 |
| |
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The state can encourage children just fine without oppresing childless couples. |
What "oppression" are you talking about? Any time perks are provided to one group over another, you have state sanctioned favoritism. Sometimes it's called affirmative action, sometimes college grant programs, sometimes it's called marriage.
quote:
There is nothing in the marriage contract that inherently is superior for raising children. |
Sure there is. There are tax breaks and financial protections. You can't call that nothing. Unmarried couples also get a few tax breaks, but not as many as married ones. In a married household, if one parent sacrifices his or her working career to be a child caregiver, that parent is entitled to alimony if the other parents leaves. This happens often enough that responsible parents-to-be should seriously consider marriage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me what a high proportion of Republicans on Apolyton are pro-gay marriage.
I just wish y'all would get out there and start knocking heads within your party to get them to see the light.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The only difference between my family and an unmarried one is I can claim my wife as a dependent, where I couldn't before. |
Ah, so you've made my point for me. Thank you. MrFun lists a few more perks that are exclusive to married partners.
MrFun: You are confusing gay marriage discrimination with discrimination against gays in general. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with marriage. 3 I don't believe, or at least I don't believe it is widespread enough to be the norm. 4 is you being upset with people excercising their rights to free speech. 5 is a small, but valid point. 6 is for the moment a private matter between you and your employer, which hopefully will go away altogether when we get socialized medicine. 7 is a serious matter for everyone that is easily solved by writing a will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
True, I was just trying to bring your point into the context of the thread. Point taken.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
But now to argue with each of your counter-points . . . .
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Ah, so you've made my point for me. Thank you. MrFun lists a few more perks that are exclusive to married partners.
MrFun: You are confusing gay marriage discrimination with discrimination against gays in general. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with marriage.
|
see above post
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
3 I don't believe, or at least I don't believe it is widespread enough to be the norm.
|
I remember reading in a newspaper a couple of years ago, that a lesbian mother was threatened with the loss of her biological child by another homophobic family member -- wish I remembered the details. But the fact that this is even possible, is horrible enough.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
4 is you being upset with people excercising their rights to free speech.
|
Nazi Germany had an effective propaganda system that dehumanized Jews, homosexuals, and every other minority group in Germany. This is, to a much less extreme, what the religious fundamentals are doing, whether they want to admit it or not.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
5 is a small, but valid point.
|
There is nothing small about someone visiting a loved one who is hospitalized.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
6 is for the moment a private matter between you and your employer, which hopefully will go away altogether when we get socialized medicine.
|
Indeed, it is privatized -- some companies such as Disney and others have made progress towards equalizing this regardless of sexual orientation. But this is still a fact that this discrimination is widespread yet.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
7 is a serious matter for everyone that is easily solved by writing a will. |
I'm sure that drafting a will is more complicated of a process for a gay couple that it is for a straight couple -- I believe gay couples have to manuever through a larger labyrinth of loopholes to create a will that will stand just as strong as a will from a straight couple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Ah, so you've made my point for me. Thank you. MrFun lists a few more perks that are exclusive to married partners. |
My point you claim proves your point has nothing to do with children. My point was that the state provides no extra protection for married families with children than to unmarried families with children except if one of the partners isn't working, which isn't that common anymore.
Neither does anything that MrFun write prove your point. MrFun is pointing out methods by which the state discriminates against gay families. Rather than promoting families with children, the state tends to hurt families with children if the parents are gay.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 06-02-2004 at 02:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I remember reading in a newspaper a couple of years ago, that a lesbian mother was threatened with the loss of her biological child by another homophobic family member -- wish I remembered the details. But the fact that this is even possible, is horrible enough. |
Something you read about exactly one time in a paper a few years ago hardly sounds like a huge social problem. OTOH, all a woman has to do today is accuse a man of being a child molester with no proof whatsoever, and *poof*, that's the end of a man's parental rights.
quote:
Nazi Germany had an effective propaganda system that dehumanized Jews, homosexuals, and every other minority group in Germany. This is, to a much less extreme, what the religious fundamentals are doing, whether they want to admit it or not.
