Is Western culture being destroyed?

[Coyote]

Taxes are related to the imperative of state protection for the family. I'm sorry but it does not logically follow for gay men to have tax breaks by simply deciding to live together.

The only way that gay men are able to start a family is through adoption. Adoption is NOT a right but a privilege -- regardless of one's gender. The state is not obliged to give tax breaks on this. In fact, one's ability to provide the necessities of the children you adopt is a requirement for it.

I disagree. If you put in that argument - married people with no children or grown children have no right to any taxbreaks. Same with pensions or health insurance. If it's about "family" then there needs to be a "family".

 

[Coyote]

There is no reason why a homosexual union cannot incorporate a document that would extend this privilege to one's partner.

Besides, the hospital policy to limit visitors to patients is there for the benefit of the patient. Medical emergencies are handled better if non-essential personnel are kept to a minimum.

Are immediate family non-essential personnel? Are spouses non-essential?

As it stands - were you or I to be in the hospital we would, I am sure, want our closest family member with us for support. Often that is a spouse. You would deny this basic right to homosexual couples but grant it to heterosexual couples. For what reason?

 

[Coyote]

Exactly. A woman needs at least a week of rest and recuperation after a natural child birth. Longer if its a c-section. Naturally, the husband is expected to do everything. I should know. Both my children are cs.

Not necessarily. Women in third world countries are back at work within days of having a baby (by natural delivery that is). In addition - family leave for husbands is not necessarily in conjuntion with the mothers but might be after she returns to work so he can be home with the child.

The point is not so much that the mother physically needs the help because she is weak, but because having a newborn is very time consuming, stressful and all-ecompassing of a family's life. It doesn't matter if it's an adopted or natural baby.

And you find this logical?

Caring for children, imo, is a full-time career. I don't even know how women can cope with this and still have a full-time day job. At some point, one must accept the fact that one or both would suffer under this condition.

Yes, I find it logical.

As to the latter, it's not always a choice.

What about them?

They can create a family. Do they have a right to get married? To all the benefits therein?

 

[numinus]

Nothing new, Nums, same tired rhetoric. And twice you have dodged the Constitutional equal protection clause, so I'm going to assume that unequality under the law is acceptable to you as long as you are on the winning side.

I do not dodge anything.

Is equal protection meant to treat a woman as a man and a man a woman?

You are obviously a confused individual. I have nothing but sympathy for you.

Once again you have dodged the question about lesbian women's rights,

A woman has the right to motherhood -- regardless of how she prefers her sex.

Duh?

and the rights--or lack of--for sterile couples

The aggrieved party has every right to dissolve or nullify the marriage. What lack of right are you babbling about?

or couples who decide not to have children.

Your vain effort to fit a square peg in a round hole has left you mummbling inchorent nonsense.

A woman has the right to motherhood. The law cannot give limitations as to when she would wish to exercise this right.

Instead you are totally focused on making sure that gay men don't get rights of which you have judged them undeserving. This is a religious defense of a tradition, which espouses inequality based on judgments of person's worth. Your dismissal of adopted children is a case in point.

If you are talking about paid maternity leave for homosexual men, you can be damn sure it is undeserved.

Gosh, Nums, a religious elitist, who would have thought it possible? Cap'n Trips on another site is just like you, he said that it was necessary for heterosexual couples to have special rights under the law or they wouldn't procreate anymore. Well, several countries have legalized homosexual marriages and a couple of States as well, so you and the queen better stop having sex because the world is ending. I don't necessarily think you should feel too bad about being stuck in the 15th century, Christianity as a monolithic entity has had be dragged kicking and screaming into the present all down through its history. Every civil rights movement has been opposed by the conservative factions of the church who don't want anything to change. The end of feudalism and monarchies, recognition that women have souls, recognition of the rights of indigenous people's everywhere, ending the persecution of Jews, women's right to own property, women's right to vote, rights of people with other religions, ending slavery, equal rights for people of color,...even the surgical repair of birth defects is opposed. It's a long and ugly list, Nums, you have a lot of company in spitting on the egalitarian teachings of Jesus.

Nonsense.

The situations above were rectified according to logic. You have not given any logic for your argument. As far as the right of motherhood is concerned -- along with all the privileges that accrue from it -- THERE IS NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER THAT SUCH A RIGHT EXISTS IN MEN.

But just remember George Wallace standing on the steps of that school stating that there would NEVER be integration. What people like you do is make the church and the teachings of Jesus look irrelevant because you are so upset that someone might get something that you think they don't deserve that you have no time left for the strenuous work that YOUR Savior demanded of you. Nice going, Nums.

