No, I'm not. Everyone else is.

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 That presumption is no longer valid.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)

Welcome to IWETHEY!