Science > Abortion > Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Bill Meredith" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2004 02:23:46 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<40651edf.63886003@netnews.mchsi.com>...
1. WHY are you a BUSYBODY?
2. WHY would you give a flying rat's ***** about ANY
person's *private* sex life?
As long as that private sex life don't involved children I don't give
a rat *****, however marriage contracts is between three parties, one of
thoses party is the whole society.
Such contracts is everyones business, by it very nature.
3. WHY in the world would you seek to treat any
person or group of people with less respect based
solely on what they do in private, as consensual
adults? (How could that POSSIBLY be of ANY
importance to you?)
No important at all but once more a license, granted by the state,
granting special rights and benefits, to one group of people is
everyones concern.
4. IF you are opposed to same-sex marriage, WHY?
Only a VALID, **factual** reason... such as a *way*
that any heterosexual couple's marriage would in
ANY way be threatened, and thus need "protection"
from this impending expansion of liberty... is appro-
priate as a response. (Mindless emotionalism
counts for *nothing*, and is NO excuse for
discrimination.)
The granting of benefits and rights to marriage people is for the
reason of promoting stable families for the raising of the next
generation of citizens
There is zero benefit to the social, as a whole, if gays form stable
relationships or not, therefore it is a misused of resources to grant
them those benefits, at the expense of everyones else.
5. ENDA -- the totally-harmless "Employment Non-
Discrimination Act" -- which would have done
nothing more than ensure that people could NOT
be unfairly discriminated against in the workplace,
due to their sexual orientation -- failed by only ONE
(RRR cult-induced) vote in the U.S. Senate last
time, and will almost surely *pass* THIS time. Would
YOU be opposed to this very FAIR measure? If
I would like to see a case make for it being needed, ie show some
evidences that gays are being fire from jobs for being gay is a
problem. Without such a showing, it would seem that the only reason to
pass an unneeded law is to add one more public stamp of approval to a
private sexual relationship, in which the sociality as a whole should
not care one way or another.
so -- WHY?
[[[ READERS -- if *any* person provides sensible and
intelligent answers to ANY the five above questions,
you'd better be sitting down. I've never seen ANY
person YET provide an intelligent and factual reason
for doing ANY of the above.
Odd as the above information have been express many times, in many
forms.
Bill M
Craig Chilton < >
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 02:31:50 PM |
|
|
(Bill Meredith) writes:
As long as that private sex life don't involved children I don't give
a rat *****, however marriage contracts is between three parties, one of
thoses party is the whole society.
Such contracts is everyones business, by it very nature.
I take it you are in favor of society being able to veto whomever
you choose to marry (and I assume you are straight.) I.e., if
you live in the south and the locals don't think you should be
allowed to marry an Asian, and you have a Chinese fiancee, then
you are SOL. Or if you want to marry the mayor's daughter, she
wants to marry you, but the mayor is not in favor of this marriage,
then he should be able to use his position as mayor to stop you
from being married. Is that it?
Society may have a right to decide what benefits and responsibilities
are appropriate for a marriage, but that does not mean it should
determine who marries whom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Meredith" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 09:09:11 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3y8p3k4vz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
As long as that private sex life don't involved children I don't give
a rat *****, however marriage contracts is between three parties, one of
thoses party is the whole society.
Such contracts is everyones business, by it very nature.
I take it you are in favor of society being able to veto whomever
you choose to marry (and I assume you are straight.) I.e., if
you live in the south and the locals don't think you should be
allowed to marry an Asian, and you have a Chinese fiancee,
Interesting logic, but it is hardly mine! The society as a whole have
an interest in who can marriage, that does not mean that it have a
blank check to be unreasonable.
The society forbid brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and
daughers, and other close blood relationships from forming marriages
for good reasons.
So as you are trying to put words in my mouth, how does it feel when I
in turn ask you are you for allowing thoses who share close blood
relationships to marriage? As a side note of course the incest concern
hardly would matter in gay relationships now would it!
I any case it is hardly unreasonable for the sociaty to declare that
relationships that have zero benefit or effect on the soicety as a
whole should not be rewarded with a transfer of wealth from the rest
of us.
Bill Meredith
Bill Meredith
then
you are SOL. Or if you want to marry the mayor's daughter, she
wants to marry you, but the mayor is not in favor of this marriage,
then he should be able to use his position as mayor to stop you
from being married. Is that it?
Society may have a right to decide what benefits and responsibilities
are appropriate for a marriage, but that does not mean it should
determine who marries whom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 02:10:15 AM |
|
|
(Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3y8p3k4vz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Bill Meredith) writes:
As long as that private sex life don't involved children I don't give
a rat *****, however marriage contracts is between three parties, one of
thoses party is the whole society.
Such contracts is everyones business, by it very nature.
I take it you are in favor of society being able to veto whomever
you choose to marry (and I assume you are straight.) I.e., if
you live in the south and the locals don't think you should be
allowed to marry an Asian, and you have a Chinese fiancee,
Interesting logic, but it is hardly mine! The society as a whole have
an interest in who can marriage, that does not mean that it have a
blank check to be unreasonable.
The question is whether society is being unreasonable. The Supreme
Court threw out all the racial restrictions decades ago, but not
too many years ago, in some states, you would literally be thrown
in jail if a male Caucasian were to marry an Asian or Black woman,
even if they were married in a state where this was legal..
The society forbid brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and
daughers, and other close blood relationships from forming marriages
for good reasons.
We've prevented marriages and even jailed people for competely bogus
reasons. Your "incest" thing is just a silly strawman.
