world population

[Dr.Who]

I knew you'd want a link so I gave the name of the group: According to COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere) and here is their site: http://www.colage.org/

This group is national and the figures refer only to children that have been raised by gay parent(s) or are being raised by gay parent(s). The fact that you have been and may still be in total denial about gays having children is a real impediment in our discussion.

A link to a home page is not the same as a link to the stat. I have no intention of fishing around in that site to discover that you read it wrong or that they distorted what just cannot be.

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you mean to say that they can NOW do that or are you saying that they SHOULD be able to do that?

I mean that they should as adoption laws are the logical place to address the rights of people who raise children they did not have a biological role in creating.

I suspect that the adoption laws NOW do that almost all of the time. I would like to see exceptions though so I can argue in favor of changing discriminatory laws.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A link to a home page is not the same as a link to the stat. I have no intention of fishing around in that site to discover that you read it wrong or that they distorted what just cannot be.

Well, at least you're consistent. You have refused to examine any of the other sources I've posted so why break a perfect record?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I mean that they should as adoption laws are the logical place to address the rights of people who raise children they did not have a biological role in creating.

I suspect that the adoption laws NOW do that almost all of the time. I would like to see exceptions though so I can argue in favor of changing discriminatory laws.

You can't get it through your head, can you. Gay guys donate sperm to lesbian women and father children all the time. Lesbian women are wonderful surrogate mothers for their gay men friends. You have this weird idea that gay people are so different from you when in fact they are not.

 

[Dr.Who]

You can't get it through your head, can you. Gay guys donate sperm to lesbian women and father children all the time. Lesbian women are wonderful surrogate mothers for their gay men friends. You have this weird idea that gay people are so different from you when in fact they are not.

No they are not much different at all.

For example when they want to create a baby they still do it the heterosexual way with a woman and a man just as you have described above.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No they are not much different at all.

For example when they want to create a baby they still do it the heterosexual way with a woman and a man just as you have described above.

Okay, then why do you still deny them legal marriage since they're just like you? You can't have it both ways, Who, and your attempts to do so come across as egregious hypocrisy. Just like giving rich people a pass and saying that God will judge them, but passing laws to judge and punish gay people.

 

[Dr.Who]

Okay, then why do you still deny them legal marriage since they're just like you? You can't have it both ways, Who, and your attempts to do so come across as egregious hypocrisy. Just like giving rich people a pass and saying that God will judge them, but passing laws to judge and punish gay people.

If marriage were a great privilege I would be concerned about that. But marriage is a legals restriction of people's rights to screw around with anyone at all, and to not share finances. Gay people have more freedom than married people to do whatever they want to do. I do not want anyone to have their rights restricted unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The fact that some people can create new life when egg and sperm meet is a compelling reason. Heterosexual breeders can have their rights restricted when they marry for the protection of the children and dependent spouses. for gays they will be producing no children and do not need to have their rights restricted.

Marriage laws generally "punish" those who get married!

I do favor removing any privileges that go along with marriage if they are not needed. I would even favor no state marriages at all if possible. If we need to revise some of the specifics that grant special rights to married people lets do that. You have yet to start a thread about any special rights

Rich people do not get a pass they should pay the same percentage of taxes as everyone else. Then, after that, they should be even more generous and that is between them and their God.

Now, all this has been posted before many times so there is really no reasosn for you to ask why I [fill in the blank] and then for you to make a strawman argument. But as long as you do I will answer it because I am confident that the random reader who comes across our conversation on the internet will consider what I say to be more logical than what you have to say. Right now the feel good but ill conceived idea of treating gays fairly has already won the day and everyone knows that argument. In contrast very few people have even considered that marriage is not a privilege but a restriction of rights. You get to say nothing that has not been heard before and is not already generally accepted, I get to say something that is new to many people and will change more minds.

I think every gay who wants to should go and get married before God as his conscience directs him or her. But the state should stay out of it. It is also not very important to me at all and if they do get the state to stick its nose in where it does not belong then they will reap the consequences of lost rights - so be it. But I do like to see people make their cases on the basis of logical arguments and I just can't watch you say stuff that is incorrect and leave it be. I personally think you should argue instead that all rights come from God and the state has no business restricting them.

