Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: For those of you against illegal immigration...

  1. #21
    Admiral CnCP Legend JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1976
    Location
    In ma hoose
    Posts
    1,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    With more companies providing insurance benefits for "partners", two perfectly normal hetero buddies who share an apartment can claim to be homosexuals and play the system, with the rest of us paying for it. But, as some claim, miracles happen and two gays may one day produce a gorgeous, healthy baby.
    It is ironic then that the greatest deterrent to that arrangement is gay marriage. Your hypothetical "hetero buddies" who cohabit to enjoy spousal benefits would be unlikely to go so far as to enter into a homosexual marriage with one another to the exclusion of any lawful union with a woman. It is the informal nature of cohabitation without the full formality of law which permits these alleged arrangements to thrive.

    But I digress.
    "I have adopted the Italian way of life... I may stab you!"
    — Heidi

    "You make the British Lion seem like a declawed, toothless, neutered fat tabby with the mange."
    — Weidmann1939

    "Maybe you think your being clever."
    — Weidmann1939

  2. #22
    Member Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    65
    I like to digress, too. I also agree with your comment about the gay marriage having some benefits. Many companies and cities started the "domestic partner" insurance benefits long before the fist gay marriage was legally possible. Another benefit from gay marriage is a reduction in the promiscuity and in spreading HIV. How it will work long term we don't know and I don't care because I will dead by then.

  3. #23
    Kenholl
    Guest
    .... "racist pig in Alabama"

    You need to brush up on your history, Richard. Don't even think the tobacco farmers up north did not own a fair share of slaves as well, including Presidents.
    Last edited by Kenholl; 01-11-2014 at 03:07 PM.

  4. #24
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Quote Originally Posted by JT View Post
    It is ironic then that the greatest deterrent to that arrangement is gay marriage. Your hypothetical "hetero buddies" who cohabit to enjoy spousal benefits would be unlikely to go so far as to enter into a homosexual marriage with one another to the exclusion of any lawful union with a woman. It is the informal nature of cohabitation without the full formality of law which permits these alleged arrangements to thrive.

    But I digress.
    Living in a country that has had legal gay marriage for over a decade makes the scenario of 2 heterosexuals living together and claiming to be gay a non issue. What people do in their bedroom is nobodies business. Not allowing gay people to legally marry makes them second class citizens and does not afford them the same rights as heterosexuals e.g., death benefits, tax deductions etc... This is nothing more than discrimination that is perpetuated by the Christian right, who have no problem advocating against Sharia law, but insist that their own moral and religious beliefs be forced on everybody else.

  5. #25
    Member Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenholl View Post
    .... "racist pig in Alabama"
    You need to brush up on your history, Richard. Don't even think the tobacco farmers up north did not own a fair share of slaves as well, including Presidents.
    I am not sure which word in the quotes you find objectionable. Your second sentence would suggest that you object to "Alabama", but the "racist pig" is acceptable to you. Am I correct?

    In advance of your reply, I am going to risk that, regardless of the location, the slave owners knew, or should have known, that owning another human being as property was evil unless their were so mentally limited that they were incapable of imagining themselves as slaves. So for the moment, and lacking a proof to the contrary, I will assume that they knew they were acting against their own morals and religion. Hence "pigs". Not a very nice thing to say, but a lot more acceptable than owning a person.

    As far as "racist", it is interesting that the slave owners bought black slaves. I am sure that with enough determination, the slave traders were in position to catch and deliver to the American shores Germans, Norwegians, Italians or anyone that is white. The advantage of having white slaves would be that they were more educated, and would assimilate with the locals if ever granted freedom. A baby produced from the owner-slave sex would be like the owner, also a plus. Yet, they went for the people who were as much different from them as humanly possible. Their dark skin would also be helpful is identifying the runaways as slaves who escaped. A runaway Englishman would be a lot harder to find.

    And that is racism, pure and simple.
    Last edited by Richard; 01-11-2014 at 03:51 PM.

  6. #26
    Admiral CnCP Legend JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1976
    Location
    In ma hoose
    Posts
    1,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    In advance of your reply, I am going to risk that, regardless of the location, the slave owners knew, or should have known, that owning another human being as property was evil unless their were so mentally limited that they were incapable of imagining themselves as slaves.
    These matters predate almost all of our modern knowledge of genetics and evolution, and it was widely accepted at the time that Africans were part ape, part human. It is wholly plausible that they merely did not consider their slaves to have any inherent human rights upon the ground that they were not fully human. This is probably why white slaves are remarkable by their nonexistence. The slave owners might well have been aghast at the notion of keeping humans (as they defined them to be) as slaves.

