We can go around and around all night on this one. But this is all you can find? People make it sound like gays are being tromped on left and right in our laws. It just isn't so. Now, what is stopping those states that have allowed gay marriage from offering you the same state benefits that straight married couples have? They cannot, can they? They do not, do they? How is that possible? They changed the requirements to receive those benefits.

 

Perhaps the only “fair” thing to do is just get rid of them for anyone and everyone. Would that be fair? Sure would. You want that? Would that make this better? “I cannot qualify for this, so no one should be able to get it.” Keep it up, and that is exactly what will happen. Kind of sounds like "I don't like these rules, so I will just take my ball and go home."

 

So, once again, I ask: Where are the laws protecting one of us over the other? There are none, are there? Zero, zip, nada.

[mrdannyg 274]

​Alright! Well, if the feds do not recognize Gay marriage, but certain states do not either, then the law is not "protecting" straights over gays in those states that do not have gay marriage, are they? Nope. Yet, in the states that do allow it, the Feds are "protecting" straights over gays? Nope.

 

Just how are they "protecting" anyone with this law? They are simply applying rules to receive additional benefits; are these rules unfair to single people as well? I guess you could say that they are. Are they unfair to those with more than one wife? Again, you could say that they are. Are they “protecting” straights over gays, singles and multiple wife/husband marriages with this law? I don’t see it. Can you still marry the opposite sex, even though you are gay, and get the same benefits that I can? Sure you can. You are then following the rules as it applies to receiving these benefits. So, if you are single, you don't meet the rules to get the benefits. Nor do you if you are married in any way not covered by federal law. It’s not a protection. It’s just the requirements you have to meet in order to get these additional benefits! IT IS NOT A PROTECTION. Should my long time girlfriend get my death benefit? No. Is that fair? No, I suppose not. Are they protecting married people over single people? Of course not.

 

We can go around and around all night on this one. But this is all you can find? People make it sound like gays are being tromped on left and right in our laws. It just isn't so. Now, what is stopping those states that have allowed gay marriage from offering you the same state benefits that straight married couples have? They cannot, can they? They do not, do they? How is that possible? They changed the requirements to receive those benefits.

 

Perhaps the only “fair” thing to do is just get rid of them for anyone and everyone. Would that be fair? Sure would. You want that? Would that make this better? “I cannot qualify for this, so no one should be able to get it.” Keep it up, and that is exactly what will happen. Kind of sounds like "I don't like these rules, so I will just take my ball and go home."

 

So, once again, I ask: Where are the laws protecting one of us over the other? There are none, are there? Zero, zip, nada.

 

You're my favourite kind of troll.

[GWCGWC 83]

off the top of my head:

 

estate taxes

insurance death benefits

employer healthcare benefits

healthcare rights

adoption rights

tax status filing

 

I'm sure there are way more than I listed but I'm not gay(not sexually anyway) so I don't have a running list of discrimination bullet points at the tip of my fingers. Those are just a few protections hetro marriages have that gay people don't. I'm not saying there isn't a work around to most of these for gays but it takes contracts drawn up by attorneys, which may or may not be well written, and also money.....lots and lots of money.

 

Even if marriage was just a piece of paper and didn't afford any legal protections, the exclusion of gays w/r/t marriage is wrong.

[MPaler 72]

You're my favourite kind of troll.

 

Thanks. Notice my superior wit and rapscallion writing style gets few rebuttals.

[CraigKrill 1]

off the top of my head:

 

estate taxes

insurance death benefits

employer healthcare benefits

healthcare rights

adoption rights

tax status filing

 

I'm sure there are way more than I listed but I'm not gay(not sexually anyway) so I don't have a running list of discrimination bullet points at the tip of my fingers. Those are just a few protections hetro marriages have that gay people don't. I'm not saying there isn't a work around to most of these for gays but it takes contracts drawn up by attorneys, which may or may not be well written, and also money.....lots and lots of money.

 

Even if marriage was just a piece of paper and didn't afford any legal protections, the exclusion of gays w/r/t marriage is wrong.

 

 

Pretty much covered here, its takes a lot of money to get what heteros get for pretty much just existing.

[CraigKrill 1]

Who has a freaking pool in their garage....and why? Doesn't matter. I need pics. You may very well have the absolute coolest garage in the world.