So as you are trying to put words in my mouth, how does it feel when I
in turn ask you are you for allowing thoses who share close blood
relationships to marriage? As a side note of course the incest concern
hardly would matter in gay relationships now would it!
Nope - if I'm putting anything in your mouth, it is the implications
of your views based on real-world events in the last 60 years or so.
I any case it is hardly unreasonable for the sociaty to declare that
relationships that have zero benefit or effect on the soicety as a
whole should not be rewarded with a transfer of wealth from the rest
of us.
A same-sex couple will have all the responsibilities to care for each
other as opposite couples, regardless of whether there are children.
If in their 80s, one goes into a nursing home, the other will be
financially responsible as well. That resource sharing benefits
society by cutting the need for social services late in life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Meredith" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 11:44:42 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3fzbb2dqm.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3y8p3k4vz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
As long as that private sex life don't involved children I don't give
a rat *****, however marriage contracts is between three parties, one of
thoses party is the whole society.
Such contracts is everyones business, by it very nature.
I take it you are in favor of society being able to veto whomever
you choose to marry (and I assume you are straight.) I.e., if
you live in the south and the locals don't think you should be
allowed to marry an Asian, and you have a Chinese fiancee,
Interesting logic, but it is hardly mine! The society as a whole have
an interest in who can marriage, that does not mean that it have a
blank check to be unreasonable.
The question is whether society is being unreasonable. The Supreme
Court threw out all the racial restrictions decades ago, but not
too many years ago, in some states, you would literally be thrown
in jail if a male Caucasian were to marry an Asian or Black woman,
even if they were married in a state where this was legal..
The society forbid brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and
daughers, and other close blood relationships from forming marriages
for good reasons.
We've prevented marriages and even jailed people for competely bogus
reasons. Your "incest" thing is just a silly strawman.
So as you are trying to put words in my mouth, how does it feel when I
in turn ask you are you for allowing thoses who share close blood
relationships to marriage? As a side note of course the incest concern
hardly would matter in gay relationships now would it!
Nope - if I'm putting anything in your mouth, it is the implications
of your views based on real-world events in the last 60 years or so.
I any case it is hardly unreasonable for the sociaty to declare that
relationships that have zero benefit or effect on the soicety as a
whole should not be rewarded with a transfer of wealth from the rest
of us.
A same-sex couple will have all the responsibilities to care for each
other as opposite couples, regardless of whether there are children.
If in their 80s, one goes into a nursing home, the other will be
financially responsible as well. That resource sharing benefits
society by cutting the need for social services late in life.
Come on now!! Nursing home care is hardly the major responsebility
or cost of marriage!!!!!! Few indeed are the percent of people who
end up in long term nursing home care and fewer such unlucky ones have
a marriage partner still alive to take up any of the cost. You are
reaching to the moon for that claim.
The cost of rasiing children by middle class standard of care and
eduacation is and alway will over shadow any other likely cost found
in a marriage relationship.
Most couples now limit children to a maximum of two, because of this
cost factor or at most three.
Bill Meredith
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 04:39:56 PM |
|
|
(Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3fzbb2dqm.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Bill Meredith) writes:
I any case it is hardly unreasonable for the sociaty to declare that
relationships that have zero benefit or effect on the soicety as a
whole should not be rewarded with a transfer of wealth from the rest
of us.
A same-sex couple will have all the responsibilities to care for each
other as opposite couples, regardless of whether there are children.
If in their 80s, one goes into a nursing home, the other will be
financially responsible as well. That resource sharing benefits
society by cutting the need for social services late in life.
Come on now!! Nursing home care is hardly the major responsebility
or cost of marriage!!!!!! Few indeed are the percent of people who
end up in long term nursing home care and fewer such unlucky ones have
a marriage partner still alive to take up any of the cost. You are
reaching to the moon for that claim.
When it occurs, being married can save the state $30,000 to $60,000
a year until 1/2 the couple's combined resources are drained. Of course
I gave that as an example of when one person in a marriage is disabled.
The same applies to other disabilities, or more mundane problems like
the loss of a job.
The cost of rasiing children by middle class standard of care and
eduacation is and alway will over shadow any other likely cost found
in a marriage relationship.
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 06:04:34 PM |
|
|
In article <m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
The cost of rasiing children by middle class standard of care and
eduacation is and alway will over shadow any other likely cost found
in a marriage relationship.
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
sounds like he is making an argument for any family with children to be
able to get married to me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Meredith" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 02:33:45 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3fzbb2dqm.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
I any case it is hardly unreasonable for the sociaty to declare that
relationships that have zero benefit or effect on the soicety as a
whole should not be rewarded with a transfer of wealth from the rest
of us.
A same-sex couple will have all the responsibilities to care for each
other as opposite couples, regardless of whether there are children.
If in their 80s, one goes into a nursing home, the other will be
financially responsible as well. That resource sharing benefits
society by cutting the need for social services late in life.
Come on now!! Nursing home care is hardly the major responsebility
or cost of marriage!!!!!! Few indeed are the percent of people who
end up in long term nursing home care and fewer such unlucky ones have
a marriage partner still alive to take up any of the cost. You are
reaching to the moon for that claim.
When it occurs, being married can save the state $30,000 to $60,000
a year until 1/2 the couple's combined resources are drained. Of course
I gave that as an example of when one person in a marriage is disabled.
The same applies to other disabilities, or more mundane problems like
the loss of a job.