You and your sort can 'integrate' as much as you wish. Leave reasonable and logical people out of it.

I won't even try to argue you fallacious definitions, they too are the same old nonsense you've been posting.

The right to motherhood for gay men is as fallacious as fallacies come.

 

[numinus]

I disagree. If you put in that argument - married people with no children or grown children have no right to any taxbreaks. Same with pensions or health insurance. If it's about "family" then there needs to be a "family".

Tax breaks come in the form deductions on dependents. No dependents, no tax break.

What sort of tax breaks did you imagine married couples have?

 

[numinus]

Are immediate family non-essential personnel? Are spouses non-essential?

During medical emergencies, especially for intensive-care patients? Of course they are non-essential.

As it stands - were you or I to be in the hospital we would, I am sure, want our closest family member with us for support. Often that is a spouse. You would deny this basic right to homosexual couples but grant it to heterosexual couples. For what reason?

Of course.

But not when the presence of people interferes with the job of medical professionals. Usually, bedside visitors are restricted on icu patients. In not-so critical situations, anyone can visit -- within the aloted time, of course.

 

[numinus]

Not necessarily. Women in third world countries are back at work within days of having a baby (by natural delivery that is). In addition - family leave for husbands is not necessarily in conjuntion with the mothers but might be after she returns to work so he can be home with the child.

The point is not so much that the mother physically needs the help because she is weak, but because having a newborn is very time consuming, stressful and all-ecompassing of a family's life. It doesn't matter if it's an adopted or natural baby.

Maternity and paternity leaves are benefits accorded to parents SOLELY DURING CHILDBIRTH.

Just because you have children doesn't mean you get maternity and paternity leaves every month, now, does it?

Yes, I find it logical.

From the above, it is NOT.

As to the latter, it's not always a choice.

Choice is inherent in ALL ACTIONS.

They can create a family. Do they have a right to get married? To all the benefits therein?

Everyone has a right to get married.

All children have the right to live with his natural parents in an atmosphere of family.

 

[Coyote]

Tax breaks come in the form deductions on dependents. No dependents, no tax break.

What sort of tax breaks did you imagine married couples have?

That is not true.

If I file jointly - as married - I get a considerable refund.

If my husband and I file singly - we get far less.

 

[Coyote]

During medical emergencies, especially for intensive-care patients? Of course they are non-essential.

I'm not arguing situations where NO family members are allowed - such as you are outlining above.

Of course.

I'm not sure what you mean...of course you would deny it or of course you would allow it....?

But not when the presence of people interferes with the job of medical professionals. Usually, bedside visitors are restricted on icu patients. In not-so critical situations, anyone can visit -- within the aloted time, of course.

In a situation where a famiily member is critically ill, such as ICU - only immediate family members are allowed. That includes spouses.

In those situations a homosexual's partner could be denied access because there is no legally recognized union that makes him immediate family.

Is this right or wrong?

It's wrong. It's wrong to deny the presence of someone's closest most intimate partner in a time of great need (could be dying) because the state refuses to recognize the legality of the union. And right there it is an issue of humanity, equality and civil rights.

 

[Coyote]

Maternity and paternity leaves are benefits accorded to parents SOLELY DURING CHILDBIRTH.

Just because you have children doesn't mean you get maternity and paternity leaves every month, now, does it?

That's a strawman. No one is arguing that point. An infant's needs and vulnerability are greatest during the first few months and it is during that time bonding occurs as well. I thought to some degree maternaty/paternity benefits were based on the needs of the infant much as adoption is based on the rights of the child.

From the above, it is NOT.



Choice is inherent in ALL ACTIONS.

To a certain extent yes. One can always "choose". But choices are constricted by various factors.

If a man and woman are married and have children and the man turns out to be say an alcoholic wastral or an abuser she has "choices" but some "choices" are no "choice" at all.

She can stay in the relationship and endure and try her best to mitigate the harm done to herself and her children. But even that choice is iffy because what if he isn't earning an income or squandering it? Does she let the children starve - become dependent on the dole - or get a work?

She can choose to leave the relationship and try to raise the children herself. That almost certainly means she must take some sort of job to support herself and her children.

As a mother - HER choices are strongly constrained by what is best for her children.

So saying she has a choice, while technically correct is disengenius in reality.

Everyone has a right to get married.

All children have the right to live with his natural parents in an atmosphere of family.