 

 

No pool in the garage, started in the pool, ended up in the garage.

 

It was really no big deal, just drunken sex, except it was outside of the agreement as it stands now, so it was a big deal. It IS a big deal. I have a pretty healthy history of not keeping promises when it comes to relationships. Not good, and not who I want to be at this point in my life, so I went ahead and started going to a counselor.

 

It's been interesting, and valuable to say the least, but not so much for the cheating issue. That's just a choice, either I do it or don't. It's a given that I will be thrown tail until the end of time, I just have to take steps to avoid said tail, because, well, I like my life. No, where the value has been is in just learning different ways to communicate better with wife number two, and some of the reasons why we act the way we do, things in our past and stuff that have moulded who we are today, fun stuff.

 

Still pretty busy, I will do a detailed post on drunken sex night soon as I get more than 15 minutes to dick around,

[Balloon guy 158]

Existing, and populating the species...which kind of is the relevant point you are missing

 

 

 

 

[GWCGWC 83]

Populating the species is a biology thing which has nothing to do with marriage.

[Balloon guy 158]

A governmental policy granting benefits to offset the losses realized from raising children isn't a right to be demanded in the name of fairness.

 

 

Especially when the ones screaming unfairness are on average richer than the ones they are demanding 'equal rights' with.

 

 

And to head off the 'what about couples that don't have children' deflection, the world's not fair, they get away with being lucky. Just like every American homosexual gets away with being lucky they weren't born in Tehran where they kill you for being gay.

[funyet 53]

Just like every American homosexual gets away with being lucky they weren't born in Tehran where they kill you for being gay.

 

Finally. Balloon guy admits that people are born gay.

[Balloon guy 158]

Finally. Balloon guy admits that people are born gay.

 

Wait...what?

[mrdannyg 274]

Thanks. Notice my superior wit and rapscallion writing style gets few rebuttals.

A governmental policy granting benefits to offset the losses realized from raising children isn't a right to be demanded in the name of fairness.

 

 

Especially when the ones screaming unfairness are on average richer than the ones they are demanding 'equal rights' with.

 

 

And to head off the 'what about couples that don't have children' deflection, the world's not fair, they get away with being lucky. Just like every American homosexual gets away with being lucky they weren't born in Tehran where they kill you for being gay.

 

Why does it make more sense to give benefits related to having children to all straight couples, regardless of if they have children, as compared to, I don't know, maybe just all couples who have children?

[Balloon guy 158]

Why does it make more sense to give benefits related to having children to all straight couples, regardless of if they have children, as compared to, I don't know, maybe just all couples who have children?

 

Yes, let's complicate the tax laws even more so a wealthy socio-economic group feels more included.

 

How about we also test each child to see which 14 year olds are mature enough to drive and vote, and which 21 year olds are too immature to drink?

 

 

The laws were created to support the action of populating society, not as a reward system for having kids. That's the justification, the argument that we should allow homosexuals to marry so they can realize tax benefits is making the argument that we gave straight people extra rights FOR being straight, which is stupid.

[mrdannyg 274]

Yes, let's complicate the tax laws even more so a wealthy socio-economic group feels more included.

 

How about we also test each child to see which 14 year olds are mature enough to drive and vote, and which 21 year olds are too immature to drink?

 

The laws were created to support the action of populating society, not as a reward system for having kids. That's the justification, the argument that we should allow homosexuals to marry so they can realize tax benefits is making the argument that we gave straight people extra rights FOR being straight, which is stupid.

 

Not wanting to do it because it is too much "complication" to the tax laws is worth 0 points, obviously. Not even an argument.

 

Let's keep calling them wealthy too. Nice way to ignore the fact that they are born a certain way or not, and them being more wealthy than average (I'm sure you have a study demonstrating it) is causality, not causation.

 

The laws were designed to make make a system to accommodate coupling. That's it. The argument is not that we allow gay people to get married so they can get extra benefits, but that they should get the same benefits that everyone else in their situation would have.

 

The argument that you and the other idiot have made several times now is that straight people do not get extra rights. Which is wrong, obviously. Straight people have options (marriage) that gay people don't. Those options may or may not suit them (some prefer to be together and not married, some choose to get married), and they have the right to access them. Gay people do not have those options. You can call it a benefit for being straight or a punishment for being gay, but you can't call it neither.