|
Time for Godwin's law aready? While I have no love for fundies, I would be more frightened of a world where they were refused the right to speak their mind on the grounds that, hey, they might make someone feel bad.
quote:
There is nothing small about someone visiting a loved one who is hospitalized. |
Fair enough. I suggest a power of attorney, or some other legal document that grants partners the right of hospitial visitation.
quote:
Indeed, it is privatized -- some companies such as Disney and others have made progress towards equalizing this regardless of sexual orientation. But this is still a fact that this discrimination is widespread yet. |
Employers aren't legally required to give spouses any insurance at all. They are also allowed to discriminate with different compensation plans (including insurance) for different workers. Again, this makes it between you and your employer. One point though: a fundamentalist Mormon with 15 wives and 60 children could also claim the fictional "right to health insurance because we're married". Not exactly fair to your employer, though, is it?
quote:
I'm sure that drafting a will is more complicated of a process for a gay couple that it is for a straight couple -- I believe gay couples have to manuever through a larger labyrinth of loopholes to create a will that will stand just as strong as a will from a straight couple. |
I doubt it, however I'm not an attorney.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Something you read about exactly one time in a paper a few years ago hardly sounds like a huge social problem. OTOH, all a woman has to do today is accuse a man of being a child molester with no proof whatsoever, and *poof*, that's the end of a man's parental rights.
|
It's not the frequency that matters -- it's the injustice.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Time for Godwin's law aready? While I have no love for fundies, I would be more frightened of a world where they were refused the right to speak their mind on the grounds that, hey, they might make someone feel bad.
|
My point with using Nazi Germany as an example, is to show how rhetoric and propaganda used for targetting minority groups often seeks to degrade them as somehow being less worthy than other people. This is what fundies are doing. No one has the right to be free from being offended, but there is nothing respectable about degrading a minority group with rhetoric and propaganda.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Fair enough. I suggest a power of attorney, or some other legal document that grants partners the right of hospitial visitation.
|
Nope, that's not fair either -- give us the same easy access to visitation rights that straight couples take for granted.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Employers aren't legally required to give spouses any insurance at all. They are also allowed to discriminate with different compensation plans (including insurance) for different workers. Again, this makes it between you and your employer. One point though: a fundamentalist Mormon with 15 wives and 60 children could also claim the fictional "right to health insurance because we're married". Not exactly fair to your employer, though, is it?
|
You're right -- but for companies that DO provide insurance, they should recognize the ethical obligation to apply it equally, regardless of sexual orientation. As for your polygamy example -- it smells like a strawman. But let's hypothetically assume your example is legitimate -- it would be financially impratical for any company to have such an insurance policy for polygamists. But there would be no such great financial burden to expand insurance coverage to monogamous gay couples.
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
I doubt it, however I'm not an attorney. |
Read up on what gays have to deal with because of their lack of the same legal protection that heterosexuals take for granted. Gay couples have to manuever through loopholes that straight couples never have to bother with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I'm sure that drafting a will is more complicated of a process for a gay couple that it is for a straight couple -- I believe gay couples have to manuever through a larger labyrinth of loopholes to create a will that will stand just as strong as a will from a straight couple. |
I can't speak for US jurisdictions but it is no more complicated in Canada. Unmarried folks generally can't take advantage of a number of legislative presumptions (in the absence of a will . . .). These presumptions vary province by province.
However once you get down to what a person actually owns themselves and can will away ( after taking away any matrimonial proprty, joint assets or assests to which parties can claim an interest in as they arise from a common-law type relationship or are necessary for the support of your dependents). Once you get down to the stuff you can actually will away, we are talking assets over which you have complete control . . . you can will them to whomever you choose whether it be family, your life long partner or a charity for misunderstood cats. being gay or staright or the natiure of your relationship to the beneficiary (absent duress) should be irrelevant
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2004 01:11
. As many of you know I love my conservative talk radio, but I can't believe what they (Hannity, Rush, the whole gambit...) are saying about this issue. Sean actually was saying that the judges found a loop hole and don't know how to interpret the law. He said that "who you are" and "what you are" are to different things determined by behavior, and that homosexuality is a behavior.
|