BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
Are you really comparing law abiding consenting adults to children and felons?
Wow...
Silly Mrs. Clinton
- Thread starter 2861U2
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Are you really comparing law abiding consenting adults to children and felons?
Wow...
MadelynIris
Refugee
I'm not really thinking of 'wives'. More like, two, three, brothers or something along those lines.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
You want to marry your brothers?
You lost me there.
MadelynIris
Refugee
Yeah. It's a bit of a farce that some teenagers are not allowed to marry right? Even though, one can get married in Mississippi at 15, one must wait till 19 in Nebraska.
Wouldn't you say that is a fair comparison for debate's sake?
Wouldn't you say that is a fair comparison for debate's sake?
MadelynIris
Refugee
Marry, as in a civil/union or partnership. That they have the same rights (tax deductions, beneficiaries, etc...) as a married couple. Say they farm and live together, a real partnership in life. Why would we deny these guys the same rights as a gay couple or hetero couple. I say ignore the sex part.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
This is really all you people have , isn't it?
MadelynIris
Refugee
Who are/is 'you people'?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
No, because all 15 year olds regardless of sex and race have all the same rights in that state. If the teenagers from Mississippi wanted to get married they could move, as long as they were straight.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
Those of you terrified by the thought that two men who love each other might get married.
MadelynIris
Refugee
Right, isn't the situation similar for gay marriage now? One must move right?
And the question at hand is "denying rights is hate". I posed examples of how we deny some folks under 19 the right to marry, in some states. You claim, this is not a fair comparison. I say it is.
And the question at hand is "denying rights is hate". I posed examples of how we deny some folks under 19 the right to marry, in some states. You claim, this is not a fair comparison. I say it is.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
Not sure where you are going with this, my brother is my beneficiary and we're not married.
The point is when you exclude based strictly on the fact that they are different from your status quo it's a hateful act.
MadelynIris
Refugee
martha said:
Thanks for assuming that about me. "You people".
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
Why are you denying rights to a 10 year old?
Why are you denying rights to a homosexual?
Those answers will show you the comparison doesn't work.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
All you guys ever have is:
1. Jesus doesn't like it.
2. Animal sex!
3. Incest!!!!!11!
4. Children will marry!!!!
I'm not talking about denying rights to children, aniamls, brothers, whatever the hell they talk about in your church. I'm talking about two consenting adults. If you're worried about Incest!!! then disallow it.
When blacks, Chinese, etc were denied the right to marry, yes it was hate.
Jesus.
Does no one read the fucking countless threads on this anymore? Or do they forget what they posted?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
You made some crazy assumptions about brothers under the guise of gay marriage.
And was I wrong?
MadelynIris
Refugee
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Ok, beneficiary was the wrong word to use. You probably can't deduct your brother as an dependent or have him get your health benefits, unless he is officially a dependent.
I'm not sure how else I can make it more clear. The idea is that these Civil Unions/Partnerships carry full rights of a marriage. I think we should make it open for all, not just people romantically or sexually involved, period. I don't think it would be fair to exclude that group.
Isn't that fair? It eliminates all of the sexual orientation stuff, therefore, that's no longer part of the debate. Seems like a great solution.
Last edited:
MadelynIris
Refugee
Martha,
I've got to tell you, you are out of line on this one. I am not bringing up any of that stuff.
You are wrong on where I stand on this.
I've got to tell you, you are out of line on this one. I am not bringing up any of that stuff.
You are wrong on where I stand on this.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
Not sure what the point would be, but OK...
And if the church wants to marry two men or two women then they should.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
MadelynIris said:
It's not the same. If you are underage, you just have to wait some years until you are granted certain rights.
If you are gay, you might have to wait forever until you're granted those rights.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Vincent Vega said:
Or wait until you get "saved" and become straight.
MadelynIris
Refugee
BonoVoxSupastar said:
How can you say that you don't know what the point would be??????? They would be allowed the same benefits of a married couple!!!! In other words, if one had health insurance, the other could benefit from that! One could deduct the other as a dependent! AND ALL THE RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH MARRIAGE!
Agreed, if the church wants to marry two men or two women they should, and if the church doesn't want to marry them, they shouldn't.
Last edited:
MadelynIris
Refugee
Good point. Can't forget about the 4th dimension.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
MadelynIris said:
MadelynIris said:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
I love my brother but why would I want to have more taken out of my paycheck for his health insurance unless I was taking care of him. If I was taking care of him then I could already claim him as a dependent.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
You think you're being all "progressive" and stuff, but you're really just dodging and cheapening the issue. I almost have more respect for people who are honest enough to use the Jesus excuse.
MadelynIris
Refugee
Martha,
The fact that I believe in the right to have a civil union/partnership that provides all the rights of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation, is pretty progressive. I wish 'you guys' (whomever you are) could get it.
Anyway, you think I implied that I used beastality, incest, etc... as an argument against 'gay marriage' in this thread. Why did you just repost quotes out of context to prove your point?
I do respect your views Martha. I'm not sure what the Jesus excuse is.
The fact that I believe in the right to have a civil union/partnership that provides all the rights of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation, is pretty progressive. I wish 'you guys' (whomever you are) could get it.
Anyway, you think I implied that I used beastality, incest, etc... as an argument against 'gay marriage' in this thread. Why did you just repost quotes out of context to prove your point?
I do respect your views Martha. I'm not sure what the Jesus excuse is.
MadelynIris
Refugee
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Because it would be cheaper (in most cases) than him getting health insurance on his own, if he were unemployed. A benefit of marriage.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Not to mention the premise of exclusivity embedded in the rights presently conferred by marriage. If you entered into a 'union' like that with your brother, then you wouldn't be able to enter one with a woman you might wish to marry in the future without first dissolving it, which wouldn't likely make any of the three of you very happy.BonoVoxSupastar said:
MadelynIris
Refugee
yolland said:
Agreed. By current convention, one one partnership at a time.
Bluer White
New Yorker
Madelyn Iris, let the folks in this thread label you as hateful and a "dodger" of the issue. They will be running to the ballot box to cast a vote for Clinton or Obama, who have an opinion that is basically equivalent to yours. 
Similar threads