 

[top gun]

If marriage were a great privilege I would be concerned about that. But marriage is a legals restriction of people's rights to screw around with anyone at all, and to not share finances. Gay people have more freedom than married people to do whatever they want to do. I do not want anyone to have their rights restricted unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The fact that some people can create new life when egg and sperm meet is a compelling reason. Heterosexual breeders can have their rights restricted when they marry for the protection of the children and dependent spouses. for gays they will be producing no children and do not need to have their rights restricted.

I think you're missing a pretty darn major point here if you think about it Who.

What about the millions & millions of heterosexual couples that have married never intending (or unable) to have children? See you'd be saying they too are having THEIR RIGHTS unreasonably restricted.

Be that as it may I don't believe for one single solitary second that the reason you or any others don't want gay couples to be allowed to marry is because you just don't want them unfairly restricted.

The fact is you see some mostly religious moral high ground to marriage and you really just can't stand gay people being a part of that.

The simple fact is this. Any adult should be able to enter into a legal marriage contract if they want those protections and so choose. It's not just the children that are protected by a marriage contract. For instance in a 50/50% community property state like California the difference between being married OR just living together is the difference between the less affluent partner in a break up getting half of all marital assets... and the less affluent partner in a break up getting... nothing.

I think to the less affluent partner... that might be a protection they'd kinda care about don't you?

I think the husband in this clip sees things very clearly.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If marriage were a great privilege I would be concerned about that. But marriage is a legals restriction of people's rights to screw around with anyone at all, and to not share finances.
I don't know why you post this nonsense. It's not true, it never has been true today. People find HUGE value in marriage, why do you think so many people marry? Are you married? I am, it's one of the best things that ever happened to me. I don't know if you are actually lying here or if you are so out of the loop that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Gay people have more freedom than married people to do whatever they want to do. I do not want anyone to have their rights restricted unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

You don't give a damn about gay people's rights or you wouldn't be campaigning so hard to deny them one of the most valued relationships in our culture. How about "the desire to marry like everyone else" as a COMPELLING reason for you to butt out and stop trying to force you views on others with the law?

The fact that some people can create new life when egg and sperm meet is a compelling reason. Heterosexual breeders can have their rights restricted when they marry for the protection of the children and dependent spouses. for gays they will be producing no children and do not need to have their rights restricted.

You don't give a damn about gays rights being restricted, I had hoped that you would turn out to be an honest person, Mr. Who, but this post is in the lying SOS catagory. You've been all over the map trying different arguments to make a case against marriage rights for all the people who want them--I'll wager that you yourself are married--but I've pointed out the lies and the inconsistencies in every single one of them.

Marriage laws generally "punish" those who get married!

Oh yeah, having been married for a bunch of years I know all about the "punishment" of marriage. Do you realize what kind of an A-hole you look like with the statement above? Is there anything you won't say to try to deny everyone the very rights that you enjoy? Which one of Jesus' commandments are you fulfilling with this "marriage is punishment" argument?

I do favor removing any privileges that go along with marriage if they are not needed. I would even favor no state marriages at all if possible. If we need to revise some of the specifics that grant special rights to married people lets do that. You have yet to start a thread about any special rights.

I'm not interested in special rights, I'm interested in equality. Equal protection under the laws of the land, you know, the same thing that you have, that's all.

Rich people do not get a pass they should pay the same percentage of taxes as everyone else. Then, after that, they should be even more generous and that is between them and their God.

Okay, now why can't gay people get the same deal? They get equal treatment under the law and the rest of it is between them and their God.

Now, all this has been posted before many times so there is really no reasosn for you to ask why I [fill in the blank] and then for you to make a strawman argument. But as long as you do I will answer it because I am confident that the random reader who comes across our conversation on the internet will consider what I say to be more logical than what you have to say. Right now the feel good but ill conceived idea of treating gays fairly has already won the day and everyone knows that argument. In contrast very few people have even considered that marriage is not a privilege but a restriction of rights. You get to say nothing that has not been heard before and is not already generally accepted, I get to say something that is new to many people and will change more minds.

Marriage has rights, responsibilities, and privileges as it is set forth in US law, your argument that it is a "punishment" or a "restriction" is not relevant, all contracts are liable to have restrictions, that's why it's good to read them before signing. Most people marry and are happy about it, your patriarchal desire to single out gays for "protection" seems just a little disingenuous (as in a big fat lie) after all your other arguments--Biblical and biological.

