Last active: Never Not logged in [Login ]

Printable Version |
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll
Author: Subject: Bigotted rant of a Canadian regarding American issues

Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-25-2004 at 09:59 AM Edit Post
Its as current as current events get Mod. If you close this thread, it'll just pop up in another. There's a good chance that this is going to be one of the major issues in the coming election. I think this is going to be one of those cases where we just have to accept that rhetoric is going to be heated, much the way it frequently was during the war in Iraq.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Ultra Magnus
Man of a Thousand Holds

Posts 1491
Registered 1-4-2002
Location Red Sox Nation
Member Is Offline

Mood: Resigned

posted on 2-25-2004 at 10:18 AM Edit Post
Benefits of marriage ~impossible to establish by private contract (cribbed):

*Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

*Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

*Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

*Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

*Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

*Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

*Receiving public assistance benefits.

*Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

*Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

*Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

*Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.

*Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

*Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

*Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

*Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

*Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

*Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

*Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court canít force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

*Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

*Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

*Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

I raise six glasses every night, just to get drunk enough to love this country like I did as a kid: without feeling like it's using me.

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member   Ultra+Magnus 's Aim
The Man

Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-25-2004 at 03:23 PM Edit Post
Originally posted by Operation Pajama Pants
i'm gonna go krydor styile with the point by point quoting.

The Krydor Style means that I can't unintentionally miss anything.


arranged marraiges are shitty, but still valid. marrying for money is skany, but still valid. prenups i dont see how they're are an issue here in any way.

It points to the notion that "love" (undefinable as it is) is not the only thing involved in marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.


this is just a case you taking a ridiculous unreasonable extreme. there is scientific evidence to show that incestual relationships causes genetic problems. once again this has nothing to do with the subject of gays.

This very thread has already brought up different kinds of issues (Magnus mentioned all kinds of tax benefits). Why can't these benefits be extended to other couples? Is marriage simply based on sex?


all i can say to this is why shouldn't it? for everytime someone's said "it should change just cause" you've said "it shouldn't change just cause". "that's the way it's always been" is not a valid arguement. of course that's the way it's always been. there wouldn't be thought of changing it if it wasn't.

Ok, so I'm of the mind that in order to change the status quo, there should be a compelling reason to do so. The case isn't mine to make.


well i'm no brain science guy, so i dont know about this. what i will say is perhaps whatever "works different" in the brain that makes you attracted to the opposite sex in in fact "working" like the opposite sex and that is why they are attracted to the same sex.

That may well be. At least this is an answer that doesn't veer off into the areas that managed to get the other thread shut down.


so a traditionally married couple, who no longer want anymore children, should at that point stop having sex? cuz at that point, it's just rectreational. you can't honestly believe that. is that it is or gonna be in your marraige? as soon as you and your wife decide you've had enough kids that you will cease to ever have sex with her again?

No, of course not. Now you're just being silly. Roles change within a marriage. From husband and wife, to mother and father, to grandma and grampa.


i try to stay away from calling you a bigot because i honestly believe you're not trying to be. but when you constantly say that homosexual love is not the same, and that a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual relationship, then i just can't help it. you obviously feel you're above homosexuals and deserve more rights than them.

I love my father. Is that not different than the way I love my wife? I love my children, is that not different than the way I love my best friend? Those are "givens", based on the dynamics of each relationship. However, when I bring up that the dynamics of gay love are different than the dynamics of straight love, I'm branded with all sorts of different epithets.

At no point have I said that homosexual relationships shouldn't be granted the same rights as heterosexual relationships. What I have been saying is that whatever you call that gay relationship, it legally shouldn't be defined as marriage.

I'm not sure if you remember a vehicle called an El Camino, Ford had a similar one called a Ranchero. It wasn't a truck, even though it had a box. It wasn't a car because of the box. It was something different.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
The Immortal One

Posts 4503
Registered 1-4-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Careworn

posted on 2-25-2004 at 10:59 PM Edit Post
It's good to know that you post that way so you don't miss anything. Meanwhile, the poor sap who has to read it is missing a lot trying to wade through that mess. Mostly, his time.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   Eli 's Aim   Eli 's Yahoo
John Edwards is a faggot.

Posts 4109
Registered 3-17-2002
Location Inside The Internets
Member Is Offline

Mood: not dead yet

posted on 2-25-2004 at 11:08 PM Edit Post
The Krydor Style

(off topic)

I understand why you quote everything, but at times it just to much when you quote a quote within a quote thats in a quote, seriously. Ever thought about doing like me and just copy/pasting quotes in italics instead? I started doing that and it seems to help cut the thread size down a bit. Just open another window from the "This is a long topic, click here to review it" note at a thread's bottom and then copy and paste. Just a thought...

Carry on

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One

Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 2-26-2004 at 02:08 AM Edit Post
Since we're all offering formating suggestions, I'll give mine.

Replace the Quote tag with the Bold tag. Then your posts would look like this:

Quote by the person you're responding to
Reply to person you're responding to.

The biggest problem with how you're doing it now (aside from content, of course) is that the Block Quote format eats up yards of space, and is difficult to read.

Just a thought.

Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
The Man

Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-26-2004 at 01:52 PM Edit Post
Well, I'll try my darndest to change the way I respond. I misrepresented Magnus' position on something or another awhile back because I didn't quote his post.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll

go to top

Powered by XMB 1.8 Partagium Final SP1
Developed By Aventure Media & The XMB Group
Processed in 0.0441060 seconds, 21 queries