The cost of rasiing children by middle class standard of care and
eduacation is and alway will over shadow any other likely cost found
in a marriage relationship.
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
So please tell me what right do gay couples have to the transfer of
wealth from my pocket, for the sole reason that they are living
together and having sex! A form of sex that can not produce
offsprings and therefore have zero effect on the rest of society.
Bill Meredith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 11:17:40 AM |
|
|
"Bill Meredith" <nospan@juno.com> wrote in message
news:73b5c8f4.0404112333.7a994ef4@posting.google.com...
[snip]
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
That argument is invalid unless you show where willingness/ability to breed
is a requirement for a marriage license.
With all due respect (which isn't much at this point), I happen to have
raised a child with a same-sex partner. How about you tell me why we
shouldn't have the same protections as an opposite-sex couple raising kids?
Before you go off on a penis-vagina-reproduction rant, keep in mind that
protections and benefits are not predicated on the origin of the child.
There are plenty of opposite-sex couples raising kids where only one or
neither of them is a biological parent. .
So please tell me what right do gay couples have to the transfer of
wealth from my pocket, for the sole reason that they are living
together and having sex!
A variation of the old 'gays don't love, they just have sex' rhetoric.
How about the opposite-sex couples that are ' transfer[ring] wealth from
[your] pocket, for the sole reason that they are living together and having
sex?' Wait. I already know your answer. One has a penis and the other has a
vagina.
A form of sex that can not produce
offsprings and therefore have zero effect on the rest of society.
Hmmm, like masturbation, oral sex, and birth control, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 12:07:35 PM |
|
|
In article <c5efh7$nhfe$5@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dennis
Kemmerer <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
That argument is invalid unless you show where willingness/ability to breed
is a requirement for a marriage license.
its become pretty obvious that this is just Bill's excuse for his
bigotry and not much more. He just keeps repeating the same obviously
false premise over and over and never deals with the the multiple
people pointing out its error.
When and if marriage becomes dependent on breeding he can get back with
us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 08:36:47 PM |
|
|
(Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
And the other 18 percent? BTW, 18 percent is well above estimates of
the fraction of the population that is gay, so if 18 percent is
acceptable to you, what's an additional 3 to 5 percent?
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
Except that isn't true in the case of lesbians, who can use artificial
insemination, and it ignores adoptions.
So please tell me what right do gay couples have to the transfer of
wealth from my pocket, for the sole reason that they are living
together and having sex! A form of sex that can not produce
offsprings and therefore have zero effect on the rest of society.
If that is your argument, then do you think we should forbid women
who have had hysterectomies from marrying? After all, we *know*
with 100% certainty that these women will not have any children,
and that the sex they may have "can not produce offsprings," as
you put it.
And while married same-sex couples may be "living together and
having sex," they have also accepted a long-term obligation to
care for each other. They may even (gasp) be in love, although
these days being married is no guarantee of that - just look
at the actor and actress who got married as a joke, only to
have it annulled the next day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Meredith" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
13 Apr 2004 11:20:59 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3brlw3bjs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
And the other 18 percent? BTW, 18 percent is well above estimates of
the fraction of the population that is gay, so if 18 percent is
acceptable to you, what's an additional 3 to 5 percent?
It 82 percent of ALL women so one would assume that it would be
somewhat higher for marriage women now would one not!
Second no system is perfect be that system created by nature or
mankind, a car wasted more energy from gasoline, in the form of heat,
then it used in moving itself.
Would you therefore state that burning gasoline in a barrel is the
same as burning it in a car? You may be able to warm yourself from
such a fire but you such as hell are not going to be able to move
yourself or anything else by so doing.
We know that not one gay couples is going to be able to created life,
so 100 percent of the funds given to such couples would be a complete
wasted. At the worst 18 percent of the funds now turn over to
heterosexuals are wasted. Not too many things in life are 82 percent
effected. Cars are not, they are somewhere in the 60 percent range if
I remember correctly,electric power transmittion is not, nor is the
human body itself 82 percent effected.
True the waste to grant benefits to homosexuals would not be the same
amount as the "wasted" funds given to marriage hetrosexual couples who
so not have children for one reason or another, however why wasted the
money on homosexual couples because of that fact?
Kind of like stating because a car wasted a large percent of the
energy of gasoline, burning gasoline in a barrel make some kind of
sense. OR it would not be fair to the barrel to not burn the gasoiline
in it, as after all cars wasted energy in moving us from place to
place.
So what claim do gays have to funds, that was met to encourage the
brith and raising of children in a stable relationships?
Shaking my head at this silliness.
Bill Meredith
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
Except that isn't true in the case of lesbians, who can use artificial
insemination, and it ignores adoptions.
So please tell me what right do gay couples have to the transfer of
wealth from my pocket, for the sole reason that they are living
together and having sex! A form of sex that can not produce
offsprings and therefore have zero effect on the rest of society.
If that is your argument, then do you think we should forbid women
who have had hysterectomies from marrying? After all, we *know*
with 100% certainty that these women will not have any children,
and that the sex they may have "can not produce offsprings," as
you put it.
And while married same-sex couples may be "living together and
having sex," they have also accepted a long-term obligation to
care for each other. They may even (gasp) be in love, although
these days being married is no guarantee of that - just look
at the actor and actress who got married as a joke, only to
have it annulled the next day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
13 Apr 2004 09:41:47 PM |
|
|
(Bill Meredith) writes:
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
And the other 18 percent? BTW, 18 percent is well above estimates of
the fraction of the population that is gay, so if 18 percent is
acceptable to you, what's an additional 3 to 5 percent?