I think every gay who wants to should go and get married before God as his conscience directs him or her. But the state should stay out of it. It is also not very important to me at all and if they do get the state to stick its nose in where it does not belong then they will reap the consequences of lost rights - so be it. But I do like to see people make their cases on the basis of logical arguments and I just can't watch you say stuff that is incorrect and leave it be. I personally think you should argue instead that all rights come from God and the state has no business restricting them.

Okay, all rights come from God, but it wasn't God who passed the laws to deny marriage to gays, it wasn't the government either, it was the F'ing Bible-beaters! And it's still the Bible-beaters today who are continuing the battle to discriminate against gays and transsexuals.

Frankly, I'm surprised and ashamed of you for the falsehoods that you have felt the need to tell, you have been dishonest with me, with the other people on this site, but most of all you have been dishonest with yourself. Marriage is neither punishment nor deprivation unless one is immature and is unable to make the committments that it requires. I wonder if this tells us something about your marriage.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you're missing a pretty darn major point here if you think about it Who.

What about the millions & millions of heterosexual couples that have married never intending (or unable) to have children? See you'd be saying they too are having THEIR RIGHTS unreasonably restricted.

That has been addressed before. It would be more intrusive for the state to start determining just which heterosexual couples can conceive than it would be for the state to make a general law that applies to all who might.

Be that as it may I don't believe for one single solitary second that the reason you or any others don't want gay couples to be allowed to marry is because you just don't want them unfairly restricted.

It is probably gone by now but one of my very first posts on this site was saying that I don't care too much if they get married or not. My objection is to the false arguments that are used to justify gay marriage rather than to the marriage itself. But, yes I am aware that there are those who object to gay marriage just because they think it is weird. That kind of thinking needs to be objected to as well.

The fact is you see some mostly religious moral high ground to marriage and you really just can't stand gay people being a part of that.

If gay people want to get married in a church of their choice, a church that wants to marry them, then I think that is the way it should be. Which is exactly how I think it should be for hets.

The simple fact is this. Any adult should be able to enter into a legal marriage contract if they want those protections and so choose.

Why would the state provide any protections for the biological children of a couple that cannot make any biological children? One reason is that the state can't reasonably know if the couple will be creating any children. But with gay couples the state knows.

It's not just the children that are protected by a marriage contract. For instance in a 50/50% community property state like California the difference between being married OR just living together is the difference between the less affluent partner in a break up getting half of all marital assets... and the less affluent partner in a break up getting... nothing.

Right that it is not just the children. It is also dependent spouses. The reason the state protects dependent spouses is because the reason they are dependent is that they are raising children. The state has zero business in offering marital protections to one spouse over another on purely arbitrary reasons. Now if people want to write a non-marital contract then the state has an obligation to uphold that contract no matter who the people are.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't know why you post this nonsense. It's not true, it never has been true today. People find HUGE value in marriage, why do you think so many people marry? Are you married? I am, it's one of the best things that ever happened to me. I don't know if you are actually lying here or if you are so out of the loop that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

There is a difference between the reasons the state gets involved and the reasons that individuals get involved.

The state gets involved to protect rights and promote the next generation, it does that by restricting the ability of people to do certain things after they get married.

You don't give a damn about gay people's rights or you wouldn't be campaigning so hard to deny them one of the most valued relationships in our culture. How about "the desire to marry like everyone else" as a COMPELLING reason for you to butt out and stop trying to force you views on others with the law?

I am not campaigning at all. If you all didn't post wrong arguments I would have made no post about gays here at all. They are free right now to engage in the most valued relationships as much as they want. The paper really is just a paper - a paper that protects the rights of children, dependent spouses and promotes the next generation.

I have zero desire to force my views on anyone. All I am doing is saying that your arguments in favor of gay marriage are wrong. I have even suggested that there are better arguments and that I am ok with gay marriage. My main concern is not with what gay people do but with the over reaching power of the state. I believe in a limited government and that is what I want.

You don't give a damn about gays rights being restricted, I had hoped that you would turn out to be an honest person, Mr. Who, but this post is in the lying SOS catagory. You've been all over the map trying different arguments to make a case against marriage rights for all the people who want them--I'll wager that you yourself are married--but I've pointed out the lies and the inconsistencies in every single one of them.

Nope.

Oh yeah, having been married for a bunch of years I know all about the "punishment" of marriage. Do you realize what kind of an A-hole you look like with the statement above? Is there anything you won't say to try to deny everyone the very rights that you enjoy? Which one of Jesus' commandments are you fulfilling with this "marriage is punishment" argument?

"punishment" was your word. You brought it up. It would not be my first choice. When the state enforces marriage contracts it does so by restricting the rights of the people in the contract to break it.

I'm not interested in special rights, I'm interested in equality. Equal protection under the laws of the land, you know, the same thing that you have, that's all.

Let's discuss some of the "1049" special rights and we will see.

Okay, now why can't gay people get the same deal? They get equal treatment under the law and the rest of it is between them and their God.

I have already changed my mind on this and decided that if they want to voluntarily give up their rights then I won't object. then they will have the same equal restrictions of their freedoms under the law. But I will state clearly that it is an expansion of state powers and it is wrong.

Marriage has rights, responsibilities, and privileges as it is set forth in US law, your argument that it is a "punishment" or a "restriction" is not relevant, all contracts are liable to have restrictions, that's why it's good to read them before signing. Most people marry and are happy about it, your patriarchal desire to single out gays for "protection" seems just a little disingenuous (as in a big fat lie) after all your other arguments--Biblical and biological.

Rights are not given as a result of a marriage contract. They exist before the contract is created.

Responsibilities is just another way of saying restrictions. That is the purpose of the state being involved.

Privileges are a side effect of the state wanting to promote the upbringing of the next generation. If we would ever get around to discussing these then we could talk about which would apply to gays and which would not.

Okay, all rights come from God, but it wasn't God who passed the laws to deny marriage to gays, it wasn't the government either, it was the F'ing Bible-beaters! And it's still the Bible-beaters today who are continuing the battle to discriminate against gays and transsexuals.

Congressmen pass the laws.


Frankly, I'm surprised and ashamed of you for the falsehoods that you have felt the need to tell, you have been dishonest with me, with the other people on this site, but most of all you have been dishonest with yourself. Marriage is neither punishment nor deprivation unless one is immature and is unable to make the committments that it requires. I wonder if this tells us something about your marriage.[/QUOTE]

I have been faithful (through no special powers of my own) but about 50% of all Americans have not. Imagine what the rate of infidelity would look like if marriage did not restrict what people could do and marriage laws did not punish those who cheat.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why would the state provide any protections for the biological children of a couple that cannot make any biological children? One reason is that the state can't reasonably know if the couple will be creating any children. But with gay couples the state knows.

A lie told often enough soon gains the substance of truth. Despite 10 million children, now THAT'S denial for you.

Right that it is not just the children. It is also dependent spouses. The reason the state protects dependent spouses is because the reason they are dependent is that they are raising children. The state has zero business in offering marital protections to one spouse over another on purely arbitrary reasons. Now if people want to write a non-marital contract then the state has an obligation to uphold that contract no matter who the people are.

We have just such a law right now, it's the legal and totally secular marriage law, unfortunately it's been hijacked by religious people so that they can persecute and disenfranchise people who don't measure up to their religious standards.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is a difference between the reasons the state gets involved and the reasons that individuals get involved.

The state gets involved to protect rights and promote the next generation, it does that by restricting the ability of people to do certain things after they get married.

You always talk about these restrictions but the only ones that matter are the fianancial ones since, as you note, no gay couple has ever had a child, despite the 10 million of them that you argue do not exist. Your selective indignation gives lie to your words since here you are stoicly protecting gay people from government intrusion, but ONLY in the one area where YOUR religion doesn't want them to trespass. There are lots of ways in which you could oppose government without abrogating the US Constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

I am not campaigning at all. If you all didn't post wrong arguments I would have made no post about gays here at all. They are free right now to engage in the most valued relationships as much as they want. The paper really is just a paper - a paper that protects the rights of children, dependent spouses and promotes the next generation.

Well, you've spent a lot of time not campaigning then and you've used up a ton of fallacious arguments against something that is not your business, has no effect on you, and for which you now claim you have no interest in. Hmmm, things that make you go, "Hmmmm..."

I have zero desire to force my views on anyone. All I am doing is saying that your arguments in favor of gay marriage are wrong. I have even suggested that there are better arguments and that I am ok with gay marriage. My main concern is not with what gay people do but with the over reaching power of the state. I believe in a limited government and that is what I want.

I try to believe that, I really do, but somehow you come up short in the honesty department.

