It's bigoted because you believe your views to be superior and you won't take others opinions into consideration and you also show extreme prejudice and intolerance . In other words it's bigoted because your a bigot

 

We have !!!

 

This crap is getting to be hilarious. Who would ever think that a couple of supposedly educated people like AdP and Bron could be so fucking clueless, acting like middle school adolescents.

Oops, let's add heywood to that gaggle of little boys attempting to play grownup games.

 

I apologize for all my shortcomings. Once I read that gay men don't engage in anal sex as much as the world thinks they do, because it hurts and it's dirty, I realized all of this was way out of my league. This is the realm of giants.

It's Monday night, so I am going to go PLP and drink some beer. If it comes up in conversation, I'll be sure to spread the word about that anal sex thing, because this is something the world needs to know.

 

Well, I didn't say "abolish". Just to delay them until they've actually met the bar that was set, namely, adding a child to the household, either by procreation (in any of the current manners available where they play some sort of a in the birth, including sperm donor, surrogate mother, etc) or adoption.

 

Yes. "Abolish" is too extreme. "Refashion" is perhaps more appropriate. We are of the same mind, I believe. ANY household containing dependent children requires protection and encouragement. Similarly, ANY household consisting of joint holders of assets should receive common law protections as to liability and legacy. And so on.

That is all I have been advocating. To dissassociate the statutory entitlements of marriage entirely from the institution itself, to ensure that those entitlements are applied as intended.

Therefore marriage becomes nothing more or less than the witnessed profession of love and lifelong commitment.

 

What have I failed to take into consideration?

The Supreme Court has ruled that it's only fair to give gay and lesbian couples the same free shit that hetero couples are getting.

I am only suggesting that we back up and subject all of the free shit to critical review. Look at why we agreed to give it away in the first place, and think twice about whether to sustain the policy, now that marriage is more about fucking and orgasms than it is about creating and rearing children.

 

You say that all marriage benefits revolve around having children, but gays can't have children. So if gays can't have children, how will they be able it to claim these benefits intended for children? Also, you don't want to answer the question of why gays should be allowed to marry if they adopt.

This in no way is a rational argument against gay marriage. It isn't even a rational argument against MARRIAGE.

 

Exactly. Since they can't have children, they should not be receiving entitlements that were formed for people who can have children.

If as M4MPetcock suggests we separate dependent child benefits completely from the institution of marriage, then any couple that adopts a child should be able to receive those benefits. Including:

hetero couples that adopt.
gay/lesbian couples that adopt.
single parents that adopt.
brothers and sisters who adopt.
polygamous communes that adopt.
46 year old men and ten year old girls who adopt.
46 year old women and ten year old boys who adopt.
priests who adopt.

And so on.

See, you are asking a question that is irrelevant. Not because I don't care about it, or because I won't consider it. The reason your question doesn't matter is that it presumes that marriage and child dependency benefits have already been disassociated from each other. That is not the case. They are connected by statute. That is precisely the problem. All we are saying is that it is easier to find our way out of this tangle and make everyone happy if we first remove all of the free shit-- all 1,138 marriage benefits and entitlements-- from the equation.

 

Still not rational.

 

Clarise

I would love to stay up all night and read this absolutely priceless entertainment you are serving up!

Unfortuantely Morpheus is calling my side of the pond!

G'night all!

Thinskin

 

I'm just about done, too.

These people are absolutely determined not to think it through.

The truly weird thing about this whole thread is that one of the few people on my side happens to be the declared gay man.

But it should not be surprising. M4M is also one of the smartest.

 

On the contrary. I proposed a possible solution to the problem of married childless couples (regarding verification, in order to receive the benefits as intended) and her reply was nowhere near a rejection or refusal to consider.

Then again, how many people have offered a response to her argument rather an a personal attack?

 

Either you are hopelessly sheltered from real life or in denial.

Discrimination against blacks, among others, is alive and strong and you contribute to it.

 

That could be handled with my solution. Instead of couples receiving benefits just for being married, don't make them available till they're

That could be handled with my solution. Instead of couples receiving benefits just for being married, don't make them available till they're

 

Now that was a funny show!

 

When blacks are discriminated against they are not discriminated against on the basis of race, but on the basis of what correlates with race, such as different IQ averages and crime rates.

 

No. My solution was still geared toward married couples. But those married couples would not receive the benefits until said married couples bring a child into the household. So, only the first two in your list would would be valid, along with married couples who procreate. Thus, a married heterosexual couple who uses a sperm donor would be no different than a married lesbian couple who uses a sperm donor. A married hetero couple using a surrogate mother would be no different than a married male same-sex couple using a surrogate mother. And so on.