It 82 percent of ALL women so one would assume that it would be
somewhat higher for marriage women now would one not!
It is more "slightly higher," but the facts are that a significant
fraction of women cannot have children due to fertility problems.
Second no system is perfect be that system created by nature or
mankind, a car wasted more energy from gasoline, in the form of heat,
then it used in moving itself.
Well you can blame God for that one - you know, The Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
Would you therefore state that burning gasoline in a barrel is the
same as burning it in a car? You may be able to warm yourself from
such a fire but you such as hell are not going to be able to move
yourself or anything else by so doing.
That's not true either. If I can warm something, I can move something.
Read up on how steam engines work.
We know that not one gay couples is going to be able to created life,
so 100 percent of the funds given to such couples would be a complete
wasted.
You mean that you are such a bigot that you'd give gays a value of zero
in your scheme of things?
So what claim do gays have to funds, that was met to encourage the
brith and raising of children in a stable relationships?
Shaking my head at this silliness.
Did it ever occur to you that the tax breaks married couples get
are not for raising children? Otherwise, we'd simply provide a
deduction per child, perhaps letting couples put money into an
IRA-like account to prepare for a child (and allowing tax-free
withdrawals only if there is in fact a child to support.)
Bill Meredith
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
Except that isn't true in the case of lesbians, who can use artificial
insemination, and it ignores adoptions.
<note how Meredith ignored the above counter example - apparently some
Children in Meredith's world are more valuable then others :-)>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
13 Apr 2004 09:45:46 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have
children or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know
that currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having
children in their life.
And the other 18 percent? BTW, 18 percent is well above estimates
of the fraction of the population that is gay, so if 18 percent is
acceptable to you, what's an additional 3 to 5 percent?
It 82 percent of ALL women so one would assume that it would be
somewhat higher for marriage women now would one not!
It is more "slightly higher," but the facts are that a significant
fraction of women cannot have children due to fertility problems.
Second no system is perfect be that system created by nature or
mankind, a car wasted more energy from gasoline, in the form of heat,
then it used in moving itself.
Well you can blame God for that one - you know, The Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
Would you therefore state that burning gasoline in a barrel is the
same as burning it in a car? You may be able to warm yourself from
such a fire but you such as hell are not going to be able to move
yourself or anything else by so doing.
That's not true either. If I can warm something, I can move something.
Read up on how steam engines work.
We know that not one gay couples is going to be able to created life,
so 100 percent of the funds given to such couples would be a complete
wasted.
You mean that you are such a bigot that you'd give gays a value of
zero in your scheme of things?
So what claim do gays have to funds, that was met to encourage the
brith and raising of children in a stable relationships?
Shaking my head at this silliness.
Did it ever occur to you that the tax breaks married couples get
are not for raising children? Otherwise, we'd simply provide a
deduction per child, perhaps letting couples put money into an
IRA-like account to prepare for a child (and allowing tax-free
withdrawals only if there is in fact a child to support.)
They do provide a deduction per child. The tax law does not require the
child to be with two married parents, single parents, adopted child, it
doesn't matter at all, as long as the child meets the definition of
"dependent".
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
13 Apr 2004 09:50:08 PM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> writes:
No One wrote:
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
Did it ever occur to you that the tax breaks married couples get
are not for raising children? Otherwise, we'd simply provide a
deduction per child, perhaps letting couples put money into an
IRA-like account to prepare for a child (and allowing tax-free
withdrawals only if there is in fact a child to support.)
They do provide a deduction per child. The tax law does not require the
child to be with two married parents, single parents, adopted child, it
doesn't matter at all, as long as the child meets the definition of
"dependent".
While I could have been clearer, what I was getting at is that this is
the *only* sort of tax break we'd have if Meredith was right about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob VB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
13 Apr 2004 01:25:52 PM |
|
|
In article <73b5c8f4.0404130820.52f926b9@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<m3brlw3bjs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
And the other 18 percent? BTW, 18 percent is well above estimates of
the fraction of the population that is gay, so if 18 percent is
acceptable to you, what's an additional 3 to 5 percent?
It 82 percent of ALL women so one would assume that it would be
somewhat higher for marriage women now would one not!
We know that not one gay couples is going to be able to created life,
so 100 percent of the funds given to such couples would be a complete
wasted.
We aren't 'paying' married couples to create life. And that 82% is
all births, from married and unmarried women of which currently a third
are from unmarried women.
At the worst 18 percent of the funds now turn over to
heterosexuals are wasted.
Again you are mistaken - we let people be married to RAISE children,
not necessarily have them. Many children are living in homes where
the parents are not their genetic contributors - there are 1,000,000
children of divorce EVERY YEAR - it is just as important that they
have a family too.
True the waste to grant benefits to homosexuals would not be the same
amount as the "wasted" funds given to marriage hetrosexual couples who
so not have children for one reason or another, however why wasted the
money on homosexual couples because of that fact?
But the money isn't wasted - its invested. Married couples are less
likely to become dependents of the state, they are healthier, happier,
more productive - good for them, good for the state. All these things
are true regardless of the genders of the contract participants.
So what claim do gays have to funds, that was met to encourage the
brith and raising of children in a stable relationships?
What funds? The benefits of marriage are for the individuals getting
married, and maybe their families if they decide to have one. The
benefits of marriage are not tied to breeding. And marriage is
necessary for RAISING children, not merely breeding them - one third of
children are born to single mothers and more than a third of all
children are being raised by single parents.