[Balloon guy 158]

Your argument is entirely emotionally based. Not closely related to reality.

 

The SPECIFIC argument that gay people deserve the same tax benefits as straight people ignore the REASON we give tax benefits to straight people. The fact that you can't make the connection shows that emotions are how you determine facts.

 

 

DINKS are always richer than their peer Non-DINKS. I know you will need a scientific study done by Harvard for decades to understand why a pair of people with no kids has more discretionary money than a similar couple with kids, but you may have to wait until they finish their study of why people with arms give more hugs than people without arms.

[Balloon guy 158]

And now that the republican weighted conservative Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage, we can expect a huge rush of gay marriages to hit the courts.

 

Followed by a huge number of divorces in about 2 years.

[mrdannyg 274]

Your argument is entirely emotionally based. Not closely related to reality.

 

The SPECIFIC argument that gay people deserve the same tax benefits as straight people ignore the REASON we give tax benefits to straight people. The fact that you can't make the connection shows that emotions are how you determine facts.

 

 

DINKS are always richer than their peer Non-DINKS. I know you will need a scientific study done by Harvard for decades to understand why a pair of people with no kids has more discretionary money than a similar couple with kids, but you may have to wait until they finish their study of why people with arms give more hugs than people without arms.

 

I didn't. My entire argument was about the reason. Apparently you're ignoring it. To be fair, I only pointed that the actual reason for the laws was completely different than the one you gave. I ignored your actual argument, mostly because it was stupid. Gay couples and straight people can legally have children. It's not an emotional argument to say that it makes sense for laws related to having children to apply to those who have or can have children.

 

Your argument seems to be that laws related to coupling were put in place because that's how children were generated back in the day and so that's how they should stay even though circumstances are now very different. That is the emotional argument.

 

You were comparing gay vs straight. If you want to compare kids vs no kids, then that is a different argument. And while it is certainly true that gay couples are wealthier on account of having fewer children, we'd be better off just comparing dinks vs non-dinks and gay vs straight.

 

And now that the republican weighted conservative Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage, we can expect a huge rush of gay marriages to hit the courts.

 

Followed by a huge number of divorces in about 2 years.

 

Those things would seem to be obvious and unimportant.

[Balloon guy 158]

I didn't. My entire argument was about the reason. Apparently you're ignoring it. To be fair, I only pointed that the actual reason for the laws was completely different than the one you gave. I ignored your actual argument, mostly because it was stupid. Gay couples and straight people can legally have children. It's not an emotional argument to say that it makes sense for laws related to having children to apply to those who have or can have children.

 

Your argument seems to be that laws related to coupling were put in place because that's how children were generated back in the day and so that's how they should stay even though circumstances are now very different. That is the emotional argument.

 

You were comparing gay vs straight. If you want to compare kids vs no kids, then that is a different argument. And while it is certainly true that gay couples are wealthier on account of having fewer children, we'd be better off just comparing dinks vs non-dinks and gay vs straight.

 

 

 

Those things would seem to be obvious and unimportant.

 

Again, I understand why your emotions are getting the best of you, so I'll type slower.

 

The normal result of a straight couple getting married is to have kids.

 

The normal result of gay couple getting married will never have children, unless they go to a straight union and adopt.

 

So straight couples create children, gay couple never create children without going outside their union.

 

The laws are for the most normal result of marriage, the one that actually results in natural furtherance of the species.

 

Using extreme examples to justify your position, while ignoring the overwhelming results throughout history shows the vacuum of common sense in your argument.

 

 

Unless you can show that the natural way to 'generate children' has changed, then you really shouldn't argue that things 'are now very different'. What does that even mean? Men and women are no longer each required to have a child?

 

You're making an emotional argument that is based on platitudes and propaganda, not reality.

 

For example you point out that gay couples have more money because they have 'fewer children' which is silly. Gay couples generate no children, and adoption laws are very strict against it in most states, therefore the overwhelming majority of gay couples have no children. But you don't want to look at that, you want to point to Rosie O'Donnell and pretend she's the norm.

 

 

And once you use Rosie O'Donnell for your benchmark, you lose.