LGBT Marriage - Are All Men Are Created Equally?..

[schuylaar]

I watched LINCOLN last night (was blown away) and I'd like to know why fed is leaving this up to states when this is a constitutional right? LGBT has been since the dawn of time..who are we or ANYONE to tell another human being who they can love and how they can benefit from that love?

I'll be taking questions..let's go to the phones..rofl

 

[DonPepe]

I watched LINCOLN last night (was blown away) and I'd like to know why fed is leaving this up to states when this is a constitutional right? LGBT has been since the dawn of time..who are we or ANYONE to tell another human being who they can love and how they can benefit from that love?

I'll be taking questions..let's go to the phones..rofl

When we are paying the tax dollars that provide the benefits that gives us some say in the use of that money. I'm not agreeing or disagree with your opinion on gay marriage or your assertion that we should be able to love who ever we choose, but i do disagree with your opinion that we should have no say in the uses of the money we supply collectively.

I do not agree that such benefits should be limited to "married" people. I believe as a tax paying citizen we should enjoy all the same benefits as any married person. That would solve the problem entirely in the most fair and logical way. I understand some of the "benefits" would have no effect on a single person but the ones that would should not be denied the rest of the population solely on outdated notions of family propriety and greed.

 

[schuylaar]

When we are paying the tax dollars that provide the benefits that gives us some say in the use of that money. I'm not agreeing or disagree with your opinion on gay marriage or your assertion that we should be able to love who ever we choose, but i do disagree with your opinion that we should have no say in the uses of the money we supply collectively.

I do not agree that such benefits should be limited to "married" people. I believe as a tax paying citizen we should enjoy all the same benefits as any married person. That would solve the problem entirely in the most fair and logical way. I understand some of the "benefits" would have no effect on a single person but the ones that would should not be denied the rest of the population solely on outdated notions of family propriety and greed.

so when you are say is you want input imo you are saying they are not our equal..what benefits do you feel you need to vote on?

 

[mysunnyboy]

I watched LINCOLN last night (was blown away) and I'd like to know why fed is leaving this up to states when this is a constitutional right? LGBT has been since the dawn of time..who are we or ANYONE to tell another human being who they can love and how they can benefit from that love?

I'll be taking questions..let's go to the phones..rofl

i think the majority of us would agree

 

[dimebong]

Unconstitutional? Your Government has shat all over the constitution.


Well i do not believe in divine creation, so no in my opinion. We are far from equal in this world in many aspects.

Gay relationships are not illegal these days (where we are) and marriage wasn't originally the Governments, nor the churches
business. It was originally a financial institution, an exchange of property between the girl's father and husband,
a pawn to secure land, fortune, peace between tribes, etc.

I see modern marriage as completely pointless but if i wanted to get married i wouldn't even get it officially recognized.
Some religious people don't even both with the state when they're doing something as personal as modern marriage
because it is none of their business in my book.

 

[schuylaar]

i think the majority of us would agree

awesome! if the concern though is tax dollars..it's a proven fact that people in relationships are healthier, live longer lives than those of us who are single..so what's the tax burden?

 

[DonPepe]

so when you are say is you want input imo you are saying they are not our equal..what benefits do you feel you need to vote on?

Yes, they are not equal under our current definition. I am saying we need to redefine our definition of equal. Our practice of labeling humans man, woman, couple, ect... is what, by definition make us not equal, man =/= woman, thus man + man =/= man + woman. Now if we redefine how we how we label people where man = woman = couple then we can provide benefits biased on your humanity and dare i say, citizenship rather than social status.

I would like to clarify for some of the people replying, this is about $, living with and loving someone is not being denied Americans. you will not be taken out and beaten legally because you are caught in a homosexual relation. What will happen is you will be treated the same way a single person is treated. Where as if you marry someone of the opposite sex you will receive support from the rest of the tax payers for some reason. Initially it was to encourage population growth to fill our labor needs during the explosive growth of the 20th century, yet today the cause has been lost in translation while we bicker over the loot.