FINALLY SOME DATA:
Data from US Census data and collated by Divorce Magazine
(http://divorcemag.com)
Percentage of married householders with kids: 24%
Percentage of same-sex female householders with kids: 17%
Shaking my head at this silliness.
Face it - this 'marriage is a reward for breeding' hypothesis of yours
just doesn't fly. Only 24% of married households are even raising
kids at the moment yet at the same time 17% of lesbian households are
also raising children. Even *IF* your hypothesis was valid you are
drawing the line at a mere 25% difference.
And, of course, you are ignoring all the other valid reasons that the
couples *AND* society benefit from the civil contract of marriage
whether there are children involved or not and have fixated on this
non-issue of mere breeding as if it were the be all and end all of
marriage.
I'm shaking my head at your silliness too Bill.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
14 Apr 2004 11:42:19 AM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2004 09:20:59 -0700, (Bill Meredith) wrote:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3brlw3bjs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
And the other 18 percent? BTW, 18 percent is well above estimates of
the fraction of the population that is gay, so if 18 percent is
acceptable to you, what's an additional 3 to 5 percent?
It 82 percent of ALL women so one would assume that it would be
somewhat higher for marriage women now would one not!
Second no system is perfect be that system created by nature or
mankind, a car wasted more energy from gasoline, in the form of heat,
then it used in moving itself.
Would you therefore state that burning gasoline in a barrel is the
same as burning it in a car? You may be able to warm yourself from
such a fire but you such as hell are not going to be able to move
yourself or anything else by so doing.
We know that not one gay couples is going to be able to created life,
so 100 percent of the funds given to such couples would be a complete
wasted. At the worst 18 percent of the funds now turn over to
heterosexuals are wasted. Not too many things in life are 82 percent
effected. Cars are not, they are somewhere in the 60 percent range if
I remember correctly,electric power transmittion is not, nor is the
human body itself 82 percent effected.
True the waste to grant benefits to homosexuals would not be the same
amount as the "wasted" funds given to marriage hetrosexual couples who
so not have children for one reason or another, however why wasted the
money on homosexual couples because of that fact?
Kind of like stating because a car wasted a large percent of the
energy of gasoline, burning gasoline in a barrel make some kind of
sense. OR it would not be fair to the barrel to not burn the gasoiline
in it, as after all cars wasted energy in moving us from place to
place.
Kind of like stating that infertile men or women getting married makes no sense. (Your line of
arguement has more holes than swiss cheese.)
So what claim do gays have to funds, that was met to encourage the
brith and raising of children in a stable relationships?
There ARE other reasons to get married, although you always ignore or snip them in the posts. A
married couple takes many burden off of society at large. People who are married live longer, and
live that longer life in better health then single people. That alone is justification.
Married couples can afford to buy nicer homes.
Married couples can afford to buy better cars.
Married couples are a built-in support system for each other and don't have as many mental issues as
singles (unless you marry my ex-wife, then you're in for years of theropy)
If you would just get off your homophobic high-horse for a moment, you'd see that all of these
benefit society as a whole, and I'm sure there are countless other benefits.
Shaking my head at this silliness.
If it's so silly, why not remove yourself as a roadblock to others getting married? If it's so
'silly' why don't you just let it go?
If you're refering to the objections you and others from the religious right bring up... I'd agree
with your 'silly' pronouncement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
14 Apr 2004 12:06:04 PM |
|
|
In article <ntpq705196qs0lk83g35iqv0o6l24fqv3i@4ax.com>, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
There ARE other reasons to get married, although you always ignore or snip them in the posts.
Yes it was obvious from Bill's 'non-replies' to the critical issues
that his whole point of view is just a justification for his bigotry,
not the reason for it.
The replies have made very good cases that mere breeding is NOT why we
let people get married and that there are many benefits to society just
from having couples marry at all regardless of their genders.
If Bill was an honest person he'd either:
refute the views if he thought they were erroneous, or
admit he may have been wrong.
But since it all is just a rationalization for a viewpoint he isn't
going to change he ignores the things that doen't justify his bigotry
and endlessly parrots his original debunked hypothesis as if by
repetition it will somehow become true. Ultimately I predict he will
either just switch to some other bogus justification or fall silent as
is so typical of his kind in these kinds of forums.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 10:31:41 AM |
|
|
Bill Meredith wrote:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3fzbb2dqm.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
<snip>
The cost of rasiing children by middle class standard of care and
eduacation is and alway will over shadow any other likely cost found
in a marriage relationship.
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples!
Not a problem! Make the marriage licence conditional... sort of like a
driving learners permit. If no offspring are produced within a certain
period of time, say 2-4 years, then the marriage certificate
automatically expires and the couple can no longer claim any of the
benefits associated with being married.
We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children
Where do you get that statistic? I know of at least 2 gay couples who
have children... and those are children who are biologically related to
them NOT adopted.
and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
None the less. gay couples ARE raising children so if you argument is
to hold any water, those same-sex couples that DO have children -
whether biologically related or adopted - should be allowed to marry for
the benefit of the children.
So please tell me what right do gay couples have to the transfer of
wealth from my pocket,
Wealth from you pocket? What about the thousands or even millions of
single and co-habiting same-sex couples that are paying taxes to educate
the children of heterosexuals? If you want to deny same-sex couples the
benefits and responsibilities of marriage, then at the very least, they
should be eligible for tax-refunds so they don't have to support the
education of children they are not producing.
for the sole reason that they are living
together and having sex! A form of sex that can not produce
offsprings and therefore have zero effect on the rest of society.
