100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 'Gay' groups: We have rights to your children! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Hmmm. I always thought that me being in a locker room protects the girl from seeing me and losing her control. If she wants to try her luck, she's welcome to take a look, any day she decides to enter my locker room. What's the big deal? Maybe when your 8 year old in undressing alone in her locker room and some cross dressing pervert removes all of his clothes and walks around nude. Now that was just uncalled for. Most kids can tell you stories of seeing their dads and moms naked. Not to mention seeing them having sex. Cross dressing perverts??? Perverts come in all makes and models. What does a female have that a cross dresser wants to see? How to applie makeup? Boobs? He would most likely say "yuk" and turn away quickly. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redykeulous...not sure why you addressed me when you quoted fanta....BUT...I know about history and I know there are Christians that are against that....I never said there wasn't. I wasn't talking about how it all got started...I'm talking about present day. there are Christians that have no problem with it as well. there are other religions and athiest that don't agree with same sex marriage either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
scttrbrain
on
Sat 05/09/09 10:03 PM
|
|
Redykeulous...not sure why you addressed me when you quoted fanta....BUT...I know about history and I know there are Christians that are against that....I never said there wasn't. I wasn't talking about how it all got started...I'm talking about present day. there are Christians that have no problem with it as well. there are other religions and athiest that don't agree with same sex marriage either. There are plenty of people that don't believe in marriage period. Gay or otherwise. Fear leads most to fight. (not pointing this at you yellowrose) Your post was handy. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have met a lot of atheist in my time and when ever it comes to gays I have yet to hear a atheist muster any support what so ever for them.Many times they have been down right hostle towards them.I would say you would probably get the least support for gay issues from a atheist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Di. Been missin you girl. Waving frantically.
kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have met a lot of atheist in my time and when ever it comes to gays I have yet to hear a atheist muster any support what so ever for them.Many times they have been down right hostle towards them.I would say you would probably get the least support for gay issues from a atheist. Reeeeally??? There are plenty of athiest here in this forum. I am quite sure most have stood up for them. At least here. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redykeulous...not sure why you addressed me when you quoted fanta....BUT...I know about history and I know there are Christians that are against that....I never said there wasn't. I wasn't talking about how it all got started...I'm talking about present day. there are Christians that have no problem with it as well. there are other religions and athiest that don't agree with same sex marriage either. There are plenty of people that don't believe in marriage period. Gay or otherwise. Fear leads most to fight. (not pointing this at you yellowrose) Your post was handy. Kat you are right...but not all or none of a group is true. that was my whole point in this whole thing once it turned to marriage. i have no problem with consenting adults getting married |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Sat 05/09/09 10:08 PM
|
|
I found this: On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: +joint parenting; +joint adoption; +joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); +status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; +joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; +dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; +immigration and residency for partners from other countries; +inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; +joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; +inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); +benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; +spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; +veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; +joint filing of customs claims when traveling; +wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; +bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; +decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; +crime victims' recovery benefits; +loss of consortium tort benefits; +domestic violence protection orders; +judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; +and more.... Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. I'm for marriage for other reasons too - emotional and societal. Most of these claims can be overcome by fore thought and preparation. Get a power of attorney before actually in need of it. Set out a will before one dies. Adoption? Kinda pointless when one chooses a lifestyle that cant possibly produce offspring. Pointless? Hypocritical to nature? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
personaly...I don't care where or how it started...can't change the past...only learn from it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redykeulous...not sure why you addressed me when you quoted fanta....BUT...I know about history and I know there are Christians that are against that....I never said there wasn't. I wasn't talking about how it all got started...I'm talking about present day. there are Christians that have no problem with it as well. there are other religions and athiest that don't agree with same sex marriage either. I know for fact, that Jewish religion also prohibits it as well as Muslim. Don't know about Buddhist or Hindu, but I have haven't heard of a gay Buddhist or Hindu marriage. Not that it matters to me really..do whatever....whatever floats their boat.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this: On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: +joint parenting; +joint adoption; +joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); +status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; +joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; +dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; +immigration and residency for partners from other countries; +inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; +joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; +inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); +benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; +spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; +veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; +joint filing of customs claims when traveling; +wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; +bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; +decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; +crime victims' recovery benefits; +loss of consortium tort benefits; +domestic violence protection orders; +judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; +and more.... Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. I'm for marriage for other reasons too - emotional and societal. Most of these claims can be overcome by fore thought and preparation. Get a power of attorney before actually in need of it. Adoption? Kinda pointless when one chooses a lifestyle that cant possibly produce offspring. Pointless? Hypocritical to nature? Hellooo...Fanta....I have family that have never had children. They couldn't. Never stopped them from marrying...several times.lol Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redykeulous...not sure why you addressed me when you quoted fanta....BUT...I know about history and I know there are Christians that are against that....I never said there wasn't. I wasn't talking about how it all got started...I'm talking about present day. there are Christians that have no problem with it as well. there are other religions and athiest that don't agree with same sex marriage either. I know for fact, that Jewish religion also prohibits it as well as Muslim. Don't know about Buddhist or Hindu, but I have haven't heard of a gay Buddhist or Hindu marriage. Not that it matters to me really..do whatever....whatever floats their boat.. I personally have no problem with it. like i said earlier....my wiccan friend doesn't agree with it because it throws off the balance. my point was blaming one group for everything gets old when it's not the case |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never heard of this. Wiki:
Self-uniting marriage A self-uniting marriage is one in which the bride and groom are married without the presence of a third-party officiant. Although non-denominational, this method of getting married is sometimes referred to as a "Quaker Marriage". Although most states do not offer self-uniting marriage as an official option, Pennsylvania has recognized such marriages for centuries (due to its Quaker origins and history of religious tolerance) and has offered licenses for these marriages for decades.[1] These marriages only require the signatures of two witnesses in place of an officiant. The issuance of self-uniting marriage licenses is controversial, however. Some Pennsylvania counties do not offer this form of license at all.[2] Others only allow such marriages when license applicants can prove they are members of a recognized religion without clergy, such as Quakers, the Amish, and the Bahá'í faith.[3] In 2007, a Federal judge ruled that a Pennsylvania couple which was denied a self-uniting marriage on the basis of their secular beliefs must be allowed such a license.[4] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, wiccans can be wrong too. The balance has been waaaay off for a while now. lol
Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point of the state being too envolved is exactly right. They use it for an overall money maker. That is why they need you to register and be licensed. Keeping track is much easier that way. Plus..they want to make sure you are not closely related. Even that is changing.
Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Sat 05/09/09 10:29 PM
|
|
Most of these claims can be overcome by fore thought and preparation. Get a power of attorney before actually in need of it. Set out a will before one dies. Adoption? Kinda pointless when one chooses a lifestyle that cant possibly produce offspring. Pointless? Hypocritical to nature? As a single person I considered adopting awhile back. It's difficult to do in America. I almost went to Mexico. I have a neighbor that's lesbian. She went to Mexico and adopted two sisters. She is a great mother. She even has the girls enrolled in my child's previous Christian school. She's the one that told me about the school. lol We both are big on education for our kids. I don't understand why you see adoption as pointless when one chooses a lifestyle that can't produce off spring. My neighbor and I are both single women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
Like I said winx, benefits! Tax breaks which I think are discriminatory, and legal and moral responsibility of continued child support. which is basically what this says, only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. You cant get legal financial benefits from the gov or lay claim in a court of law unless your married or have children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
scttrbrain
on
Sat 05/09/09 10:26 PM
|
|
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. Like I said winx, benefits! Tax breaks which I think are discriminatory, and legal and moral responsibility of continued child support. which is basically what this says, only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. You cant get legal financial benefits from the gov or lay claim in a court of law unless your married or have children. So therin lie the cries of the gay couples that have no choices. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Sat 05/09/09 10:27 PM
|
|
I found this:
In the early part of the 19th century, marriage was generally considered a legally sanctified contract of mutual support between two consenting non-African-American adults of opposite gender. African-Americans were prohibited from marrying in many states. Later, in the area that was to become the state of Utah, polygyny was legalized; marriage there became a legally sanctified contract of mutual support between a man and one or more women, all being non-African-American consenting adults. A few years before Utah became a state, the earlier definition was reinstated, restricting marriage to one woman and one man. After the Civil War and over the objections of many conservative folks, African-Americans were permitted to marry. A marriage then became more inclusive: a contract between two consenting adults of the same race and of opposite gender. In 1967, again over the objections of about 70% of the population, mixed-race couples were permitted to marry. The U.S. Supreme Court decided on JUN-12 of that year that all 16 remaining state miscegenation laws which prohibited interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Ironically, the court case was called "Loving v. Virginia." A marriage then became even more inclusive: a contract between any two consenting adults of opposite gender. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF I am correct...the matter is the vote of the people correct? the people from different background, races, sexual orientation, religions, etc
|
|
|
|
|
