Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 304 (317885)
06-05-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Belfry
06-05-2006 6:04 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
I find it plausible that guys will have fake marriages for health insurance or other benefits.
How is this any different (or any more likely) than different-sex people who currently marry for the same sort of reason?
I don't know exactly how it is different but for me, I'd marry a guy for benefits and I wouldn't a girl. Why?, I haven't really put my finger on it yet but prolly something to do with it being easier to get a long with guys and the lack of the possibility of a sexual relationship.
I think its more likely because I wouldn't do it with a girl but I'd do it with a guy. Wow, that sounded really gay. I hope I don't get miss quoted on that one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Belfry, posted 06-05-2006 6:04 AM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 169 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 304 (317886)
06-05-2006 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by nator
06-05-2006 8:50 AM


quote:
The excerpts you quoted are all about race and men, can we substitute gay or women in there?
Incorrect.
The excerpts were about race and man.
...as in "mankind", not "males".
so one wrong word and the whole rest of the post isn't worth replying too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 8:50 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 168 of 304 (317889)
06-05-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 9:55 AM


quote:
I don't know exactly how it is different but for me, I'd marry a guy for benefits and I wouldn't a girl. Why?, I haven't really put my finger on it yet but prolly something to do with it being easier to get a long with guys and the lack of the possibility of a sexual relationship.
Well, at any rate, how can you justify denying marriage to homosexuals because our healtcare system is so crappy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:08 AM nator has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 169 of 304 (317890)
06-05-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 9:55 AM


Why line up for all that hatred and intolerance that gets directed at gays just for small financial gain? Easier to marry a like minded woman and get a few free shags into the bargain .
Anyway as has been pointed out there have been scam marriages since time immemorial, purely in the hetero realm, so this is not a strong argument against same sex unions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:17 AM ohnhai has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 304 (317891)
06-05-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 8:50 AM


Re: Come one
I find it plausible that guys will have fake marriages for health insurance or other benefits.
Dude, this is a red herring, just like it was the first time you brought it up. You are making up things to be worried about
Well, like I typed, I find it plausible. Mr. Jack said he's seen it happen. Simply dismissing the whole argument by calling one line a fallacy seems like a waste of time to me. I'm not interested in discussing whether or not its a fallacy so if thats all you have to say then whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 8:50 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 171 of 304 (317892)
06-05-2006 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 9:57 AM


quote:
so one wrong word and the whole rest of the post isn't worth replying too?
Well, since half of your point (iirc) depended upon the idea that they meant "male" when they actually meant "human", it's not really one wrong word, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:19 AM nator has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 172 of 304 (317893)
06-05-2006 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by arachnophilia
06-05-2006 9:46 AM


Re: Come one
I think it's utterly no reason at all. It does, however, happen so dimissing it as fantasy is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 9:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:44 PM Dr Jack has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 304 (317895)
06-05-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by nator
06-05-2006 10:02 AM


Well, at any rate, how can you justify denying marriage to homosexuals because our healtcare system is so crappy?
Because I think its gonna make things worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:02 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 197 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5912 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 174 of 304 (317896)
06-05-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:03 AM


Re: Come one
Well, like I typed, I find it plausible. Mr. Jack said he's seen it happen. Simply dismissing the whole argument by calling one line a fallacy seems like a waste of time to me. I'm not interested in discussing whether or not its a fallacy so if thats all you have to say then whatever.
We shouldn't let straight people get married because it might encourage men and women to engage in false marriages to get medical benefits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:22 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 175 of 304 (317898)
06-05-2006 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ohnhai
06-04-2006 9:21 PM


Any Takers at all?
Ok, as Faith is decidedly not interested in aswering this, anyone on the "No To Gay Marriage" team care to have a crack?

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ohnhai, posted 06-04-2006 9:21 PM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:46 PM ohnhai has not replied
 Message 254 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:35 PM ohnhai has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 304 (317899)
06-05-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 10:03 AM


Why line up for all that hatred and intolerance that gets directed at gays just for small financial gain?
If it was worth it.
Easier to marry a like minded woman and get a few free shags into the bargain .
I think it'd be easier with a male friend. I don't really care about a few free shags.
Anyway as has been pointed out there have been scam marriages since time immemorial, purely in the hetero realm, so this is not a strong argument against same sex unions.
Sure it happens in hetero marriages. I know a guy from England who was proposing to all kinds of girls 'cause his visa was unning out, or something. I just think that including gay marriages as marriages is gonna make it a lot more frequent and for exploitng different benefits. I don't think they should have nothing, as in no unions at all, I just don't think we should lump them into the already defined marriages that are affected by laws-n-stuff that did't have gay marriages in mind when they were written. Thats why I think we should call them something other than marriages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:03 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 198 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 304 (317901)
06-05-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by nator
06-05-2006 10:04 AM


Well, since half of your point (iirc) depended upon the idea that they meant "male" when they actually meant "human", it's not really one wrong word, is it?
You remember incorrectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:04 AM nator has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 304 (317902)
06-05-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 10:13 AM


Re: Come one
We shouldn't let straight people get married because it might encourage men and women to engage in false marriages to get medical benefits.
Are you just being a smartass?
You're just wasting thread space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 10:13 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 182 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6574 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 179 of 304 (317903)
06-05-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:08 AM


Because I think its gonna make things worse.
I'm sorry CS, but your whole argument is bogus. For multiple reasons:
1) People can get married for whatever damn reason they please. Till this day, marriges are performed for financial, social, and political reasons all the time. A few people doing the same thing with gay marriage is not gonna be anythig new, nor will it signal the end of the world.
2) A marriage contract comes with responsibilities, liabilities, involved. Severing a buissiness partnership can be messy enough, but imagine divorce in such a sittuation? Marriage is not a free ride.
3) This is actually based on real events, a male couple did get married for financial and medical benifits! They were 70+ years old and had no family left. They were bothe very poor and wanted to make sure there was someone around to look after them. They were friends, but the marriage was purely out of convenience. After all, the NEED healthcare and next of kin as a matter of survival.
So essentially, your argument is moot. Who cares what peoples reasons are for entering a contract, the real question is what's the reason for keeping the contract sex exclusive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:43 AM Yaro has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 180 of 304 (317904)
06-05-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:17 AM


CS writes:
Thats why I think we should call them something other than marriages.
So equal in all but name? Isn’t that like when the European Union tried to force UK chocolate makers to change the name of their product to ”Vegelate’ as it wasn’t really ”chocolate’ at all ( No, Really!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024