prop 8 in CA overturned | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
prop 8 in CA overturned
February 7, 2012
7:06 pm
Avatar
bionic
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9870
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Wow!!! Awesome!!!

Willie Wonka quotes..
What is this Wonka, some kind of funhouse?
Why? Are you having fun?
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams

February 8, 2012
4:20 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Next up, human-rat unions! Laugh

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 8, 2012
6:19 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10232
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

No, next up is why if anyone can marry anyone now, why the Morman's can not have several wives again, if it is mutual consent? Why isn't that unconstitutional to not allow that, there reliogion allowed it?

Like I said before, marriage has responsibility and limits. Now gay married couples will be responsible for each other debts, where nothing made them responsible as single couples, like catostrophic hospitial bills and taxes. Secondly, programs they qualify for as single people now, will have a new criteria as married status, and many benifits will end. Hospice, medical, other things keyed to income of a single will all change with marriage.

Be care what you wish for, sometimes it isn't that great.

:"{pppp

February 8, 2012
10:31 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"greeney2" wrote: No, next up is why if anyone can marry anyone now, why the Morman's can not have several wives again, if it is mutual consent? Why isn't that unconstitutional to not allow that, there reliogion allowed it?

Like I said before, marriage has responsibility and limits. Now gay married couples will be responsible for each other debts, where nothing made them responsible as single couples, like catostrophic hospitial bills and taxes. Secondly, programs they qualify for as single people now, will have a new criteria as married status, and many benifits will end. Hospice, medical, other things keyed to income of a single will all change with marriage.

Does any of that give a single good reason to disallow same-sex marriages?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 9, 2012
4:16 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10232
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A few years ago, the State of California ruled that the definition for marriage for a man to a woman, was not unconstitutional, because there were many laws in place to support civil unions, and that they were not discriminated against. If it were up to me, same sex couples/partners would not be allowed to add each other to group insurance at all. They are not financially responsible for the others debts, and should not be considered legal dependants. You have a friend that needs major surgury, so you claim he is your partner to add him on your policy and he gets the medical care. If any of us have a child over the age of dependant qualification, and needs the same surgury, too bad. I have a coworker who son nearly died as a child and required a Kidney transplant. When he was the cut off age, his insurance lapsed and they would not cover a penny for his rejection medicine, he has to take for life. That child, even past the age limit, is a true dependant of his parnets. You think thats fair? You think that is right? 2 friends concocting a fabricated relationship to defraud the insurance company, and 2 legitimate parents can't keep thier son alive without his medication that costs a fortune. They had to fight for the Kidney transplant in the first place.

February 9, 2012
4:22 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'll take that as a no.

We're not talking about fabricated relationships, people claiming to be partners for their own agenda, we're talking about marriage.
People of opposite sex get married for dubious reasons, fyi.

About the polygamy, the argument "polygamy shouldn't be legal implies same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal" just doesn't fly.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 9, 2012
8:57 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10232
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I didn't say I was in favor of either polygamy or same sex marriage, but if you are going to allow one becasue it discriminates and is unconstitutional, how can you deny the other, for the same reason. You ask what reason is there for not allowing same sex marriage, what reason would you have for not allowing polygamy, if they are all consenting adults? If the one doesn't affect me why does the other? Pretty obvious we have thrown out any religious teachings, when it comes to any laws for Constitutional rights, and that is the primary argument against either.

As far as the adding of "dependants", that definatly was one of the reasons partners formed civil unions, when the Federal law was passed allowing declared partners, to be added to group insurance coverage. And it was a scam of the system, that violated people with conventional marriages and families, who negotiated those rights as benifits with their companies. Dependants had to be legitimate, such as a spouse or lawful child. It most definatly was a primary reason for doing so, in order to get major medical treatment, for partners who were otherwise uninsured. It was one way of getting coverage without being turned down, because group medical can not put preexisting or time limits for certain things like private policies can. Coverage would be instant, with the civil unions, and you could declare your partner, just as if you were a newly married man and woman, regardless of preexisting conditions. The end result is companies further take coverage away, becasue of these laws requiring them to insure people they never intended, driving our cost of insuring legitimate families up.

February 9, 2012
6:28 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"greeney2" wrote: I didn't say I was in favor of either polygamy or same sex marriage, but if you are going to allow one becasue it discriminates and is unconstitutional, how can you deny the other, for the same reason. You ask what reason is there for not allowing same sex marriage, what reason would you have for not allowing polygamy, if they are all consenting adults? If the one doesn't affect me why does the other? Pretty obvious we have thrown out any religious teachings, when it comes to any laws for Constitutional rights, and that is the primary argument against either.

There is no constitutionally-founded reason to prohibit polygamy except the tenth amendment which allows states to decide. And states can decide by putting such measures on the ballot.

As far as the adding of "dependants", that definatly was one of the reasons partners formed civil unions, when the Federal law was passed allowing declared partners, to be added to group insurance coverage. And it was a scam of the system, that violated people with conventional marriages and families, who negotiated those rights as benifits with their companies. Dependants had to be legitimate, such as a spouse or lawful child. It most definatly was a primary reason for doing so, in order to get major medical treatment, for partners who were otherwise uninsured. It was one way of getting coverage without being turned down, because group medical can not put preexisting or time limits for certain things like private policies can. Coverage would be instant, with the civil unions, and you could declare your partner, just as if you were a newly married man and woman, regardless of preexisting conditions. The end result is companies further take coverage away, becasue of these laws requiring them to insure people they never intended, driving our cost of insuring legitimate families up.

Opposite sex couples can also form civil unions, right?
If it, for some reason, ended up costing A LOT of money to end slavery, should slavery not be ended, hypothetically speaking? I mean, this argument here (against same-sex marriage??) is similar to one against ending slavery because ending slavery will cost business a lot of money (wages, for example). I am of the mind that even if the cost is high, the right thing to do, at least right as far as the constitution goes, should still be done.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 9, 2012
6:52 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10232
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There is no constitutionally-founded reason to prohibit polygamy except the tenth amendment which allows states to decide. And states can decide by putting such measures on the ballot.

Exactly, states have the right to self govern in any matters not related to Federal control, and one of them is the definition of marriage within that state. The California State Constitution also allows the voters to make a State Constitutional amendment with 50% of the vote, which they did with prop 8 defining marriage. Prior to Prop 8 the issue went to the State Supreme Court and it ruled that becasue of the Civil Union laws, and the allowing of parters to be listed as dependants, allowed to live togather, and additional workplace laws protecting gays from discrimination, they were not being discriminated against. Any comparison to slavery is ridiculous, for obvious reasons the gay population is neither owned or property of others, nor are they in bondage with no human rights.

February 9, 2012
7:18 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So, in the end, there is no good legal reason why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online: Ronny Dawson
53 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10232

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24030

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8692

Posts: 123389

Newest Members:

Ronny Dawson, ieltsalama, Dawn Marie, mysentiments, Lori Jean, Lucrezia Borgia, Amitabh, Brian Roberts

Administrators: John Greenewald: 570, blackvault: 1776