Actually it does have an effect on society. Non-reproducing couples
curb population growth and that is a good thing in a world running out
of space and resources.
Bill Meredith
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 10:36:23 AM |
|
|
In article <73b5c8f4.0404112333.7a994ef4@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<m3fzbb2dqm.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
nospan@juno.com (Bill Meredith) writes:
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
Yes and over a third of those are by unmarried women. Again breeding
does not need marriage to happen.
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
But again, families are more for RAISING children so even as far as
children are concerned same gendered parent families do that just fine.
So please tell me what right do gay couples have to the transfer of
wealth from my pocket, for the sole reason that they are living
together and having sex!
For exactly the same reasons opposite gender couples do: it benefits
both the citizens involved and the society in multiple economic,
stability, and health areas. And even from your socialist view point,
society has to concern itself less and spend less on couples that are
married than those that aren't. If money really is your argument then
letting couples marry would be a enthusiastic YES regardless if they
were opposite or same gendered.
And while we're at it, what reason is there to give married opposite
gender couples without kids 'your' tax dollars? And what wealth is
being transfered to from your pocket? The same kind of money you are
stealing from unmarried people? You would really deny citizens of this
nation something they need and want and qualify for as much as any
other citizen for nickels and dimes? Well I don't want to spend my tax
dollars perpetuating your genetic line, that's for sure - can I get a
refund?
A form of sex that can not produce
offsprings and therefore have zero effect on the rest of society.
Which has been shown to be a specious lie over and over and over again.
One, sex has nothing to do with the contract of marriage. Many people
who are married don't have sex, many people who aren't do.
Twho, there are many benefits to society by the encouragement of long
term relationships as have been enumerated to you over and over and
over again. And even more importantly it is good for the people in the
relationships to be in long term relationships. It is good for the
citizens, good for that society. You keep parroting this opinion of
yours without dealing with the issues. Maybe you're hard of hearing:
YOU ARE WRONG - MERE BREEDING IS NOT THE ONLY REASON FAMILIES SHOULD BE
ENCOURAGED. IF THE STATS SHOW ANYTHING IT IS THAT MERE BREEDING
DOESN'T NEED MUCH ENCOURAGEMENT TO HAPPEN AT ALL!!!
Families not necessarily to produce kids but families are where want to
RAISE kids. A good portion of children today are being raised by
families that are NOT their genetic contributors with many gay families
in that mix. Your whole argument is based on an error and so it
collapses before it even gets started.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
12 Apr 2004 12:20:09 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2004 00:33:45 -0700, (Bill Meredith) wrote:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3smfatcu4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Bill Meredith) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3fzbb2dqm.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Bill Meredith) writes:
I any case it is hardly unreasonable for the sociaty to declare that
relationships that have zero benefit or effect on the soicety as a
whole should not be rewarded with a transfer of wealth from the rest
of us.
A same-sex couple will have all the responsibilities to care for each
other as opposite couples, regardless of whether there are children.
If in their 80s, one goes into a nursing home, the other will be
financially responsible as well. That resource sharing benefits
society by cutting the need for social services late in life.
Come on now!! Nursing home care is hardly the major responsebility
or cost of marriage!!!!!! Few indeed are the percent of people who
end up in long term nursing home care and fewer such unlucky ones have
a marriage partner still alive to take up any of the cost. You are
reaching to the moon for that claim.
When it occurs, being married can save the state $30,000 to $60,000
a year until 1/2 the couple's combined resources are drained. Of course
I gave that as an example of when one person in a marriage is disabled.
The same applies to other disabilities, or more mundane problems like
the loss of a job.
The cost of rasiing children by middle class standard of care and
eduacation is and alway will over shadow any other likely cost found
in a marriage relationship.
Then why aren't the benefits restricted to couples with children, or
single parents with children? Your argument is bogus.
Sorry but the state or no one else can predict who might have children
or not, when you come to hetrosexual couples! We do know that
currently 82 or so percent of all females do end up having children in
their life.
We also surely do know that zero percent of gay couples produce
children and therefore have zero rights to benefits set up to
encourage the formation of families, that do indeed produce children!
So please tell me what right do gay couples have to the transfer of
wealth from my pocket, for the sole reason that they are living
together and having sex! A form of sex that can not produce
offsprings and therefore have zero effect on the rest of society.
So if we give you a reason, then that's good enough for you and you'll support same-sex marriages?
I think not. This arguement of yours is just a thinly veiled excuse for your bigotry.
If I were to say that many same-sex couple adopt children, you'd be against gay adoptions. (even
though I suspect you already are)
If I said that samesex lesbian couples DO have children, you'd still be against samesex female
marrages.
If I said many M/F couples proclaim they want no children, but still get the benefits of marriage,
you'd be OKAY with that.
I had a vasectomy 10 years ago and I'm married. Does that mean I should be in the same catagory of
"no reason to marry"?
You're a Bigot. You should admit it and get on with your life.
James, Seattle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 12:50:22 PM |
|
|
In article <73b5c8f4.0404110844.1800f59d@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
The cost of rasiing children by middle class standard of care and
eduacation is and alway will over shadow any other likely cost found
in a marriage relationship.
Most couples now limit children to a maximum of two, because of this
cost factor or at most three.
Yes and illustrates we are repeating history. Once a society becomes
urbanized we see these changes. There is no advantage to having
massive numbers of children since there is no familial enterprise they
can work in, and each child has to have expensive training before they
are ready to be on their own. Further both men and women have
extrahome obligations jobs so there is no one to spend that much time
with the kids. So urban cultures have fewer kids - Europe's population
is in negative growth now and the only reason the US isn't is because
of immigration.