I think you are avoiding direct answers here.

Do you mean everyone has a right to "get married" to a partner of their choice OR everyone has a right to "get married" to a person(s) of the opposite sex?

If two lesbian women wish to get married to each other and they concieve a child through artificial insemination form an anonymous doner (often done with infertile couples) - what then? Are they a family based on a woman's natural right to fecundity?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

During medical emergencies, especially for intensive-care patients? Of course they are non-essential.
Of course.

But not when the presence of people interferes with the job of medical professionals. Usually, bedside visitors are restricted on icu patients. In not-so critical situations, anyone can visit -- within the aloted time, of course.

Especially when someone is in intensive care the spouse is an essential person, who will make the decisions about their care? Who will see to their affairs? The stupid thing is that compassionless family members who hate gays will often bar their gay relative's spouse from seeing their loved one. Very cruel, against the wishes of the sick or injured gay person, but it's the way the law is written.

 

[numinus]

That is not true.

If I file jointly - as married - I get a considerable refund.

If my husband and I file singly - we get far less.

What deductions are you talking about?

 

[numinus]

I'm not arguing situations where NO family members are allowed - such as you are outlining above.

That is the only reason hospitals prohibit visitors -- in varying degrees.

I'm not sure what you mean...of course you would deny it or of course you would allow it....?

Of course I would very much want to be with my family when I am sick. Anybody who cares enough about me to visit when I am sick would be welcome -- subject to hospital rules.

In a situation where a famiily member is critically ill, such as ICU - only immediate family members are allowed. That includes spouses.

Have you ever been critically ill and someone not of your immediate family you want to see was prohibited to see you? I cannot see any reason for this.

In those situations a homosexual's partner could be denied access because there is no legally recognized union that makes him immediate family.

Is this right or wrong?

It's wrong. It's wrong to deny the presence of someone's closest most intimate partner in a time of great need (could be dying) because the state refuses to recognize the legality of the union. And right there it is an issue of humanity, equality and civil rights.

And a written document executed by you wouldn't be just as legally valid?

 

[numinus]

That's a strawman. No one is arguing that point. An infant's needs and vulnerability are greatest during the first few months and it is during that time bonding occurs as well. I thought to some degree maternaty/paternity benefits were based on the needs of the infant much as adoption is based on the rights of the child.

And we are talking of a MANDATED leave with pay that all employers are subject to provide employees.

By all means, be with your adopted child. As an employer, I can understand a woman cannot work within a certain period before and after childbirth. I can understand the need of a husband to be with his wife during and a few days after childbirth.

I cannot understand how these are relevant to a gay man or woman adopting. I cannot understand why I should pay for this as well.

To a certain extent yes. One can always "choose". But choices are constricted by various factors.

If a man and woman are married and have children and the man turns out to be say an alcoholic wastral or an abuser she has "choices" but some "choices" are no "choice" at all.

She can stay in the relationship and endure and try her best to mitigate the harm done to herself and her children. But even that choice is iffy because what if he isn't earning an income or squandering it? Does she let the children starve - become dependent on the dole - or get a work?

She can choose to leave the relationship and try to raise the children herself. That almost certainly means she must take some sort of job to support herself and her children.

As a mother - HER choices are strongly constrained by what is best for her children.

So saying she has a choice, while technically correct is disengenius in reality.

That is the consequence of a choice. Nobody compelled anyone to get married against their will.

And because of the responsibilities inherent in her gender, the state is skewed on the side of a mother in any marital dispute. I was first appalled when I learned about this but after being married and having children, I can somehow appreciate the fundamental logic of the law.

I think you are avoiding direct answers here.

Do you mean everyone has a right to "get married" to a partner of their choice OR everyone has a right to "get married" to a person(s) of the opposite sex?

Everyone has a right to get married to the opposite sex. That is the purpose of marriage in the eyes of the state. That is the purpose of all marital and family laws.

The law doesn't have any business legislating love and human bonds.

I am not avoiding anything. I have said this countless times already.

If two lesbian women wish to get married to each other and they concieve a child through artificial insemination form an anonymous doner (often done with infertile couples) - what then? Are they a family based on a woman's natural right to fecundity?

NO.

The woman who concieved the child is the mother. Her right to motherhood does not extend to her lesbian partner. Can you think of any reason why it should?

 

[Coyote]

What deductions are you talking about?

I'm not sure if it's specifically deductions but the rate is lower - I pay less in taxes by filing jointly as a married person.