"punishment" was your word. You brought it up. It would not be my first choice. When the state enforces marriage contracts it does so by restricting the rights of the people in the contract to break it.

In your post 142 on this thread you stated:
Marriage laws generally "punish" those who get married! I had never brought up the concept of marriage as punishment and was, in fact, surprised that you voiced that idea. My marriage is not punishment.

Let's discuss some of the "1049" special rights and we will see.

Fair enough, every one of these laws has a marriage requirement in it, "marriage" being the legal contract of marriage that is currently denied to gay people.
From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status, by Category
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
Title 7—Agriculture
Chapter 5—Food Stamp Program
§ 2012 Definitions
§ 2014 Eligible households
§ 2020 Administration
§ 2030 Washington Family Independence Demonstration Project
§ 2031 Food stamp portion of Minnesota Family Investment Plan
Title 42—The Public Health And Welfare
Chapter 7—Social Security
Subchapter II—Federal Old-Age, Survivors, And Disability Insurance Benefits
§ 402 Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
§ 403 Reduction of insurance benefits
§ 404 Overpayments and underpayments
§ 405 Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments
§ 409 "Wages" defined
§ 410 Definitions relating to employment
§ 411 Definitions relating to self-employment
§ 413 Quarter and quarter of coverage
§ 415 Computation of primary insurance amount
§ 416 Additional definitions
§ 422 Rehabilitation services
§ 423 Disability insurance benefit payments
§ 425 Additional rules relating to benefits based on disability
§ 426 Entitlement to hospital insurance benefits
§ 426-1 End stage renal disease program
§ 427 Transitional insured status for purposes of old-age and survivors benefits
§ 428 Benefits at age 72 for certain uninsured individuals

I have already changed my mind on this and decided that if they want to voluntarily give up their rights then I won't object. then they will have the same equal restrictions of their freedoms under the law. But I will state clearly that it is an expansion of state powers and it is wrong.

The expansion of State powers that you object to will be negligible if the tiny minority of gay people in this country are simply given marriage equality.

Rights are not given as a result of a marriage contract. They exist before the contract is created.

Legal rights are given by way of law, if you're talking about the God-given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then yes, I agree with you. It's not a God-given right that you be allowed to drive a car on the public streets, the State gives or denies you that right by law.

Responsibilities is just another way of saying restrictions. That is the purpose of the state being involved.

Semantic nonsense. I am responsible for caring for my spouse, it's not a restriction for us, it's a privilege. If you don't care about someone enough for it to be a privilege, then I suppose you would call it a restriction. People who don't love shouldn't marry.

Privileges are a side effect of the state wanting to promote the upbringing of the next generation. If we would ever get around to discussing these then we could talk about which would apply to gays and which would not.

Post 'em, I'm only half of this conversation, I don't put any restrictions on what you post.

Frankly, I'm surprised and ashamed of you for the falsehoods that you have felt the need to tell, you have been dishonest with me, with the other people on this site, but most of all you have been dishonest with yourself. Marriage is neither punishment nor deprivation unless one is immature and is unable to make the committments that it requires. I wonder if this tells us something about your marriage.

I have been faithful (through no special powers of my own) but about 50% of all Americans have not. Imagine what the rate of infidelity would look like if marriage did not restrict what people could do and marriage laws did not punish those who cheat.

Marriage infidelity is not restricted in US law. I realize that you may live in another country like Nums does and may not know this. This is not any kind of valid argument for you to use when discussing US law.

So, up above you said "nope" to my query about your being married, and here you say that you have been faithful, are your children legal?

 

[uxpunlat]

Many thanks to ur post. I love it.
__________________

Electric adjustable beds prices and reviews

 

[Dr.Who]

You always talk about these restrictions but the only ones that matter are the fianancial ones since, as you note, no gay couple has ever had a child, despite the 10 million of them that you argue do not exist. Your selective indignation gives lie to your words since here you are stoicly protecting gay people from government intrusion, but ONLY in the one area where YOUR religion doesn't want them to trespass. There are lots of ways in which you could oppose government without abrogating the US Constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

All rights exist before the state does anything so laws do not grant rights. Laws are there to create restrictions. That is the way it is supposed to be. The right solution if it is not that way is not to extend wrong laws to a larger number of people but to correct the laws that should not be.

In the thread about the GAO and the 1049 so called privileges that go with marriage the GAO said that the financial benefits are dubious since there may be just as much increased taxation as there are financial benefits.