So limiting families that can marry, many that raise children now and
would probably raise more if marriage was an option, is not a good idea
or good for society.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 02:42:42 PM |
|
|
As long as that private sex life don't involved children I don't give
a rat *****, however marriage contracts is between three parties, one of
thoses party is the whole society.
*********************
What are you, a fucking Mormon? A marriage contract exists between two
consenting adults. The gender of those adults is none of your business.
Are you just a dickless pile of goat turds that you have nothing better to do
than to worry what Mary & Terri are doing in the sack?
You know what you are?.........a fucking moron!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 03:27:48 PM |
|
|
In article <73b5c8f4.0404101123.3a3df75e@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
The granting of benefits and rights to marriage people is for the
reason of promoting stable families for the raising of the next
generation of citizens
And there is the heart of your error:
many opposite gender families don't raise kids and many same gender
ones do. With so many children being raised originating from previous
marriages and adoption that the current family the child is in didn't
directly propagate it is immaterial.
There is zero benefit to the social, as a whole, if gays form stable
relationships or not, therefore it is a misused of resources to grant
them those benefits, at the expense of everyones else.
Which is incorrect even ignoring your fundamental error. The benefits
are the same as for heterosexual marriages:
Encourages relationship stability which as a host of health and
economic benefits for society.
Pooling resources decreases chance that participants will end up being
a burden on society.
People in long term stable relationships are themselves healthier which
again benefits society.
Proves a more stable environment for the raising of children which
benefits society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 03:36:44 PM |
|
|
Encourages relationship stability which as a host of health and
economic benefits for society.
Pooling resources decreases chance that participants will end up being
a burden on society.
People in long term stable relationships are themselves healthier which
again benefits society.
Proves a more stable environment for the raising of children which
benefits society.
********************************
Exactly.............and since this IS the abortion NG, let's not forget the
fact that if gays were allowed to marry and adopt, there wouldn't be 125,000+
children available in the UNITED STATES for adoption now........these are kids
residing in foster care and institutions.
Anti choicers scream "adoption not abortion", but the misserable goat turds
only want to adopt healthy white newborns........ they don't give a flying *****
about the kids that already exist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Meredith" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 09:20:33 PM |
|
|
RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message news:<c59lc4$ao1$0@216.39.173.68>...
In article <73b5c8f4.0404101123.3a3df75e@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
The granting of benefits and rights to marriage people is for the
reason of promoting stable families for the raising of the next
generation of citizens
And there is the heart of your error:
many opposite gender families don't raise kids and many same gender
ones do. With so many children being raised originating from previous
marriages and adoption that the current family the child is in didn't
directly propagate it is immaterial.
Most marriages do end up producing children, On the other hand not one
gay relationship had produce a child in the history of the planet.
Now there are children being raise in gay households, just as there
are children being raise in single parents homes, in homes of
grandparents and uncles of the children and on and on and on.
The fact that a small percent of gays are raising children have zero
bearing on the subject that gay relationships ahould have a claim on
support from the rest of us.
When and if the percent of gay households with children in them come
within shouting distance of heterosexual marriage couples houshold
containing children then and only then will there be a case for
changing our laws.
I would not however hold my breath until that day arrived.
There is zero benefit to the social, as a whole, if gays form stable
relationships or not, therefore it is a misused of resources to grant
them those benefits, at the expense of everyones else.
Which is incorrect even ignoring your fundamental error. The benefits
are the same as for heterosexual marriages:
Encourages relationship stability which as a host of health and
economic benefits for society.
Pooling resources decreases chance that participants will end up being
a burden on society.
People in long term stable relationships are themselves healthier which
again benefits society.
Proves a more stable environment for the raising of children which
benefits society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 09:23:55 PM |
|
|
"Bill Meredith" <nospan@juno.com> wrote in message
news:73b5c8f4.0404101820.29feaf1c@posting.google.com...
RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:<c59lc4$ao1$0@216.39.173.68>...
In article <73b5c8f4.0404101123.3a3df75e@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
The granting of benefits and rights to marriage people is for the
reason of promoting stable families for the raising of the next
generation of citizens
And there is the heart of your error:
many opposite gender families don't raise kids and many same gender
ones do. With so many children being raised originating from previous
marriages and adoption that the current family the child is in didn't
directly propagate it is immaterial.
Most marriages do end up producing children,
The 2000 US Census disagrees.
On the other hand not one
gay relationship had produce a child in the history of the planet.
Now there are children being raise in gay households, just as there
are children being raise in single parents homes, in homes of
grandparents and uncles of the children and on and on and on.
The fact that a small percent of gays are raising children have zero
bearing on the subject that gay relationships ahould have a claim on
support from the rest of us.
Support? In what respect? Are you going to start sending me monthly checks?
When and if the percent of gay households with children in them come
within shouting distance
Name the percentage.
of heterosexual marriage couples houshold
containing children then and only then will there be a case for
changing our laws.
I would not however hold my breath until that day arrived.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Meredith" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 11:48:55 AM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message news:<c5aa9a$2pjm4f$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Bill Meredith" <nospan@juno.com> wrote in message
news:73b5c8f4.0404101820.29feaf1c@posting.google.com...
RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:<c59lc4$ao1$0@216.39.173.68>...
