Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Heterophobia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by MRT144
    thats cause youre crazy pinko commies
    Well, yeah.
    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Starchild
      And frankly, I want to get married one day. I don't want to be civil unionised. Yeah, civil unions are a step forward but they're not the goal.
      Go to the Netherlands or Norway. They allow gay marraiges.
      Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by chegitz guevara
        Actually, Bunnygrrl and I would rather have a civil union than a marriage.
        Getting hitched at city hall isn't enough for you?
        I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
        For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

        Comment


        • #34
          maybe he wants to be a normal person one day and marry a woman.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by chegitz guevara


            Go to the Netherlands or Norway. They allow gay marraiges.
            Don't they allow it in some US states?
            For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by chegitz guevara


              Go to the Netherlands or Norway. They allow gay marraiges.
              Yes but that totally disrupts my plans to be married in the english garden of an aristocratic manor, with both of us in modern tuxes, my family seated on the right, his on the left, have a witness from the register's office observe, exchange rings with the words "With this ring" on the outside and "I thy wed" on the inside (white gold rings of course!), have the floral display be white roses, serve Vietnamese spring rolls to start followed by a choice between roast pork served on a bed of greens with roast potatos or salmon in a lemon and pepper sauce with stirfried bok choy and finish with a dessert of fresh summer fruits (this wedding shall be in July I say JULY!), and have Charlotte Church sing for us.
              Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
              -Richard Dawkins

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Starchild


                Cause it's a mallard instead of a duck? If it has all the rights of marriage, why not simply call it marriage? Why call it "civil unions", a term that drips with the implied notion of "pretend marriage for those people". A special catagory created by fiat can just as easily be uncreated. Instead of being included in a centuries old tradition that acknowledges long term relationships as an important part of society, we're getting a bone thrown to us.
                Better a bone than a brick.

                Part of the reason for those benefits (pension et al) going to married couples is to encourage stability in families.

                Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but gay couples have never produced any babies. OK, lesbian couples have - but to the majority of the politicians and Church people, this is the sticking point.

                If we start encouraging marriage for purposes other than having kids in a stable environment, it doesn't really say a lot for society, does it?

                By not calling it marriage the govt is ducking the bullet and giving a sop to those right wingers. It's not what any side wants - compromises never are.

                But if it gives more equality and justice, I'm for it. It might even encourage more straight people to get married, because now the subject is being debated and listed in the papers.
                Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
                "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

                Comment


                • #38
                  sounds like a lovely plan, except for the charlotte church part. shes a wench anyway.
                  "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                  'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Fez
                    Don't they allow it in some US states?
                    Didn't you hear him say that he doesn't want a civil union?
                    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Why your family on the right? Are you the symbolic groom? Why not the symbolic bride?
                      If you don't like reality, change it! me
                      "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                      "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                      "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by GePap
                        Why your family on the right? Are you the symbolic groom? Why not the symbolic bride?
                        It's a subtle irony based on what's going to happen during the honeymoon.

                        Originally posted by Cruddy
                        Part of the reason for those benefits (pension et al) going to married couples is to encourage stability in families.

                        Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but gay couples have never produced any babies. OK, lesbian couples have - but to the majority of the politicians and Church people, this is the sticking point.

                        If we start encouraging marriage for purposes other than having kids in a stable environment, it doesn't really say a lot for society, does it?
                        So good to know marriage is about breeding. Dang and darn all those infertile couples and those selfish ones that dont' want to have kids.

                        And who says I won't adopt?

                        Smookie, if we're going to get into what the Church thinks, they've got to give me an adaquate explanation on why they wear clothing made from two different materials (abomination!) before they can dictate to me what I do when it comes to love.

                        Besides, I can argue that a double income no kids (DINK) marriage typical of gay relationships would be far more beneficial to society in terms of the economy than the rather costly choice of children.

                        But I get what you're saying about compromise. Civil unions are a step forward but that doesn't mean we get to stop running.
                        Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
                        -Richard Dawkins

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Another way to make everybody equal, whatever is their sexual orientation is to suppress the marriage status. Apparently its only justification is to give rights to some priviledged people.
                          Statistical anomaly.
                          The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
                            There's an obvious answer to negate any form of unbalance. Allow gay marriage.
                            Thats still is unbalanced against single people.

                            I think you should just be able to nominate any person(s) to be your beneficiary or partner for any given issue. Leave marriage to be a social issue, not a legal one.
                            One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Big Crunch


                              Thats still is unbalanced against single people.

                              I think you should just be able to nominate any person(s) to be your beneficiary or partner for any given issue. Leave marriage to be a social issue, not a legal one.
                              You can. The problem comes when no will has been written up in advance ("of course we're never going to die and our love will last forever" - WRONG).
                              Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
                              "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                You can. The problem comes when no will has been written up in advance


                                Not in all circumstances. Take inheritance tax on death estates, as you have just raised the will inheritance issue.

                                A husband or wife can leave all their possessions to their spouse, whether they are jointly or individually owned, and no tax has to be paid on the transfer.

                                Leave those possession to any other person and the residual legatee is liable to pay inheritance tax of 40% on the taxable transfers.
                                One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X