 

[skunkd0c]

technically men can not marry men because the law states that it must be a man and a woman,
but they could change the marriage law if they wanted to to allow men to marry men

this reminds me of the law on indecent exposure lol technically speaking a woman can't indecently expose herself
but she can breach the peace by exposing herself a technicality i suppose but that's the law as it stands

peace

 

[schuylaar]

Yes, they are not equal under our current definition. I am saying we need to redefine our definition of equal. Our practice of labeling humans man, woman, couple, ect... is what, by definition make us not equal, man =/= woman, thus man + man =/= man + woman. Now if we redefine how we how we label people where man = woman = couple then we can provide benefits biased on your humanity and dare i say, citizenship rather than social status.

the issue i have with the subject in general is that man/women (good) and entitled to all the benefits that marriage bring however, when it's man/man (bad) it has to be decided whether or not WE WANT TO PAY for that coupling in tax dollars..however, that man is NOT gonna marry a women..and that man has a right to marry..you would be okay with paying your tax dollars for a man/women coupling..what's the difference?

 

[schuylaar]

technically men can not marry men because the law states that it must be a man and a woman,
but they could change the marriage law if they wanted to to allow men to marry men

this reminds me of the law on indecent exposure lol technically speaking a woman can't indecently expose herself
but she can breach the peace by exposing herself a technicality i suppose but that's the law as it stands



peace

imo one human should be able to marry another human. end of story.

 

[dannyboy602]

Lol...not all men were created equal. Ever been in the shower room at the gym?

 

[slowbus]

imo one human should be able to marry another human. end of story.

imo,thats nasty.In that case I could marry my sister.LOL

 

[schuylaar]

imo,thats nasty.In that case I could marry my sister.LOL

lol oh come on..case in point ..interracial marriages..it wasn't too long ago that this was not recognized and the Supreme Court had to rule on..i think we should cut to the chase and do it!

rofl AGREED there must be special consideration for those in WV..

 

[slowbus]

I don't even think it'd be a big deal if there was no IRS or health insurance bs etc

 

[DonPepe]

the issue i have with the subject in general is that man/women (good) and entitled to all the benefits that marriage bring however, when it's man/man (bad) it has to be decided whether or not WE WANT TO PAY for that coupling in tax dollars..however, that man is NOT gonna marry a women..and that man has a right to marry..you would be okay with paying your tax dollars for a man/women coupling..what's the difference?

I am disputing the practice all together, I feel any American should be entitled to the same benefits of being a citizen regardless of sexual persuasion, race, religion, or social status.

Therefor, i cannot wish to extend these benefits to homosexuals as I wish to deny them to everyone. However, if we are determined to continue such an archaic practice then i feel the idea of marriage is an unnecessary limitation designed to deny select citizens who do not comply with the outdated norm benefits in order to increase the rewards afforded those who comply.

and from the monetary standpoint, i don't not see the problem with a brother and sister receiving the benefits afforded married couples. Why should I not be allowed to add my brother/roommate to my health insurance like i would a wife? Other then romantic relations, we share most of the rest of the responsibilities of a couple.

 

[UncleBuck]

When we are paying the tax dollars that provide the benefits that gives us some say in the use of that money. I'm not agreeing or disagree with your opinion on gay marriage or your assertion that we should be able to love who ever we choose, but i do disagree with your opinion that we should have no say in the uses of the money we supply collectively.

I do not agree that such benefits should be limited to "married" people. I believe as a tax paying citizen we should enjoy all the same benefits as any married person. That would solve the problem entirely in the most fair and logical way. I understand some of the "benefits" would have no effect on a single person but the ones that would should not be denied the rest of the population solely on outdated notions of family propriety and greed.

that was a conservative trying his best to not say he doesn't actually believe in marriage equality, folks.

 

[Grojak]

All men are not created equal... why else would men have "small penis syndrome"? I 'm bigger than a guy with a 7" but a guy with an 8" is bigger than me, is it fair? no but I'm lucky enough to be a bit above average hehe

 

[UncleBuck]

you will not be taken out and beaten legally because you are caught in a homosexual relation.

oh, thank goodness

What will happen is you will be treated the same way a single person is treated. Where as if you marry someone of the opposite sex you will receive support from the rest of the tax payers for some reason. Initially it was to encourage population growth to fill our labor needs during the explosive growth of the 20th century, yet today the cause has been lost in translation while we bicker over the loot.

yes, we get it. gay people can't make babies and you're trying your best not to just come out and say how much it irks you. go ahead sweetie, let it all out.

 

[skunkd0c]

imo one human should be able to marry another human. end of story.

perhaps you are right, but should we limit it to human - human

apparently this dude married his dog lol

each to their own ?

 

[dr.gonzo1]

If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you go "Baby, this shit we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!"

Everyones best bud - Doug Stanhope