RhondaLea 4 #301 February 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou are wrong. I am bitter. I find it offensive that others feel the need to deprive me of simple rights that most others share. Many polygamists are also deprived of their 'right'. God supports the right to polygamy. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #302 February 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou are wrong. I am bitter. I find it offensive that others feel the need to deprive me of simple rights that most others share. Many polygamists are also deprived of their 'right'. God supports the right to polygamy. Quite right, old testament... But what about gay rights organizations?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #303 February 19, 2006 QuoteBut what about gay rights organizations? They're kinda busy advocating gay rights.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #304 February 19, 2006 QuoteBut what about gay rights organizations? There are lots of gay rights organizations and -- surprise! -- they're not all the same. However, I don't personally know of any that distract their attention from their goal by actively supporting polygamy. Nor do I know of any that distract themselves by supporting whale hunting, global warming, or athlete's foot campaigns. You however seem hell-bent on distracting yourself and everyone else. Perhaps if you joined a gay rights organization you could distract them. Good luck. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #305 February 19, 2006 QuoteNor do I know of any that distract themselves by supporting whale hunting, global warming, or athlete's foot campaigns. As if you have never used an analogy before! None of those issues are related to same sex marriage. I contend that the advocacy of polygamist rights is quite similar to your struggle. However, you don't want to see the similarity because you know how much the public is not willing to accept polygamy. If polygamy is OK to be denied, then why not same sex marriage. Help us understand why it is not a good comparison.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #306 February 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteGod supports the right to polygamy. Quite right, old testament... But what about gay rights organizations? I'm not entirely sure that one has anything to do with the other, except that both are proscribed in this country. For the record, I support any type of marital arrangment that works, particularly when there are children involved. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #307 February 19, 2006 QuoteIf polygamy is OK to be denied, then why not same sex marriage. I don't recall seeing him say that polygamy is ok to be denied. I suspect that there are plenty of folks who would prefer to see a man having many wives than to see a man married to another man... After all, the Bible promotes men treating women as property, but it condemns homosexuality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #308 February 19, 2006 QuoteI support any type of marital arrangment that works It's the easy statement to make and very politically correct and very lazy. Take the social aspect out of it and let's talk dollars. Nightingale noted there are like 1500 benefits that accrue to marriage. Each of them costs $$$$. Instead of the blanket statements about right or wrong or 'who does it hurt', break it into bite sized pieces. the government is trying to encourage certain behaviors by 'rewarding' certain arrangements - I'll assume they can't just stay completely out of it. So we can't REALLY take the social aspect out, but we can look at it in terms of what are we trying to accomplish (easy example is heterosexual union benefits are based on maintaining the population base by direct reproduction, counter that by noting gay unions are healthier than not allowing it by noting it's healthier for society to have committed relationships than not of any kind, lastly any relationship that has child rearing is also good for society - some better models than others) Now, take that list of 1500 and which do we want to apply to each of the following situations: man + woman - kids man + woman + kids man + man - kids man + man + kids woman + woman - kids woman + woman + kids single man + kids single woman + kids single man single woman etc. If you take the single person as the baseline and assume additional benefits accrue to those with kids and to heterosexual couples with the potential for kids (adoption is finding homes for kids that ALREADY exist, so as decent as finding homes, is it's not reproduction, so like it or not only heterosexual interaction actually creates new population) , then it's lazy to just ask for a single blanket fix to 'make things equal'. We have to either evaluate each of the above combos against -every single of NG's 1500 benefits- and figure out what makes sense and then how much it costs us in terms of taxes and etc. Or the government can just stay out of it and tax and benefit each individual the same and let the other stuff be handled by legal contracts. Including child rearing. But ask the question about how much does it cost, and both sides get all bent out of shape. I think the only benefit from the government for unions should be a tax break for each parent for each child to encourage raising kids. Let the rest sort itself out. you want hospital rights, get a lawyer to draft it up, you want extension of SS benefits to you mate? too bad get a job and get your own, you want preferential citizenship consideration to your out of country spouse? too bad, let them compete with all the others trying to get in that have PhDs etc etc ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #309 February 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteI support any type of marital arrangment that works It's the easy statement to make and very politically correct and very lazy. All statements are easy to make. There's nothing politically correct about it. Very few people support polygamy and other non-conventional forms of marriage. It's very lazy to say something is lazy without saying why it's lazy. IMO, I don't think that married couples should have special privileges. If you can't extend the same benefits to all people, then it's not very egalitarian to have those benefits at all. So let's take them away from everyone and start from there. We'll distribute everything to individuals, not to couples. And I think the tax breaks should go straight to the education fund for the children. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #310 February 19, 2006 Quote[So let's take them away from everyone and start from there. We'll distribute everything to individuals, not to couples. And I think the tax breaks should go straight to the education fund for the children. I very clearly said why I think the 'easy' statement is lazy. And not just your single statement, but in relation to the simplistic positions being taken across the board here. Because it's an emotional appeal that doesn't consider the intent of the regulated benefits and which arrangements it fits and which it doesn't. Blanket fits here just don't work. They can't be resolved. I agree with your quoted bit above. Because I'm lazy and I don't think it's worth it to try and take those 1500+ benefits and determine/argue which arrangements they should accrue to. Also, if you get rid of them, maybe I'll see a tax reduction. I forget about a couple other ways to split gay people - those that make arrangements (artificial or via agreement with someone of the opposite sex) to actually produce natural offspring. That type of repro is directly contributing to replacement population. Sorry I forgot that one. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #311 February 19, 2006 Quote After all, the Bible promotes men treating women as property, but it condemns homosexuality. Please show me where the Bible states men should treat women as property. Just because you, or other women, don't agree that a woman should have to submit to her husband, doesn't mean the Bible advocates husbands treating their wives as property. Please don't make assumptions about the Bible Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #312 February 19, 2006 QuotePlease show me where the Bible states men should treat women as property. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm QuotePlease don't make assumptions about the Bible Sarah, have you every actually read the entire Bible? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #313 February 19, 2006 So what you're saying is, since I pay a larger percent of my income than straight married couples, to pay for those 1500 benefits, I'm being marginalized by the US government to subsidize straight people.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #314 February 19, 2006 QuoteSarah, have you every actually read the entire Bible? Christians never read the entire bible. They read the bits the church leadership tells them to. This is why they eat shrimp but condemn homos. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,033 #315 February 19, 2006 >Please show me where the Bible states men should treat women as property. You have GOT to be kidding. Man is in charge: Genesis 3:16 - To the woman He said . . . Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." Virgins can be given to men as bribes: Genesis 19:6-8: So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.” Women can be literally sold as property: Exodus 21:7 - And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. Women can be taken against their will: Deuteronomy 21:10-13 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Another few examples of why it's not a good idea to take the Bible too literally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #316 February 19, 2006 Just wait for for the response billvon... It will be something like this: 1) out of context (even if they are absolutely clear in their wording) or 2) only applies to Jews -- or variations thereof Watch. good to have you back!Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #317 February 19, 2006 Yea besides, we've progressed past that. Just because they were ignorant back then doesn't mean we have to be ignorant today. Now back to the topic at hand; Gays shouldn't have equal rights because that's the way it's always been!Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #318 February 19, 2006 QuoteYea besides, we've progressed past that. Just because they were ignorant back then doesn't mean we have to be ignorant today. Now back to the topic at hand; Gays shouldn't have equal rights because that's the way it's always been! Nice. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #319 February 19, 2006 QuoteI'm not entirely sure that one has anything to do with the other I contend that a lot of people do see the similarity, they see it as exactly analogous. You can say that it is a fallacy, that slippery slope arguments are invalid or whatever, but that comparison makes a lot of sense to me and many others. If you won't explain why it is OK to deny marriage rights to polygamists, so be it, that is your right to ignore that issue. But it is a valid comparison to your opponents.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #320 February 19, 2006 Quote If you won't explain why it is OK to deny marriage rights to polygamists, so be it, that is your right to ignore that issue. But it is a valid comparison to your opponents. Because rl stalks me so well, let me point out where she talks about this: QuoteFor the record, I support any type of marital arrangment that works, particularly when there are children involved. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #321 February 19, 2006 I think you're making a good argument for polygamists. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #322 February 19, 2006 QuoteSo what you're saying is, since I pay a larger percent of my income than straight married couples, to pay for those 1500 benefits, I'm being marginalized by the US government to subsidize straight people. That's not what I was saying, but it's a good discussion that I'd likely agree with you on, in general. My issue is marginalization of anyone, not just a single demographic, and whether marginalization to the benefit of child bearing arrangements is valid. I don't think so. Child bearing is a choice. People should have the right to reproduce. But they don't need the government to subsidize it. That's a position the gay community should take. It's logical, it's not gay-centric, it'll get support in many areas. But consider - marginalization would have to depend on what the intent of each of the benefits are. I think in some cases, you're right. In others, the discussion would be equivalent to childless people's taxes going towards education - the argument can be made either way. I'd rather see them reevaluated as I said above. Or completely removed for simplicity. Why should be have any laws for people in a partnering relationship of any kind? Wouldn't the issue be marginalization of ALL single and childless people? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #323 February 19, 2006 QuoteWhy should be have any laws for people in a partnering relationship of any kind? Wouldn't the issue be marginalization of ALL single and childless people? I can't argue with you there, except you said of any kind and that would include partnerships with children. I think we as a society have a duty to provide for our children. The question here is balance. The fair thing to do in this scenario would be to remove all benefits from partnerships without children and provide them to all partnerships and singles with children. edited 'cause Lidsey brought up a good point.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #324 February 19, 2006 Ummmm....what about us single people with children. I think you're marginalizing me....-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #325 February 19, 2006 Well someone has to be marginalized, and since, according to the bible you're property, it might as well be you Just kiddin', I edited my post because you bring up a good point.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