    A depressing thought indeed.
    "I have adopted the Italian way of life... I may stab you!"
    — Heidi

    "You make the British Lion seem like a declawed, toothless, neutered fat tabby with the mange."
    — Weidmann1939

    "Maybe you think your being clever."
    — Weidmann1939

  7. #27
    Member Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    65
    I appreciate your reply.

    It's quite possible that science then allowed them to see things differently from what is permissible today. It's also possible that I am trying to be too logical expecting this from the slave owners: If that black creature that looks like me, has kids like me, shows emotions like me, has all the internal and external organs like me is not a human being like me then what is it?

    My suspicion, without proof, is that it was both expedient and convenient for them not to spend any time trying to answer this question. Today we call it being in denial, which in most cases is total and unmitigated crap and a handy way to selectively turn stupid.

  8. #28
    Admiral CnCP Legend JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1976
    Location
    In ma hoose
    Posts
    1,215
    I do not seek to dispute your hypothesis. Slave owners were not one giant monolith but individuals just like everyone else. It is plausible that there were internal disagreements and contradictions amongst them even if expedience and convenience were motivating factors for many.
    "I have adopted the Italian way of life... I may stab you!"
    — Heidi

    "You make the British Lion seem like a declawed, toothless, neutered fat tabby with the mange."
    — Weidmann1939

    "Maybe you think your being clever."
    — Weidmann1939

  9. #29
    Member Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Helen69 View Post
    Living in a country that has had legal gay marriage for over a decade makes the scenario of 2 heterosexuals living together and claiming to be gay a non issue. What people do in their bedroom is nobodies business. Not allowing gay people to legally marry makes them second class citizens and does not afford them the same rights as heterosexuals e.g., death benefits, tax deductions etc... This is nothing more than discrimination that is perpetuated by the Christian right, who have no problem advocating against Sharia law, but insist that their own moral and religious beliefs be forced on everybody else.
    I really don't want to sound preachy, but gay marriage, like many other social issues, can be debated on at least three levels: practical, moral, and legal. To spare you a lengthy post, I will only comment about the legal aspect: The claim that gay people are legally discriminated is simply not true, as their right to marry is identical to mine. This is in sharp contrast to the discrimination against blacks, which is why blacks object loudly when the gays try to lump the two groups together because blacks were named directly as persons that would be prohibited to do things the whites were allowed by default. This was discrimination.

    You can spend the next week reading the U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of every state, all the laws and the statues and you will not find one sentence that would be discriminatory against gays. In fact, you will not find "gay" or "homosexual" in any of these documents. Therefore, under law, gays are not discriminated. As far as equal protection clause, and similar documents, you should recognize the fact that in the U.S. rights are for individuals, not for groups - even if a group is as small as two persons.

    Under law where the activist judges did not have a chance to pervert them, my right to marry is restricted to a woman who is not my mother, my sister or my daughter. I also cannot marry a man. And, guess what, a gay man is subject to the very same set of restrictions. He may not like the outcome but he cannot claim inequality under law. As I said, under U.S. laws, couples are not recognized as having rights, only individuals. The reason why judges disregard the will of the people when it comes to gay marriage is the same that was in Roe vs. Wade: because they can. If you give them enough time and motivation they will find whatever they are looking for in the Constitution.

    Analogies are tricky but I will try it anyway. A city ordinance that limits how loudly you can play your car radio will have a totally different impact on you if you have normal hearing as opposed to those with reduced ability to hear and nobody would suggest that such ordinance is discriminatory.
    Last edited by Richard; 01-11-2014 at 07:56 PM.

  10. #30
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    You are wrong!! If gay people live together without the benefit of legal marriage, should one of them die the surviving partner does not benefit from any pension plan that a surviving spouse would have, nor can they get benefits through any plan that their partner may have at their work e.g., health insurance. There was a lesbian couple in Florida that had a child through in vitro and the one parent was the biological parent. They had a nasty break up and the biological parent got full custody because the state of Florida did not recognize the parental rights of the other person. You want to talk about morality....taking a child away from someone who has been in their life from day one, because of your religious beliefs is immoral and wrong on every level. Decisions regarding basic human rights should be non discriminatory....total separation of church and state. Religious people need to get it through there thick heads that the more people become educated they will realize that the bible is the biggest fairy tale in the history of mankind.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •