sure they can.Originally Posted by Troker
|
|
sure they can.
Real science isn't trying to PROVE anything. It's trying to answer the question. That's science's job
4 users like Troker's post: BernieMadoff, brokebacksooner, oucub23, ultralance12
b/c homosexuals are looked down upon for their choices and their rights are not equal to the rights that you and I have when it comes to our life's choices...by showing it is a genetic trait or predisposition then it will show they deserve fair and equal treatment as any other member of our functioning society should attain
we can get married, have children, take care of ours spouses in life and in death (now I believe you are married and do all these things currently) but **** couples in most states do not have these rights as their union is not recognized
this isn't Stillwater, if you wanna **** sheep you chose the wrong school
no it doesn't...
does it matter WHY people are black?
or WHY people are handicapped?
Nope.
If ****uality is genetic, then we'll still discriminate against people with aberrant ****ualities based on whatever reasons we conjure up including constructs such as "consent" or "decency" or "humaneness".
The slope is slippery both ways.
most states don't recognize civil unions?
you don't have to prove that a black person was predisposed to be black or that a person is handicapped, the evidence is bright and clear as day
the point I'm trying to make with you is the same discrimination bull**** that we've been doing as a country for over 225+ years is still going on today...first it was blacks having rights, then the right to vote, then the right for women to vote and on to discrimination of **** people and the denial of their rights
no one asks why someone is black or why someone is handicapped in the manner you are discussing
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_so...lack_and_white
http://www.disabilitycanhappen.org/c...ity/causes.asp
civil unions does not mean marriage, it is not recognized on nearly the same level...adopting children for **** people is a much harder and longer process than straight couples, most civil unions don't ensure benefits for other parties than the original beneficiary (the person taking out the insurance)
You seriously cannot be for real.
The following users like this post: brokebacksooner
So what is different? What rights do married couples have over civil partners? Specifics.
Adopting is a long process for anyone. And I can understand being more critical of same **** parents simply because it's not natural
I'm pretty sure you can always designate a beneficiary. Last time I checked they don't ask for ****uality on forms
Same **** couples adopt all the time, but in states like Oklahoma where statute reads you must be "married or single", only one of them is technically the adoptive parent (since by law here they are single). The other parent obtains guardianship through the court. Sorry to burst your myopic little bubble.
2 users like McRib's post: Aurora, BernieMadoff
1) Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.
2) If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a state that respects the civil union.
3) According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.
4) Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.
5) Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.
6) Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for **** people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for **** people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including **** and **** couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
That's the main points of difference that I've read about
"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-**** couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.
The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status."
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/a...arried-couples
so it matters WHY people are ****....but not why they are black or handicapped?
feel free to splain that one....
**** you. I went to school there, and never ****ed a sheep.
Do you mean without consent?
The following users like this post: jdmt37
I got drunk as **** one night and i could swear theis cute little ewe was motioning me over, but i passed out.
4 users like jdmt37's post: DHF, greensooner, SoonerArtillery, URNotserious
Feel free to show me where I said that.
Recognition of the union would p**** tomorrow. It's shoving that it has to be marriage that is drawing opposition. For many, it's not about the protections you're talking about--it's about sticking it to those marriage people.
No it's not.
3 users like brokebacksooner's post: Aurora, McRib, OnlyOneOklahoma
The following users like this post: McRib
The people you speak about are not people I care about. I think they deserve the same rights as all but they can take their schtick and shove it up their ****. I believe in equality, not trying to make things worse by sticking to anyone. I won't defend their actions on that but I want all people to have the same rights in whatever they do.
Like my friends' dad always says "I don't care if **** people get married, they should be as miserable as I if that's what they want to do"
*cricket*
Which? You don't think unions would p****? Do you have data that says it won't? I've talked to a lot of people while involved with campaigns and the vast majority of them would accept unions--they simply want to defend marriage. Granted, my information is limited in scope, but it is from rural Oklahomans who tend to be more staunchly opposed to **** marriage than many.
how about the polygamist angle....
or the philanderer angle...
"Won't someone think of the rapists?!?!?"
-teo9969
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Yep, that's what I said...except I didn't say that at all.
If it's among consenting adults - Don't give a ****, and don't give a ****. None of that is any of my business.
The following users like this post: greensooner
what about a mentally disabled adult?
irrelevant to the point being discussed..
add yourself to the list who missed it
Unless the polygamists want to have 18 kids that they can't take care of and want food stamps to help feed them all--then I care.
America, where moral virtue is determined by economics.
Nah, has nothing to do w/morals. I wouldn't object to it based on morals--it's strictly economic.
Sorry Cub, I have been reading a lot lately about the Gross National Happiness metric that Bhutan uses to determine legislative activity, I am currently a bit jaded on the issue of legislating through an economic prism.
It will p**** as I move on to the next topic for reading.
The following users like this post: oucub23
you guys can't stand **** people so much this is your new reach, mentally disabled person. I clearly remember in the mentally disabled woman being forced to have an abortion you saying she can make her own choice. Lucky for her the court thought so too... Anyways shush
i've never said I have a problem with **** people
and I don't have a problem with them
Good, so why worry about them getting married. =)
Also stop taking the crazy side of 87 it makes you look bad
reading your post, all I could think is this...
I guess you favor being wrong all the time!!!
I don't worry about it. I'm fine with ****s getting married as long as church's aren't forced to marry ****s.
The following users like this post: Aurora
This thread is comical because it shows the cognitive dissonance amongst the pro **** marriage crowd oh so well.
If you all would simply abandon the reasoning that discrimination against LGBTs is bad "because they were born that way" and admit that discrimination ought to be applied arbitrarily in a way that makes the most sense for "society", then you'd have a case. The only problem is that when you realize that the discrimination *is* arbitrary based on constructs built on empty-signifiers (and laws that have been fashioned henceforth), you realize that the anti **** marriage crowd actually has a case.
You need not abandon your position. Just get rid of the ****ty rationale you use to buttress your belief system, replace it with something a little more well thought out, and you might actually be able to sway some people who are on the fence or lightly hold to their opposing stance.
The fact that we want the same thing straights take for granted; marriage; isn't "sticking it to those married people". Does Kim Kardashian's 20 min marriage make your marriage less relevant? Does Newt or Rush's 15 marriages stick it to your marriage? We, as a society call those things "marriages" altough I think you and I would agree that they defile the religious meaning.
What does it matter what it's called then? If its equal rights, what's in a name? Civil unions would p**** tomorrow in most places. Why cling to calling it marriage?
And Newt defiles conservatism--not just marriage.
Sticking it to married people in what way?
Of course you will .. Just as some discriminate against race. The point is that the government wouldn't discriminate ****s any more than they would someone with a genetic disposition for red hair.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