In article <73b5c8f4.0404101123.3a3df75e@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
The granting of benefits and rights to marriage people is for the
reason of promoting stable families for the raising of the next
generation of citizens
And there is the heart of your error:
many opposite gender families don't raise kids and many same gender
ones do. With so many children being raised originating from previous
marriages and adoption that the current family the child is in didn't
directly propagate it is immaterial.
Most marriages do end up producing children,
The 2000 US Census disagrees.
Would you care to give us thoses figures?
On the other hand not one
gay relationship had produce a child in the history of the planet.
Now there are children being raise in gay households, just as there
are children being raise in single parents homes, in homes of
grandparents and uncles of the children and on and on and on.
The fact that a small percent of gays are raising children have zero
bearing on the subject that gay relationships ahould have a claim on
support from the rest of us.
Support? In what respect? Are you going to start sending me monthly checks?
Every april the 16 as a matter of fact if you are allow to access the
lower tax rates of marriage couples.
When and if the percent of gay households with children in them come
within shouting distance
Name the percentage.
What percent would you care me to name, the percent of heterosexual
couples with children or the number of gay ones with children?
of heterosexual marriage couples houshold
containing children then and only then will there be a case for
changing our laws.
I would not however hold my breath until that day arrived.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 02:32:26 PM |
|
|
"Bill Meredith" <nospan@juno.com> wrote in message
news:73b5c8f4.0404110848.2a2c9709@posting.google.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:<c5aa9a$2pjm4f$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Bill Meredith" <nospan@juno.com> wrote in message
news:73b5c8f4.0404101820.29feaf1c@posting.google.com...
RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:<c59lc4$ao1$0@216.39.173.68>...
In article <73b5c8f4.0404101123.3a3df75e@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
The granting of benefits and rights to marriage people is for the
reason of promoting stable families for the raising of the next
generation of citizens
And there is the heart of your error:
many opposite gender families don't raise kids and many same gender
ones do. With so many children being raised originating from
previous
marriages and adoption that the current family the child is in
didn't
directly propagate it is immaterial.
Most marriages do end up producing children,
The 2000 US Census disagrees.
Would you care to give us thoses figures?
I see others have given you the references to the Census figures.
On the other hand not one
gay relationship had produce a child in the history of the planet.
Now there are children being raise in gay households, just as there
are children being raise in single parents homes, in homes of
grandparents and uncles of the children and on and on and on.
The fact that a small percent of gays are raising children have zero
bearing on the subject that gay relationships ahould have a claim on
support from the rest of us.
Support? In what respect? Are you going to start sending me monthly
checks?
Every april the 16 as a matter of fact if you are allow to access the
lower tax rates of marriage couples.
If it's such the small percentage that you claim, the amounts will be
insignificant.
When and if the percent of gay households with children in them come
within shouting distance
Name the percentage.
What percent would you care me to name, the percent of heterosexual
couples with children or the number of gay ones with children?
The percentage of same-sex couples raising kids that you think needs to be
reached before you think same-sex couples should be granted the same rights
and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.
The question's rhetorical. Until procreation and/or child-rearing becomes a
requirement for obtaining a civil marriage license, the argument's
irrelevant.
of heterosexual marriage couples houshold
containing children then and only then will there be a case for
changing our laws.
BTW, there aren't any laws that need to be changed. The only change required
is elimination of the opposite-sex restriction on marriage license
applications.
I would not however hold my breath until that day arrived.
Yes, now until May 17, 2004 is a rather long time to hold one's breath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 06:15:58 PM |
|
|
In article <c5c6h1$3jeh$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dennis
Kemmerer <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
When and if the percent of gay households with children in them come
within shouting distance
Name the percentage.
What percent would you care me to name, the percent of heterosexual
couples with children or the number of gay ones with children?
The percentage of same-sex couples raising kids that you think needs to be
reached before you think same-sex couples should be granted the same rights
and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.
The question's rhetorical. Until procreation and/or child-rearing becomes a
requirement for obtaining a civil marriage license, the argument's
irrelevant.
And it ignores the fact there are many 'society benefitting' qualities
to childless marriages too. The SCOTUS figured out long ago that the
only reason for marriage is NOT personal breeding. This point is
really a nonissue.
of heterosexual marriage couples houshold
containing children then and only then will there be a case for
changing our laws.
BTW, there aren't any laws that need to be changed. The only change required
is elimination of the opposite-sex restriction on marriage license
applications.
Correct, the civil contract of marriage can be used for same gender or
opposite gender couples, they only need to change the qualification
requirements for being issued the contract. I mean that is the whole
point - if there wasn't a civil contract of marriage no one would be
asking for anything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
11 Apr 2004 12:23:20 PM |
|
|
In article <73b5c8f4.0404110848.2a2c9709@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:<c5aa9a$2pjm4f$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Bill Meredith" <nospan@juno.com> wrote in message
news:73b5c8f4.0404101820.29feaf1c@posting.google.com...
RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:<c59lc4$ao1$0@216.39.173.68>...
In article <73b5c8f4.0404101123.3a3df75e@posting.google.com>, Bill
Meredith <nospan@juno.com> wrote:
The granting of benefits and rights to marriage people is for the
reason of promoting stable families for the raising of the next
generation of citizens
And there is the heart of your error:
many opposite gender families don't raise kids and many same gender
ones do. With so many children being raised originating from previous
marriages and adoption that the current family the child is in didn't
directly propagate it is immaterial.
Most marriages do end up producing children,
The 2000 US Census disagrees.
Would you care to give us thoses figures?
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
