Romney's Insensitivity to LGBT People (Page 2/15)
ls3mach SEP 12, 08:50 AM
Brennan, doesn't LGBT go against your God?

------------------
When they come for your guns, give them the lead first.

[This message has been edited by ls3mach (edited 09-12-2012).]

jaskispyder SEP 12, 09:21 AM

quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:

http://www.piton.org/article5
Tax credits, schooling, transport subsidies, etc etc. ANY tax relief and subsidy is paid for by everybody else's tax commitments. Single people paying higher taxes to support somebody else's child or children. Parents who restrain themselves from having more children than they can support are punished by having to pay for OTHER people who aren't so responsible.
LBGT people wanting to get ' married' is, in my opinion, much more about getting support and relief from the Tax system etc, than the actual desire to be MARRIED.
If you choose to adopt a different type of lifestyle, then pay for it yourself.



who is to say what a "different type of lifestyle" is?

BTW, the child tax credit doesn't always lower your taxes. To think that people want to get "married" for tax benefits is wrong. Frankly, it would be better if my wife and I were not married. We would have more benefits from the government and the insurance company, and the child would have more scholarships/grants/loans for college. Heck, the child would even get free breakfast/lunch, sport passes and such at school.

I don't support tax breaks for having children, as I think that is just silly. But if the government offers it to one group, then they need to do it for all.

I know of couples who make great parents and yet, they are not what you would call "normal". I also know of parents who leave their young child in the home alone while they are out drinking at the bar. The kid is screwed up. But this is OK, as long as the mother is female and the father is male? wow.... that is just screwed up.
fierofetish SEP 12, 09:39 AM
 
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:


who is to say what a "different type of lifestyle" is? The MAJORITY upon whom the expenses for their lifestyle CAN impinge on people who are living a normal lifestyle

BTW, the child tax credit doesn't always lower your taxes. To think that people want to get "married" for tax benefits is wrong. Frankly, it would be better if my wife and I were not married. We would have more benefits from the government and the insurance company, and the child would have more scholarships/grants/loans for college. Heck, the child would even get free breakfast/lunch, sport passes and such at school. And who brought about that situation? Minorities lobbying for 'equality', and end up even better off than the majority...you just demonstrated that yourself

I don't support tax breaks for having children, as I think that is just silly. But if the government offers it to one group, then they need to do it for all. IMHO, that is wrong too...you have to QUALIFY to benefit, not just LOBBY

I know of couples who make great parents and yet, they are not what you would call "normal". I also know of parents who leave their young child in the home alone while they are out drinking at the bar. The kid is screwed up. But this is OK, as long as the mother is female and the father is male? wow.... that is just screwed up.Where did I condone this? Again, a minority amongst the majority should not prejudice AGAINST the Majority, nor either benefit MORE from doing so

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-12-2012).]

rogergarrison SEP 12, 09:46 AM
To a gay, maybe a hetrosexual is the freak.....
fierofetish SEP 12, 09:52 AM
To a Gay, maybe...but Nature ordains otherwise
jaskispyder SEP 12, 09:56 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fierofetish:


Loving v. Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia


The definition of marriage and what constitutes a family was reconsidered by American society after the decision of Loving v. Virginia. Following Loving v. Virginia, The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Research Note states "there was a 448 per cent increase in the number of interracial marriages (from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970)" (Aldridge, 1973). These numbers are only from the state of Georgia after the Supreme Court ruling, but the numbers and percentages only continued to increase across the United States.[citation needed] However, interracial couples still had to overcome many fears of possibly losing respect from friends, family, and the community.

Some people believe that the Loving ruling will eventually aid the marriage equality movement for same-sex partnerships, if courts allow the Equal Protection Clause to be used. F.C. Decoste states, "If the only arguments against same sex marriage are sectarian, then opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti miscegenation laws".

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:
“ Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
”

Although the Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) (which was overridden by the New York State Legislature via enactment of the Marriage Equality Act in 2011) 'rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:
“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13] ”

In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California's Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[14] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15][16]
jaskispyder SEP 12, 10:00 AM

quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:

To a Gay, maybe...but Nature ordains otherwise



Monogamous relationships are not ordained by Nature either...
fierofetish SEP 12, 10:13 AM
That is argueable, no doubt..but monogamy is beneficial to Society,its Families, and its childrens' futures.
rogergarrison SEP 12, 10:13 AM
..or hetrosexual. Lots of life procreates with only one sex.
fierofetish SEP 12, 10:24 AM

quote
Originally posted by rogergarrison:

..or hetrosexual. Lots of life procreates with only one sex.


'Lots', Roger? Can you be more specific? Are they a majority in ALL species, or just single cell and very basic creatures? If you are thinking of, say, earthworms as an example, you would be wrong. An earthworm is an hermaphrodite, which is basically BOTH sexes combined in one creature..so one creature, two sexes. BUT..they are unable to mate with themselves..they need a partner too. Some even simpler creatures are able to CHANGE their sex, if one or the other is in short supply. But they do it NATURALLY, not by medical assistance .
Ogre's sig always springs to mind "They were so busy proving they COULD do it, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD be doing it"

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-12-2012).]