Things we have: "adoption", "artificial insemination"...

Post #377,170 by malraux 6/28/13 6:41:01 PM 6/28/13 6:41:46 PM Reply	Things we have: "adoption", "artificial insemination"... Really, Mike, this isn't that hard. Either it's there for everyone, or it's there for no one. You agreed elsewhere when I said that. Now you're changing the rules when it doesn't support the outcome you want. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. Edited by malraux June 28, 2013, 06:41:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #377,307 by mmoffitt 7/1/13 6:14:42 PM 7/1/13 6:25:23 PM Reply	Adoption and Artificial insemination rely on others. No gay couple can pull off reproduction on their own. And since reproduction is the sole benefit society as a whole ever gleans from a romantic human relationship, same-sex romantic relationships can never make a positive contribution to society. But that's okay, we'll give them the tax breaks, Social Security benefits, insurance benefits, etc. anyway because, hey, they're special. Why are they special? Because of their sexual proclivities. That's bullshit. Look, I don't care who sleeps with whom, who gets "married" and by whom, I don't care about any of that. There's only one person on this planet whose sexual orientation I care anything about and that's my wife's. But it frosts my ass to know that the USSC case resulted in a 0.1%'er getting YAN fricking HUGE check from the federal government. It is just stupid that we've set up rules to allow for "special benefits" for a class of people solely on the basis of their sexual proclivities and in the face of the FACT that their relationships with one another WILL COST US MORE MONEY and we stand ZERO chance that their relationships will ever make a contribution to society. IMO, you can only be happy about the USSC decision in Windsor if you are a gigantic "something for nothing" fan. Because that's what it amounts to. Edited by mmoffitt July 1, 2013, 06:25:23 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #377,310 by malraux 7/1/13 6:35:22 PM Reply	"Zero chance" is BS There are more kids than there are people adopting them. Gay couple adopts a kid, there's your contribution to society. Gay couple goes to a sperm bank and makes a kid, same thing. Here's the question you need to answer or it's just bigotry on your part: Why should a straight couple doing exactly the same thing and adopting a child or using a sperm bank get a break if the gay couple can't? All or none, buddy, or you're just discriminating. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #377,311 by drook 7/1/13 7:09:21 PM Reply	Drop it, it's not about sex He's pissed that more rich people will be inheriting without taxes. -- Drew
Post #377,324 by CRConrad 7/1/13 7:54:28 PM Reply	He's only talking about the sex.
Post #377,331 by mmoffitt 7/1/13 8:50:17 PM Reply	No, I'm not. Everyone else is. They're using one's sexual preference to distinguish a group that gets to contribute nothing, but enjoy the same benefits as those who do contribute.
Post #377,333 by boxley 7/1/13 8:54:48 PM Reply	now I'm confused what is this contribute nothing bidness? A married couple who spews out kids, lives on taxpayer supported assistance because they are sometimes working when they aren't drinking and smack their kids around contribute more than a single mom who works to support herself and goes to school at the same time? Just because they have a gummint license to co-habitate? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #377,340 by mmoffitt 7/1/13 9:14:23 PM Reply	No. See my reply post to you above. We should NOT base any benefits upon marital status. We should HELP the people who give us kids without regard to marital status. Read my reply above.
Post #377,363 by CRConrad 7/2/13 6:09:33 AM Reply	Yes you are, of course. Straight hetero making-babies sex. You persist in your twisted way of equating marriage with procreation. Given that you've repeatedly refused to consider adoption or fostering as legitimate means of starting a family, and with artificial insemination still a very marginal method of getting pregnant, you ARE in effect equating marriage with Fucking For Children -- i.e, talking only about the sex. (What; I never said you were talking only about the _gay_ sex, now did I?) All that's missing is prescribing the missionary position as the only Pure way of doing it, and your standpoint would be totally indistinguishable from that of the most brimstone-and-sulphur-reeking fundamentalist Bible-thumper imaginable. So, eh... Which positions are OK to qualify for marriage, in your book? HTH! -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,408 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:19:03 PM Reply	Um, No. Our existing laws wrt marriage were drafted when the most likely outcome of "marriage" was children. That presumption is no longer valid. Consequently, existing "marriage" laws should be voided. That succinct enough?
