Being Gay Is Like a Handicap

[specsaregood]

If there is no legally recognized marriage then what about the children if a divorce happens?

You eat them.

 

[Acronies]

You eat them.

I'm not that hungry.

 

[tod evans]

I don't want married couples to get benefits, I just want that legally recognized marriages should be limited to a man and a wife.

Isn't that using the force of government to enforce a religious belief?

I will not cede that power to government although I agree with the premise...

 

[Acronies]

Isn't that using the force of government to enforce a religious belief?

Yes, that's the point.

I will not cede that power to government although I agree with the premise...

If a divorce happens who should get the kids? That is why legally recognizing marriage is important.

 

[erowe1]

What is this business about homosexuals not getting benefits that heterosexuals get? Like what? Are there state and federal benefits out there where the application asks people what their sexual orientation is, and gay people can't get them?

 

[tod evans]

If a divorce happens who should get the kids, that is why legally recognizing marriage is important?

The kids are NOT property!

Nobody should "get" them and there should NEVER be any type of financial incentive for either parent to divorce.

This immediately goes to the overreaching of government, No child support, No aid from government, No free food, No free housing and absolutely NO free medical at the tax payer expense.

Churches and civic organizations are to provide such services for those truly in need not government.

"Parents" who divorce, even homo parents, must be equally yoked with child time and expense...It is not up to government to rob one parent at the child's behest in an attempt to level the environments.

It only figures that one household will outperform the other financially, in some instances the mother will out earn the father or vice-versa and it's only fair to the child to experience both households for what they really are, not what government props one up to be.

 

[erowe1]

If a divorce happens who should get the kids? That is why legally recognizing marriage is important.

I don't get how your conclusion follows from that question.

Somebody's gonna get the kids. But whoever that is, it's none of the state's business.

 

[tod evans]

What is this business about homosexuals not getting benefits that heterosexuals get? Like what? Are there laws out there that apply differently to people based on their sexual orientation?

You know darn good-n-well there are.

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

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, that's the point.

If a divorce happens who should get the kids? That is why legally recognizing marriage is important.

No, you don't have to legally recognize marriage in order to settle divorce cases. You just need to recognize contracts. When a couple gets married, they should draw up an agreement and bring it to the courthouse to make it legally binding. You can still do that now, regardless of whether you have a marriage license or not.

Or, you could take the stance that erowe1 voiced and just leave it up to the parents to squabble over it until it's settled between the two without state involvement.

 

[erowe1]

You know darn good-n-well there are.

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

Really? So you have to tell the government if you're gay or straight to get Social Security? If gay people claim to be straight to get the benefits do they get charged with fraud?

I've never heard of either of those things happening.

 

[tod evans]

Really? So you have to tell the government if you're gay or straight to get Social Security? If gay people claim to be straight to get the benefits do they get charged with fraud?

I've never heard of either of those things happening.

Nice try............

Next.

 

[erowe1]

Nice try............

Next.

So that's a no. Like I said.

Let's drop this propaganda about straight people getting state and federal benefits that gay people don't.

 

[tod evans]

So that's a no. Like I said.

Let's drop this propaganda about straight people getting state and federal benefits that gay people don't.

You're full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

Find one married homo who has access to their "spouses" benefit package as a heterosexual spouse does.

 

[erowe1]

Find one married homo who has access to their "spouses" benefit package as a heterosexual spouse does.

I know one personally, and probably others as well who haven't shared their sexual orientation with me.

 

[tod evans]

I know one personally.

Reeeeeeealy?

 

[Acronies]

The kids are NOT property!

Someone has to their legal guardian, if not then it would be legal for a 10 year old to run away and live with a stranger without any parental right to get their child.

Nobody should "get" them and there should NEVER be any type of financial incentive for either parent to divorce.

This immediately goes to the overreaching of government, No child support, No aid from government, No free food, No free housing and absolutely NO free medical at the tax payer expense.

I agree with the bolded parts but even if we got away with those there would still be plenty of divorce.

Churches and civic organizations are to provide such services for those truly in need not government.

But without a legal recognition who owns the property that is gained while they were both married?

"Parents" who divorce, even homo parents, must be equally yoked with child time and expense...It is not up to government to rob one parent at the child's behest in an attempt to level the environments.

That will end up with the ex-spouses taking their children and disappering with many parents that won't see their children for a long time because their ex-spouse took them.

It only figures that one household will outperform the other financially, in some instances the mother will out earn the father or vice-versa and it's only fair to the child to experience both households for what they really are, not what government props one up to be.

So it should be legal for a husband/wife to disappear with the children and never inform their spouse according to you.

 

[erowe1]

Reeeeeeealy?

Yes?

Were you really under the impression that when awarding spousal benefits, SSI asked people whether they or their husband or wife was gay?

 

[Acronies]

No, you don't have to legally recognize marriage in order to settle divorce cases. You just need to recognize contracts. When a couple gets married, they should draw up an agreement and bring it to the courthouse to make it legally binding. You can still do that now, regardless of whether you have a marriage license or not.

But what if they don't make a contract and suddenly divorce?

Or, you could take the stance that erowe1 voiced and just leave it up to the parents to squabble over it until it's settled between the two without state involvement.

You will see a huge increase in reported child kidnappings.

 

[erowe1]

But a marriage contract is kinda of a slavery contract, that is unconstitutional.

So it's unconstitutional if the state is not a party to the contract, but then when the state is a party to the contract it is constitutional?

 

[Acronies]

So it's unconstitutional if the state is not a party to the contract, but then when the state is a party to the contract it is constitutional?

I kinda realised the stupid so I edit it.