Miss California Assailed By Gays For Defending Marriage

[jem]

Quote from Landis82:

Your lack of reading comprehension is absolutely staggering.

Contrary to you, I actually TRADE FOR A LIVING and don't have the time for this.

I believe that I explained (more than adequately) the FACT that civil union rights are NOT portable and that legal guardian rights when a member of the union becomes disabled, splits up, or dies are so far from being closed to the contract of marriage that it's not even worth arguing about.

For some reason, you are unable to fathom this.

But don't let me get in your way of your "pissing" match.

Good day.

I traded for a living for many years. unfortunately, I no longer do - so you have me there.

with respect to comprehension - you are the one that needs remedial reading or a logic course.

I asked you to provide information supporting the fact that gay Marriage would confer improved benefits to civil union in CA - at first you acted like we were all idiots if we did not get the fact that marriage was far superior.

now it seems you can't support your statement with even one benefit.

I truly expected you to bring up a few.

I have seen one - which was pretty meaningless.

Its odd you would question my comprehension - when all asked was for you to give a specific reason why gay marriage in california was superiro to a civil union.

what is your definition of comprehension? something which requires a liberal interpretation without reference to facts or truth?

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

We are talking about gays, marrying.

Why do you want to block that?

Because of the kind of sex gays have with each other...

So, yes it all comes down to sexual preference.

By the way, I don't think two men having sex with each other is natural. I think the natural impulse is to have sex with anything that gets you off...so restricted to one man or one woman is not natural...

Of course, I don't think polluting the air is natural, polluting the water that kills off the natural animals that live in water is not natural, I don't think smoking, drinking, doing drugs, shooting guns, eating dead roasted animals, overeating, living beyond a natural lifespan, invading other sovereign nations, having nuclear bombs, driving in a fast car, driving while drunk, political parties, etc. etc. etc. is natural either...

It is a human rights issues, and human rights should be the same as suggested in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thingy for all people, regardless of where they want to stick their pee pee in the privacy of their own home with themselves or another consenting adult...or whom they want to marry.

Put down the Bible, and try to make an argument for denying human beings to marry, simply because they like to have sex differently than you do...

My opposition is based on the fact that I do not wish to see the definition changed because any change would be arbitrary. Why not 6 women and a man?

And because gays in my opinion are not a true minority class.

people choose to have sex with a partner. The sex of the partner is a choice.

I see that status as being for different form being a women or being black.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from jem:

My opposition is based on the fact that I do not wish to see the definition changed because any change would be arbitrary. Why not 6 women and a man?

And because gays in my opinion are not a true minority class.

people choose to have sex with a partner. The sex of the partner is a choice.

I see that status as being for different form being a women or being black.

Funny that part of your definition/condition of marriage (in so far as gays are concerned) revolves around what constitutes a "true minority class"; and as such that status comes from the ability to choose to have sex with a partner . . .

Who's to say that sex has to occur between partners in order for those partners to be married?

Should the government be looking into our homes and identifying whether or not any sexual activity is taking place?

Hell, I know of plenty of heterosexual marriages in which there is no sexual activity, and there hasn't been any for years!

 

[Mercor]

Quote from Landis82:


Who's to say that sex has to occur between partners in order for those partners to be married?

Should the government be looking into our homes and identifying whether or not any sexual activity is taking place?

Hell, I know of plenty of heterosexual marriages in which there is no sexual activity, and there hasn't been any for years!

This is the reason Homo marriage is invalid. Are you a Homo if you don't have sex.

Two guys may be best buddies and live together, Are they Homo?

Isn't Homo only about the sex.

To get married no proof of love is needed. You only need to prove you are male and female. How do you prove to the state that you are Homo unless you get into ugly stereotypes or prove you are having sex.

Homo's should be asking for marriage for any two people who ever they are.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Mercor:

This is the reason Homo marriage is invalid. Are you a Homo if you don't have sex.

Two guys may be best buddies and live together, Are they Homo?

Isn't Homo only about the sex.

To get married no proof of love is needed. You only need to prove you are male and female. How do you prove to the state that you are Homo unless you get into ugly stereotypes or prove you are having sex.

Homo's should be asking for marriage for any two people who ever they are.

I'm not sure if you will be able to understand this, but your logic (as presented above) regarding what constitutes a marriage just made a case for gays to be married.

 

[dsq]

Quote from jem:



I asked you to provide information supporting the fact that gay Marriage would confer improved benefits to civil union in CA - at first you acted like we were all idiots if we did not get the fact that marriage was far superior.

now it seems you can't support your statement with even one benefit.

I truly expected you to bring up a few.

I have seen one - which was pretty meaningless.

POWER OF AUTHORITY-
in a civil union the people have no automatic PA for financial or health.Like if one person gets hospitalized no decisions can be made by the significant other.Which is totally retarded.

I am also sure that for mortgages and financial stuff, civil union is not recognized.

I think the same goes for taxes.You cant file joint taxes nor get the tax break benefits like a married couple.

 

[jem]

on the contrary.


my point - which was illustrated by mercor is that there is no reason to allow gays to get special treatment over any other group that wishes to change the definition.

the sex of a sex partner is a choice. No reason to give that choice any special protection in my opinon.

as an american - you can pretty much choose to have sex with any consenting adult. Gay marriage has nothing to do with that freedom. Why change the definition of marriage. Civil unions should be perfectly adequate.

 

[jem]

Quote from dsq:

POWER OF AUTHORITY-
in a civil union the people have no automatic PA for financial or health.Like if one person gets hospitalized no decisions can be made by the significant other.Which is totally retarded.

I am also sure that for mortgages and financial stuff, civil union is not recognized.

I think the same goes for taxes.You cant file joint taxes nor get the tax break benefits like a married couple.

are you sure about your statements with respect to CA and if so how does allowing gays to be married in CA change this?

its a simple question.

it has been said that civil unions in CA convey all the benefits of marriage.

If it is not true explan why. If you can maybe you actually created a more deserving argument for gay marriage. Although I suggest gayiage or some other new word.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from jem:

are you sure about your statements with respect to CA and if so how does allowing gays to be married in CA change this?

its a simple question.

it has been said that civil unions in CA convey all the benefits of marriage.

I believe that he is correct, just as I stated several posts ago.

Thus far, you have been unable to PROVE either of us wrong in our claims.

Instead, you just keeping asking the same question (Are you sure???) over and over again - - - rather than you yourself providing any substantive, factual, reference that disproves the claim that civil unions convey all of the benefits of marriage in California.

What also seems to escape you is that in order for a civil union to get anywhere close to the legal footing of the contract of marriage and the benefits (child custody, taxation, social security, distribution of assets, death/disabled benefits) that arise from such a legal contract, is that a same-sex couple would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars vs the usual $25 marriage license.

That in itself is discriminatory.

But more importantly, you continue to FAIL to provide any kind of SPECIFIC factual support to your claim.

 

[jem]

you were the one who made the statement - that gay marriage is far superior to gay union. I just said prove it. so far you have not. Why should I have to prove your point?

Showing that gays are disadvantage in adoption is not the same as showing that gay marriage is superior to a gay civil union.

---

thousands of dollars my foot.

I bet any gay person could ask a few friends and get directed to a civil union package of forms for a few dollars.

if not I have a business idea for you.