Post #377,413 by boxley 7/2/13 10:31:26 PM Reply	thats one convert :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #377,438 by CRConrad 7/3/13 1:27:28 AM Reply	Succinct, sure -- but above all, WRONG. Just because (ONE of) the most likely "outcome(s)" back then was children, that's far from meaning that was the reason for those laws. Two people living in a close relation, usually living together, was an even more prevalent "outcome", and has several positive societal effects, as the other Scott showed. It's at least as logical to assume those were the reason for tax breaks etc. And since that's still the case, the presumption is that the laws are still just as valid as ever. The burden of proof against that is on you, and so far you haven't shown -- just claimed -- that procreation is all that marriage is about. That claim itself is still pretty much exactly the same as the religous loons are making. (And doesn't that in itself tell you it's liable to be wrong as Hell?) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,455 by mmoffitt 7/3/13 1:29:11 PM Reply	I'm aware of the shady company I'm keeping. And no, I don't take great comfort in that. ;0)
Post #377,343 by mmoffitt 7/1/13 9:32:42 PM Reply	I'll answer. Again. No state funded artificial insemination should be tolerated unless and until there is universal healthcare available for everyone. You want to experiment with kids being raised in same-sex households, I'm not opposed. But it is an experiment. Counsel on both sides of the issues before court conceded that the jury was still out on the impact of that. But, I'm not really opposed to that. But the fact remains that someone else had those kids. And maybe, in some cases, if the state had done a better job of supporting households with children, they wouldn't be available to adopt in the first place. I guess where I ultimately fall on this is that given the recent court rulings, all "marriage benefits" should be erased and the savings should be forwarded to households with children, homosexual households, heterosexual households, whatever. The USSC decisions have made "marriage" meaningless to society.
Post #377,354 by boxley 7/1/13 11:18:39 PM Reply	what savings I have a 21yo and a 27yo inhabiting my house at the moment, I feed them, they steal beer money and demand taxi service everywhere and I can't deduct a dime for them as dependants. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #377,399 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 9:52:52 PM Reply	I'm on your side. Windsor isn't. She's a multi-millionaire who doesn't want to contribute her fair share to the common good.
Post #377,362 by CRConrad 7/2/13 5:57:34 AM Reply	That sounds convoluted and far-fetched. Sure, real genuine universal health-care would be a great thing, and is an important goal for a society that wants to see itself as truly civilised. But conflating that with tax breaks for families and using it as an argument against treating all kinds of families somewhat fairly seems wildly irrelevant. So much so that I can't help thinking it's just an over-intellectualisation of what is basically homophobia that you don't dare admit to openly; perhaps not even to yourself. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,367 by boxley 7/2/13 8:53:21 AM Reply	no, he is pissed because he cant steal dead peoples money Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #377,397 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 9:39:01 PM Reply	I'm a homophobe because I want ... healthcare guaranteed for existing children before I want to allow medical science to create new kids for the monied class. And you say I'm stretching? And these vaunted "tax breaks"? Jesus, the first 5 million is tax exempt already ferchrissakes. And if your estate is worth more than 5 million in my country, you've done something unethical (at the very least) to amass that wealth. Or do you think they all "earned it"?
Post #377,440 by CRConrad 7/3/13 4:40:44 AM Reply	Back-pedaling much? Who's talking inheritance tax here? Only you; not me, anyway. You've been saying (if I'm not misremembering?) that you're against all tax breaks and other preferential treatment for married couples. And then you got onto universal health-care, apparently arguing the lack of this as some kind of support for your resistance to marriage preferentialism. It's not I who am introducing and connecting wildly disparate things; it's you. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,454 by mmoffitt 7/3/13 1:27:09 PM Reply	If you change premises, you have to change conclusions.

Welcome to IWETHEY!