Ocean11 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Question; If marriage were really the old, flawed, watered down, antiquated tradition that nobody really believes in anyway, as presented by some here - why are homosexuals so envious of it and so desirous of getting involved? I detect a wish to have the cake that's already been eaten... Link to post Share on other sites
rach 1 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I've always wanted to re-eat a cake I've already eaten (in it's original form of course). Oops. That wasn't very constructive was it.... Link to post Share on other sites
mikazooki 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: I only see a wishy-washy 'wouldn't it be nice if...' sort of feeling, backed up by naive non-arguments. funny u should say that, i was just thinking the same of everything that came from your keyboard. Quote: I don't see any valid points being made here in favour of it. to the contrary i think plenty of posters have made valid arguments as to why it is acceptable. as for your question, i think it is the legal regognition of their partnership which is being sought. which if i ever marry will all be that i seek. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 OK, zooks, if you say so. I've answered every single point, several times, and dealt with a lot of gay lib agitprop, but it's clearly just washed straight over your head. So, let's just wait and see how long it takes before enough heteros accept homos as their equals, and your happy, diverse, strong gay society comes into being shall we? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Eh rach? Link to post Share on other sites
Goemon 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: why are homosexuals so envious of it and so desirous of getting involved? Equal benefits under the law (especially with regards to tax breaks, insurance, etc.). I think this valid point has been raised many times in this discussion, but it continues to elude you for some reason. (Ocean: sorry if my joking about your cornhole caused you any undue distress.) Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Goemon, your comment caused me no distress. It's not something I don't get. Those are perks that come with the status which results from being qualified. If you're not qualified, you're also not equal, by definition. As I said above, I have my doubts whether married people really deserve any of those perks anyway, unless perhaps they have had children. I would far sooner give up those perks for the sake of even a spurious appearance of equality than admit that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. And if it's just the perks they're after, sod them is all I can say. That's not what the game is about. Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: [QB] I don't like having to do crappy translation tests because anybody can call themselves translator. Similarly, I don't want to have to be tested for parental fitness when I get married so that I can be 'equal' to all the married homosexuals (for whom such monitoring is widely accepted to be necessary). You tested you wife before you got married right? Why? You wanted to make sure she had what it takes and all the right requirements for you. Same principle with the tests. Simple as that. Join most companies these days fresh and you are given a test. Got nothing to do with others making your job reputation bad because of their inadaqucies. Flawed statement based on your beleif that you are the best and people should accept it because you say so. Gotta prove it somehow. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I would far sooner give up those perks for the sake of even a spurious appearance of equality than admit that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. Well there you have it. The sticking point in a nutshell. Most of us consider all equal in the eyes of the law, marriage (as being discussed here) is a legal institution, therefore open to those of all persuasion. If one considers a group to be less than equal, then I can see your point, but will never concede that the group in question is less than equal, along with most other contributors to this discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Flawed statement based on your beleif that you are the best and people should accept it because you say so. Gotta prove it somehow. Wrong. The fact that I have high paying clients is my qualification. You have the genuine goods, you're qualified. Already proved it. No need to test. It's not a complicated issue. But homos are claiming equal rights to marriage, and yet they can't even make the genuine goods that marriage is expected to produce. And the fact that they can't be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to bringing up a child should they be given one is a further disqualification. Heteros on the other hand have proved it by, er, wanting to get married. (Heteros only have to be tested if there's a clear suspicion that they're in it for some alterior motive, or are clearly unsuited to bring up children for some glaring reason - bit of a hint there). Link to post Share on other sites
mikazooki 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: I would far sooner give up those perks for the sake of even a spurious appearance of equality than admit that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. u could just write: >i am a bigot, leave me alone and we wouldn't have to argue anymore Link to post Share on other sites
proudtobegay 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 Well, look what I started From my personal point of view, as a gay guy...... I don't really think much of the concept of marriage for heteros either. I think it is outdated and more and more people will not be marrying - something that we can see now. So for me, I don't want to get married, and I wouldn't if I were hetero. As for your posts associating gays with child abuse etc - that's outrageous and hardly worth commenting on. Link to post Share on other sites
mikazooki 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 or perhaps: >i am a bigot, bring it on might be more appropriate Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: But homos are claiming equal rights to marriage, and yet they can't even make the genuine goods that marriage is expected to produce. What? Love, respect and support? (and dirty bed sheets) Link to post Share on other sites
kintaro 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 very, very entertaining thread. Looks like it's Ocean v. the forum world on this one. Not the first time. I tend to side w/ Ocean on this. Same sex marriage. what's the point? Is it legal equality, recognition, increase the odds of adoption...?? What are you really after and why? Marriage is the uniting of a man and a women as husband and wife in pretty much any dictionary you consult. "we live in a dynamic society" I read above. Sure we can redefine words on a whim. But what do we change our definition of marriage to? The unity of 2 beings (man-man, women-women, man-women, man/women-beast)? Anything goes?? The insurance argument is lame. You can appoint anyone your beneficiary married or not. Taxes...c'mon! Who saved a mill. last year in taxes simply b/c they were married? Gays: if you want to be married, draft your own little paper, tell all your friends your married and live accordingly. Who the hell cares if you are recognized by the local authorities? I've read a lot of Oceans arguments as to why not...but serioulsy why allow same sex marriages? You guys are just arguing against Ocean, try arguing for your cause and maybe you can help your pro-same-sex marriage arguments.I'm undecided. Convince me. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 db, for the last time, they can have all that without marriage. But there's more to marriage than that. I fully respect and admire gays who actually achieve that. zooks, it doesn't take long with people of your level of intelligence for the PC veil to drop and the simple, ignorant insults to start flying. Bigot yourself. I have no wish to see gays discriminated against when there is no basis for it in reality. miteyak, I'm glad you finally saw the nutshell - it was quite obviously there all along. Maybe one day you'll wake up and see that the equality you imagine or wish is there, simply isn't. 21C, I hope you post something here that isn't related to your own sexuality one day, and then I might be able to look beyond that and find some respect for you. Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Ocean there are millions of couples, homo and hetero, who are unable to have children...if they have to persue having kids by other means, it doesn't make them inferior. A man can have kids a woman can't, she doesn't 'qualify' as a functioning human being? I have a question.... If your own son turned out to be openly gay, would you welcome his adopted or inseminated children with open arms? Sit them on your knee and remind them where they really come from? Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: ....they can have all that without marriage. But there's more to marriage than that. You bet there is! The b*tch can take your Porsche and dog when she has an affair and you kick here out of the house!! Serious answer: Quote: ....they can have all that without marriage. But there's more to marriage than that. I want no more than mutual love, respect, support and trust and I suppose if I were gay, I wouldn't care for the right to be married on the basis that I want no more than that which I have stated. Link to post Share on other sites
Goemon 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Ocean: I agree with your disdain for 21C's strictly posting only gay issues or comments and understand your irritation. I don't consider this disdain to be "gay bashing" though since I dislike anyone who posts/talks only about one subject...except for cheeseman maybe. Kintaro: Interesting to hear your perspective since you're from Hawaii where same sex marriage is recognized by the state government (and aren't you a minister?). You may think that the legal benefits are miniscule, but here is a fairly comprehensive listing from this website : Quote: On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; and more.... Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. Link to post Share on other sites
mikazooki 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 no ocean, i don't believe there is anything un PC in labelling u as such. u do not concede any validity to alternative arguments, despite a significant numbers apparently sharing this view. your view of marriage is your view, not the view. and basically what has been established is that your view of marriage is narrower than that of others. but instead of arguing that you view marriage in a given manner, you insist that it exists only for this role, and all other meanings are insignificant. this is clearly a misconception. there is no sanctity in marriage, except for one that a person places in it. it provides visas, and rights over medical decsions for incapacited partners, and other priveleges homosexual couples can rightly expect to be party to. so, as pointed out by others there is a legal meaning of marriage which is entirely relevant and significant. your refusal to accept this fits well under the umbrella of bigotry. beyond that your criticisms have extended to scorn homosexuals as being of increased risk of paedophilia and likened their home environment to a prison environment. and the fact that you express concern over a boy learning homosexual behaviour suggests you feel the behaviour is wrong. i take issue with your views because i disagree, however, your manner of discussion belies an inflexibilty that i see no justification for, and an emotive manner of expression i find unappealing. the result of your opinion is (for reasons not accepted as valid by all) discrimination against homosexuals. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Goemon, thanks for the words of acknowledgement on gratuitously off-topic posts - I appreciate it. Good on you too for posting that list. I can see that for many of those items there is absolutely no reason not to grant those rights to individuals, to specify one or more other people as benficiaries, executors whatever, without having to get married. That people have to get married for some of that stuff is absurd. Indeed, the requirement to do that somewhat contributes to the dilution of the concept of marriage. Rather than further diluting marriage by including homosexuals, far better to give them these rights as equal rights which they are due. zooks, off you go again, slandering, twisting stuff to suit your own prejudices. I do not 'scorn' homosexuals for their potential for pedophilia - it is a general concern, that only a willfully blind or PC-politicized person would ignore. You missed my joke about ALL home environments being like prisons in many ways - Mr Matthews got the joke I think anyway. And damn right I don't want children learning to be gay, because it's a handicap to those who are. What, you want to be taught to be gay yourself? I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteer teachers... As for the issue of emotion, well, it's an emotional issue to some extent. You know just as well as I do how to raise or lower the temperature there... Bigot. Moron. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: Bigot. Moron. Come on. This is a little harsh and not deserved and nor was the previous statement about your perception of his intellect. Link to post Share on other sites
kintaro 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Goemon, Very thourough. Thank you. Yes, I'm a part time "pro-bono" minister. I enjoy it when I have the time. I've never married a same-sex couple and just wanted to encourage other opinions for the sake of argument...something other than the simply refuting Ocean posts. You provided a good one. Mahalo! Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I'm sorry, but anybody who can even raise the possibility of teaching children to be gay is so woefully steeped in PC stalinism as to merit the names bigot and moron. Would anybody else with views somewhat similar to his like to disown that particular part, or are yous all 'k with that? I've taken some heat and criticism for my views, but most other people have refrained from gross twisting, lies, and name-calling. Bar one. Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: zooks, off you go again, slandering, twisting stuff to suit your own prejudices. I do not 'scorn' homosexuals for their potential for pedophilia - it is a general concern, that only a willfully blind or PC-politicized person would ignore. Ocean it does seem a bit patronising when you are suggesting that you are the only one who can see through the gay proaganda and PC bullsh*t. You don't give others much credit. I'd suggest that most of those that disagree with you on this discussion have taken a more objective and balanced view. Besides 21C's postings have so far amounted to sqwat, and he's left the brainwashed gay rights hetrosexual masses to do his protesting for him. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: Maybe one day you'll wake up and see that the equality you imagine or wish is there, simply isn't. Fortunately (in my humble opinion), it's you who will one day wake up and find gay marriages legal in most developed nations. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts