Being Gay Is Like a Handicap

[specsaregood]

Whatever happened to the long established, tried and true, XY + XX + XX + XX + XX?

Well even with that, the name I hear batted around is "plural marriage" or polygamy.

 

[tod evans]

The point is that the law does not distinguish between gay and straight people, as someone claimed it did. That's all. It's not a stupid point. It's an accurate correction of the earlier claim that the law that.

Either you're very obtuse or you're intentionally mischaracterizing what I have written, which is it?

In none of my posts have I addressed "the law", not one!

I have very clearly stated that married homosexual couples cannot receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples.

You intentionally cite statutes in an attempt to sidestep the clear and definitive issue raised when you could have read your own citation to determine that it was in fact irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

And now with this post you are attempting to bring "the law" into question as if it has any bearing on the subject at hand...

Is your position on this matter so flawed that you refuse to discuss it candidly? Or is there some other reason...

(I should have bowed out when I said I would..:o)

 

[Danke]

You eat them.

I like Veal.

 

[erowe1]

You did not lie; but you are guilty of deception and obfuscation. You know very well what the misunderstanding here was; you continued your charade in some lame attempt to prove your point. It's not a lie; but its not exactly honest and upfront either.

I recognized your game right away; its the sorta thing I'd do.

It wasn't a charade. It is a given that legal marriage includes one man and one woman. That doesn't need to be spelled out.

But I accept your compliment.

 

[erowe1]

In none of my posts have I addressed "the law", not one!

Post 28.

You quoted me saying that there are not laws that apply different to gays than straights, then you replied that there are. Everything since that point has been a continuation of that. You were wrong. Just admit it. Or else show me the laws you were talking about.

 

[erowe1]

I have very clearly stated that married homosexual couples cannot receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples.

Where?

I just searched the thread for the word "couples" and this is the first time you've used it.

As I re-read post 82, it looks to me like you're the one mischaracterizing what you yourself have written.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm not going to read the rest of the thread, but would just like to point out that it can't be a handicap because we're totally out of parking spots near shops/restaurants/malls to give away.

Expectant mother parking
Handicapped parking (I guess LGBT could get a rainbow version of this decal and share the spots?)
Curbside pickup
Emergency/security vehicle
Employee of the month

 

[juleswin]

For the millionth time, gays and heterosexuals have the same rights. The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is that gays don't get a state license of marriage, which, last time I checked, was not a right. A straight person can't marry someone of the same sex just as much as a gay person can't marry someone of the same sex. NEWS FLASH: They both can! Just don't bother getting the license and you're good to go.

Ok, lets grant homosexuals the same privileges given to heterosexual married couples seeing as their taxes is also used to fund the goodies for heteros. Also there is more than state money at play, hospital visitations rights in some cases are restricted to family and spouses and if you are not officially recognized as a spouse by the govt then you don't get to visit. Also don't tell me that the homosexual couple can go to a hospital that recognizes their marriage/union, cos some of these rules are put in place by the govt to hospitals that accept medicare/medicaid and just about every hospital system accept those govt programs.

Nobody's going to stop gays from getting married. They just can't get a license, and the benefits of getting one of those are questionable at best.

And during segregation, nobody was stopping blacks from obtaining an education, they were just stopping them from going to some govt schools. They could have just gone to their own public schools and the benefit of going to govt schools are questionable at best. Yup, that argument wouldn't have worked with segregation(btw I am also against forced integration).

We really should be fighting against the state, but dannno, you seem to want to phrase it as a gay vs. straight paradigm, when really we need to try to shift the focus away from that. What's worse, is that many of you realize this is a false paradigm and yet you keep on pushing for "gay rights" because you want the government to oppress people equally. Why don't we just focus our energy on getting the government out of the way? Get them to stop giving marriage licenses to straight people, not start giving them to gays. That doesn't help liberty at all.

It's not about rights, it's about government privileges funded by taxpayers.

Yes we should re phrase the argument as govt vs the people but that is a much harder goal to accomplish. Imagine if this argument was used during the time they tried to legalize interracial marriages? we will still have bans on interracial marriages today. Sensible people go for the possible solution even when it is not the best solution. Government getting out of marriage is something that will not happen in your lifetime and any serious person will look for the next best thing. This is why Ron Paul still earmarks funding for his district even as he votes against the budgets, this way his district will not be missing out on tax payer funded goodies while the system is being perfected.

You got one thing right, it's is not about rights, it's about govt privileges funded by taxpayers which include those same homosexuals. Sometimes I think the quickest way to end govt involvement in marriage is to add homosexuals into the mix but my feeling is that society will just get used to it just like they got used to allowing interracial couples to share space in the institution of govt recognized marriage.

 

[tod evans]

Post 28.

Do you mean this post?

You know darn good-n-well there are.

SSI and the associated benefit packages being the major complaint I've heard voiced.

Where I'm clearly talking about how homos don't get the same treatment as hetros?

Then yes you're right, I did respond or rise to your bait, if this is the point you attempteing to make in order to divert the subject from that of inequality...

Where?

I just searched the thread for the word "couples" and this is the first time you've used it.

As I re-read post 82, it looks to me like you're the one mischaracterizing what you yourself have written.

If you are unable to infer "couple" from married homos there's something seriously wrong. The use of the term "homos", as in plural, denotes more than one and given the sentence structure I used to express this view if there were misunderstanding certainly more than just you would have corrected me...

And then you jump to this gem;

It wasn't a charade. It is a given that legal marriage includes one man and one woman. That doesn't need to be spelled out.

