Gay marriage views by homophobe & incest advocate

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Dinosaur, Jul 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,606
    I have been tagged as a homophobe due to a Thread in which I mentioned that the best man at my wedding was gay. I suppose this was viewed as equivalent to a bigoted racist claiming to have a black friend.

    I have also been tagged as advocating or engaging in incest due to mentioning that parent/child & sibling bonds are as strong as the bonds between heterosexual or gay pairs. Gee: Is loving a parent or sibling incestuous in the absence of engaging in sex with either relative?

    Note that laws recognizing gay marriage provide a lot of financial advantages.
    Two obvious examples are joint income tax returns & benefits associated with employment such as health care.​

    For circa 30 years, I supported my late mother who was a widow. For circa 15 years, I supported my late adult son who had various problems.

    I could claim them as dependents, but there were no other benefits available to me.

    When marital benefits established long before there were gay marriages were extended to include gay couples, it would seem fair to also extend such benefits to situations like mine.

    It would have helped me a lot if I could have obtained marital-like benefits for either my son or my mother when I supported them, but had no wife.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    Why only complain about not having marital benefits when gay couples got them? Why weren't you complaining about it when only heterosexual couples had them?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    I agree. You should be able to designate the other person to whom your benefits apply.

    But recognition of same-sex marriages as marriages is only indirectly related to that. There is more to the recognition of marriage than just financial benefits.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Sounds like you need to improve the way you express yourself--people are misinterpreting the things you write.
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Marriage was set up, as the most efficient way to conceive and raise children, requiring the least amount of external resource input, beyond the boundaries of the marriage. A husband and wife can conceive children, at home, and then raise these children, as a family, without law or government; naturally selected for human procreation. All other ways required additional resources and/or propping by government.

    Gay marriage is not about the most efficient way to conceive and raise children. It is all benefits being added to the unspoken benefits of inefficiency; government propping plus benefits.

    I am not a homophobe. This buzz word was designed to force the truth to keep quiet. I have had many gay and lesbian friends and been to parties, to know they were not all that scary. Some were freaky but in a fun way. There was nothing to fear, after testing the waters of reality. Phobia is about unconsciousness and seeing through filters of the mind that are not properly calibrated. It is not about stating facts that don't prop someone up. The inefficiency needs this extra social benefit.
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Marriage was set up, as the most efficient way to conceive and raise children, requiring the least amount of external resource input, beyond the boundaries of the marriage. A husband and wife can conceive children, at home, and then raise these children, as a family, without law or government; naturally selected for human procreation. All other ways required additional resources and/or propping by government.

    Gay marriage is not about the most efficient way to conceive and raise children. It is all benefits being added to the unspoken benefits of inefficiency; government propping plus benefits.

    I am not a homophobe. This buzz word was designed to force the truth to keep quiet. I have had many gay and lesbian friends and been to parties, to know they were not all that scary. Some were freaky but in a fun way. There was nothing to fear, after testing the waters of reality. Phobia is about unconsciousness and seeing through filters of the mind that are not properly calibrated.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Marriage was set up as a way to preserve a man's property.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    There's nothing more inefficient, in terms of results, about adopting or having a surrogate mother or father than there is about reproduction. Families are created in these ways that are just a successful as biologically generated ones. We don't deny parents the right to have families because they are sterile, or because they'd prefer to adopt. In fact adoption solves TWO problems with one solution--the problem of orphans and the problem of the childless parents. Plus you are assured of the health of the child you adopt. Reproducing is a crapshoot. You never know what you're gonna get. Add to that the fact that adoption is painfree, takes only a matter of days, happens as a matter of choice, and often comes with a pre-potty trained child, then adoption is definitely MORE efficient than reproduction.

    Not that this issue has ever been or will ever be about efficiency. It's about the right of all to love and marry and have childen should they choose to. It's a moral issue, not a practical one.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2015
  12. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,202
    Seems to me the solution is simple:

    Make Marriage a Religious construct.
    Make Civil Unions a Government construct.

    Want to get married in the eyes of your God/Diety/Et Al? Go to a priest/pastor/etc.
    Want to be joined in the eyes of the government and get the benefits and responsibilities that entails? Go get a civil union.

    Boom, equal rights for all in the eyes of the government and what you get out of it, and any Religious groups that wish to act like a loony git and start casting stones from their glass houses can do so without it actually affecting anyone.
     
    Walter L. Wagner likes this.
  13. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,109
    .
    Which would apply to interracial couples?

    .
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    Even simpler: don't let religious institutions dictate government policy.
     
  15. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,606
    From Magic Realist Post #2
    It did not occur to me to complain until the benefits were extended to non traditional marriages.

    From Fraggle Rocker Post #4
    I posted that the parent/child & sibling bonds are often as strong as the bond between a typical married couple.

    Should I have added a disclaimer saying that I was not referring to incestuous pairs? Since incestuous pairs are rare, I assumed such would not be inferred by my remarks.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820


    Why? It would be just as unfair for your benefits to be denied and granted to heterosexual marriages as it would be to be denied and granted to gay marriages, would it not? You are essentially complaining about the exclusivity of marriages rights themselves, not gay marriage.
     
  17. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,202
    Depends entirely on what they want at that point

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That's the beauty of it!

    I'd be 100% for this - only problem is, there are too many ultra-conservative morons in power for it to happen right now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,109
    .
    Seems like "separate but equal". If it has a different name, people will see that as opportunity to treat them differently.

    .
     
  19. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,202
    You misunderstand - what I am separating is Church and State - the problem with the previous "marriage vs civil union" differentiation is that they were trying to be the same thing but different.

    What I am proposing is simple: Make Marriage a purely religious thing, with no government interaction, affect, nor civil liberties therein. Thus, being "married" would not affect taxes, rights, etc.

    Make Civil Unions the government side of things - if two (or more) people wish to be joined in the eyes of the government, and thus be able to report on taxes as together, to have the right to make decisions in emergencies/medical situations, et al (essentially, all the rights that being married grants now), they would get a civil union.

    Thus, EVERYBODY can get those privileges, rights, and responsibilities thusly granted, without the "religious" crowd crowing and raising a fuss that they are somehow pissing off God or whatever they wish to call him/her/it/them.

    *shrugs*
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    Or we could just guarantee everybody the civil right to marry along with all of its benefits and prosecute the christian business owners who continue to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
  22. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,202
    Then we're simply flipping things over and prosecuting those who feel it's wrong and trampling on religious beliefs.

    Six of one, half dozen of the other. My solution solves both problems

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Walter L. Wagner likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page