So it begins: Texas Has the Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

I think you misunderstood me...I am FOR gay marriage....they are PEOPLE.....I just meant to infer that gay people getting married doesn't change anything in the lives of straight couples.....

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: research100



and again...who gives a F#$%

the gay population is not stopping the same sex couples from..... Going to work, Fight in wars, Protect our streets, Pay their taxes, Get sick, Build a life together, Grieve when the other dies.

No, but laws against gay marriage don't protect spouses from having to testify against each other in court, file taxes jointly, be able to talk to a doctor and make decisions on medical treatment in an emergency. These things don't come up often, but when they do matter they really matter.

a reply to: ketsuko

So, I heard you support straight marriage? How about gay ones? The idea that because straights cannot have a thing makes it discriminatory ignores all the other groupings out there who would like to get married who currently cannot legally.

If you think it's discriminatory to deny straights, then it is equally discriminatory to deny them. Either we treat all marriages as valid and equal or we are selective about how we define it and we think about why that might be.

Straight marriage is a slippery slope leading to homosexuality and polyamory. Just look at what happened among the Mormons, for example.


a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

That's perfectly reasonable, though as people have pointed out the benefits should only go to straight couples who are willing and able to have children; the rest aren't contributing to reproduction. And of course if a gay couple uses a surrogate to have a child then I don't see a problem with subsidizing them (except, I guess, some of the money should go to the surrogate mother, if it's a male couple).


a reply to: TheRedneck

Be the change you want to see. Getting a court decision may have been the easy way, but that doesn't prevent you from campaigning to change the law for a more permanent solution. Fortunately one doesn't exclude the other.

I sort of agree with you though. We need more conservative gays, just to even things out.

a reply to: Aazadan

As I read it, all that is needed to receive benefits is be legally married, says nothing about producing offspring.

a reply to: bgerbger

Way to misrepresent. The fact is, this case was about something that happened before a lawless guy decided to toss out DOMA, and thus was about denying something that was already illegal, at the time.

Pointed out more than once in the thread.

originally posted by: research100
have you seen this theory Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men. The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Homosexuality is natural... Otherwise it wouldn't exist in nature and humans wouldn't be born gay.

yes...anomalies exist in any system. In that regard...you are right...gay is natural...in a sense...a natural anomaly. But is it natural in a real sense of the word. It is not. If it were...it would go against the concept of evolution.

yes...somebody already linked to it. Find it pretty interesting.

originally posted by: bgerbger


So why do they not have the same rights as straight couples. It is not clear, but it surely is discriminatory; you can marry, but don't expect equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

You seem to prefer discriminating against the voters of Texas and those who believe in the constitution.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Aazadan

But then aren't people having babies to get benefits?

Maybe people on life long welfare....Most that I know don't want kids at all because there is not enough benefits that come even close to the cost since they have jobs instead.

When I say benefits, I mean employee benefits...dental care, drug plan, vision care, pension, medical, short and long-term disability...you know, the usual that comes with any decent job...and which are denied in certain jurisdictions, to same sex couples.

Jeez...it's almost 2018, and we are still arguing what amounts to Jim Crow? How about people just start being kind to each other and stop worrying about what other folks do with their naughty bits?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Aazadan

As I read it, all that is needed to receive benefits is be legally married, says nothing about producing offspring.

Correct, I was referring to the idea that marriage exists only as an institution to raise children.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Aazadan

As I read it, all that is needed to receive benefits is be legally married, says nothing about producing offspring.

Correct, I was referring to the idea that marriage exists only as an institution to raise children.

Actually, I do believe that the institution exists to guide primogeniture. It ain't about kids...it's about transfer of property/wealth.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Actually, I do believe that the institution exists to guide primogeniture. It ain't about kids...it's about transfer of property/wealth.

Maybe historically, but I think we've moved past that now. With royalty no longer being a thing (or at least a major factor in our lives) there's not as much large scale wealth transfer. It's usually just a few thousand here and there or maybe a house if you're lucky. But children have taken a back seat there to wills, people usually leave things to their children but it's not just automatically assumed anymore.

If we want to talk history, marriage was historically used politically, the concept of love never factored into it. For like you said, keeping assets contained within certain families over time.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Actually, I do believe that the institution exists to guide primogeniture. It ain't about kids...it's about transfer of property/wealth.

Maybe historically, but I think we've moved past that now. With royalty no longer being a thing (or at least a major factor in our lives) there's not as much large scale wealth transfer. It's usually just a few thousand here and there or maybe a house if you're lucky. But children have taken a back seat there to wills, people usually leave things to their children but it's not just automatically assumed anymore.

If we want to talk history, marriage was historically used politically, the concept of love never factored into it. For like you said, keeping assets contained within certain families over time.

Sure, but if people are dictating the rules based upon Bronze Age folk tales, that (ironically) brings historical notions back into the discussion.

I have my beliefs, too. I believe that all of this foofarah comes out of homophobia, and that homophobia is a product of the guilt that is created when one tries to reconcile their urges with their religious beliefs. Time to relax.

a reply to: bgerbger

Actually as a Christian I think they should get the same benefits. And that government has to recognize their marriage. I think private citizens should not have to.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
How about people just start being kind to each other and stop worrying about what other folks do with their naughty bits?

I do agree, I feel we put to much Government into marriage and I would like to see a domestic partner type situation. The power in a marriage license is just crazy...

a reply to: bgerbger

Freedom to choose, I'll be damned.

"For the Supreme Court to say they cannot receive the same benefits as other married people starts to undermine the whole foundation of what same sex marriage is."

You mean a perversion?

a reply to: bgerbger

originally posted by: craterman
"For the Supreme Court to say they cannot receive the same benefits as other married people starts to undermine the whole foundation of what same sex marriage is."
You mean a perversion?
a reply to: bgerbger

We're all really sorry that makes you sad, eh?