I happen to agree with this sentiment but I also fully understand and recognize that homos don't.

And I have no desire to penalize the homos because of how I choose to define marriage, I am not pretentious enough to think that I am capable of determining who exactly can extract dollars from the federal coffers dependent on their sexual preferences.

Once again I wish to address your blatant bigotry...Who do you think you are to permit or disallow any group of people access to SSI and the associated benefit packages?

Is it just homos that you're bigoted against? Or are there other subsets of society?

 

[erowe1]

Sometimes I think the quickest way to end govt involvement in marriage is to add homosexuals into the mix

I'm certain that this is 100% backwards.

Expanding state-based marriage to include same-sex couples is the surest way to entrench it so that it can't go away. The way to get rid of state-based marriage is to keep it one man and one woman. We may have already missed that window of opportunity. But in case we didn't, then we can still command some level of rapprochement between libertarians and those pushing the gay agenda. We have the ability to win them over to joining us in pushing for the abolishment of state marriage right now. But as soon as homosexuals get their own same-sex partnerships redefined as legal marriages, they'll never let go of that.

Of course, once that happens, we may have an easier time of getting a majority of Christians to join us. But by then their influence will have dissipated too much to be effective any more without the help of secularists who, for the reason given above, will no longer be interested in helping.

 

[specsaregood]

I'm not going to read the rest of the thread, but would just like to point out that it can't be a handicap because we're totally out of parking spots near shops/restaurants/malls to give away.

Expectant mother parking
Handicapped parking (I guess LGBT could get a rainbow version of this decal and share the spots?)
Curbside pickup
Emergency/security vehicle
Employee of the month

You forgot the parents with little kids parking; or do they not have that in your neck of the woods yet?

 

[erowe1]

Do you mean this post?

Yes, where your words "You know darn good-n-well there are" were your answer to my question, "Are there laws out there that apply differently to people based on their sexual orientation?"

From that point on, as far as I can tell, that's what our whole debate was about.

Where I'm clearly talking about how homos don't get the same treatment as hetros?

There you go again. This is clearly wrong. Homos clearly do get the exact same treatment as heteros.

If you are unable to infer "couple" from married homos there's something seriously wrong.

Since we're talking about receiving benefits from marriages, it seems obvious to me that we're talking about licensed legal marriages between a man and a woman, regardless of their sexual orientations.

And I have no desire to penalize the homos because of how I choose to define marriage

Since the law does not recognize any difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, doesn't penalize homosexuals.

The only distinction within the law is the distinction between married and unmarried. If any gay people don't want to get married (again, still using the only definition of marriage that means anything in this context, which is legal licensed marriage between one man and one woman), then they count as unmarried. If any straight people don't want to get married, then they also count as unmarried.

You seem to want to put gay people into some special category and say that, just because their reason for not wanting to marry a member of the opposite sex is that they're gay, we need to have some new kind of marriage to include same sex couples. But then do we also need to come up with a new definition to include all the straight (or asexual) people who don't want to get married, for whatever reason? If there's a distinction between married people and unmarried people, why does the reason someone has for not being married matter?

Most importantly, changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples doesn't in any way, not even in the slightest way at all, lessen the amount of discrimination that marriage laws entail. The only discrimination they entail is discrimination between the married and the unmarried. And that discrimination would exist just as much with a broader definition of marriage as it does with a narrower one.

 

[otherone]

You forgot the parents with little kids parking; or do they not have that in your neck of the woods yet?

...or the fuel efficient vehicle parking....

 

[tod evans]

Bigotry erowe, I want to discuss your bigotry.

 

[erowe1]

Bigotry erowe, I want to discuss your bigotry.

OK.

 

[erowe1]

Bigotry erowe, I want to discuss your bigotry.

OK. But why? What I've said is true regardless of anything about me. If the facts were on your side ad hominem would be unnecessary.

 

[specsaregood]

Bigotry erowe, I want to discuss your bigotry.

You just want to be able to marry your dog at some point.

 

[erowe1]

Here's the definition of bigot from dictionary.com:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Who here is being intolerant of differing opinions?

And why does it matter if they are anyway?

 

[tod evans]

Mea culpa for the ad hominem.

Now lets talk about opinions, not law or the interpretation thereof...

My opinion on homos availing themselves of the same benefits as heteros should be pretty clear as much as I've typed in this thread.

What is your opinion on the matter erowe?

 

[erowe1]

Mea culpa for the ad hominem.

Now lets talk about opinions, not law or the interpretation thereof...

My opinion on homos availing themselves of the same benefits as heteros should be pretty clear as much as I've typed in this thread.

What is your opinion on the matter erowe?

I completely disagree. The law makes no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It does make a distinction between married and unmarried. I agree that it should not do that. I disagree that broadening the definition to included same-sex couples would in any way improve that situation. I believe it would worsen it.

I'm glad you brought up Social Security as your main example, because to me that's a big point against broadening the definition. Right or wrong, the whole justification of spousal benefits presupposes a traditional model of marriage, where the wife will have forgone her own career to raise children and been dependent on the earnings of the husband. It makes no sense in the context of same-sex couples. To expand it (and all the costs of it, which are already unaffordable) is a perfect example of mission creep, where a government program gets redirected into something totally different than its original purpose. In this case, the new purpose would be to push a social agenda that I can't support, and nor should anyone else.

Furthermore, like I said to Jules, if the goal is to get government out of marriage, then expanding marriage to include same-sex couples is essentially conceding total defeat in that.