The Gay Fray
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
yeah, I don't get it either. Especially considering she has sex with women herself.
should people who don't want children be allowed to marry?
"In a way" I said.How is it against?
If a gay couple adopting is against procreation then any adoption is against procreation, no?
Why adopt instead of having children yourself...?
Yes yes I know there are couples that can't.
Which makes them just as "un-natural" as gays doesn't it?
Or me, no children by choice.
Maybe I should be ostracised.
Asguard said:
No, but that's the beauty of the AFA site. You can customize the text, so ....
Besides, I figure the AFA is reading through those emails, so if enough people use their system to say nice things to Hallmark, maybe they'll think twice, or tinker with their method next time they decide to get up on their holy war wagon.
And that's the thing: Why would anyone make a template to praise Hallmark? Those of us who are impressed enough to send them our respects could easily figure out how to do it ourselves. I'm trying to picture the tech whose job it is to set up the ready-made page, and most of the people I know who work in the tech industry would probably look at their bosses and say, "Since you're already spamming people to let them know about the page, why not just send them the guy's e-mail and let them write their own message in the first place? This whole ready-made thing is a joke. What, do our site's users not know how to send a freakin' email? How the hell do they get to the site, then?"
The whole idea of ready-made or centralized email campaigns is pretty silly to begin with; that's why I used the Truth campaign website to send my regards to the tobacco CEOs. It never would have occurred to me to send those sharks a thank-you note, except that a bunch of dishonest morons tried to organize an email harassment campaign.
Of course, as to Hallmark and money ... someone had to know they would be pissing off enough people to put discrimination on the books in twelve states in 2004. There is a certain amount of risk about this, but Hallmark's a pretty strong company. After all, look who else is on Wildmon's list. Disney and McDonald's come to mind straight away, and I think they might have gotten upset at Coca Cola a few years back. When you're big enough, you can take those gambles. (Hell, Wal-Mart could market gay gladiator vinyl, and at worst they might be compelled to pull the line; the public pressure wouldn't actually hurt them.)
Or so says me.
Gay marriage is unnecessary.
If gays want to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, there can be a "legal partnership" recognized without the need to call it and treat it as a MARRIAGE, per se.
That way, the institute of marriage is protected, but gays can still enjoy the legal rights of "marriage"
If gays want to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, there can be a "legal partnership" recognized without the need to call it and treat it as a MARRIAGE, per se.
That way, the institute of marriage is protected, but gays can still enjoy the legal rights of "marriage"
why would i want a ready made one?
im feeling lazy (though i will go subvert there system right now)
As to the fact they are big enough to take it?
maybe thats the case in the US, i doubt it would be here where discrimination on the basis of sexuality is a criminal offence
im feeling lazy (though i will go subvert there system right now
)As to the fact they are big enough to take it?
maybe thats the case in the US, i doubt it would be here where discrimination on the basis of sexuality is a criminal offence
separate but equal right?
Marriage has been the institution enjoyed by heterosexual couples; culture has always been heterosexual in regards to sex. It's tradition.
If gays want to enjoy the rights of legal partnership, they need to understand that. And they can still do so, just not with an actual "marriage"
Just a legal document that grants the same rights and benefits of marriage; no need for the actual ceremony or anything, though, because most people find that offensive to the institution and tradition.
The problem with hets ....
Hets should never have made marriage about love and trust and taxes. But in order to save the institution, they had to transform it. You know, sell your daughters and such? Traditional marriage was dying over a century ago.
The greatest threat to the notion of marriage is a bunch of ranting, uneducated, hateful heterosexuals who would treat a "sacred institution" as a weapon of discrimination.
Norsefire said:
Hets should never have made marriage about love and trust and taxes. But in order to save the institution, they had to transform it. You know, sell your daughters and such? Traditional marriage was dying over a century ago.
The greatest threat to the notion of marriage is a bunch of ranting, uneducated, hateful heterosexuals who would treat a "sacred institution" as a weapon of discrimination.
what ceremony? A huge wedding in a church with all the religious words or getting married by a judge?
I'm an atheist. Can I get married or is that offensive to the institution?
More thbpbpbpbpbpt!
And quite a stupid ceremony, and quite a savage and hateful "civilization" the hets have built.
Congratulations.
Seriously, the state of civilization on the planet is something of a disgrace. It's embarrassing enough to be human. But, hey, if I can shift that blame to heterosexuals and play Pilate, well, it's an idea worth considering.
Norsefire said:
And quite a stupid ceremony, and quite a savage and hateful "civilization" the hets have built.
Congratulations.
Step it out, Mary, my fine daughter,
Mary, if you can.
Step it out, Mary, my fine daughter,
Show your legs to the wealthy man.
(Boiled in Lead, trad.)
Mary, if you can.
Step it out, Mary, my fine daughter,
Show your legs to the wealthy man.
(Boiled in Lead, trad.)
Seriously, the state of civilization on the planet is something of a disgrace. It's embarrassing enough to be human. But, hey, if I can shift that blame to heterosexuals and play Pilate, well, it's an idea worth considering.
Marriage should be purely a religious issue, full stop. The State has no business whatsoever giving perks (such as tax benefits) to married heterosexual and homosexual couples.
actually thats not quite true MH. its in the goverments best interests to pair us off. part of the reason for the housing crisis is that there are ALOT of single people living in multibed room houses, which take up alot of land.
futher more the "tax benift" your talking about is the dependent spouse benifit. this is aimed to lower the cost when one person is finantually suporting another and its not actually limited to spouses but ANY dependent person.
if you removed this you would see an increase in welfare costs because people would be claiming for themselves rather than claiming only a dependent.
just a rough calculation from PB and my last tax returns,
i earned less than 2000 across the whole year beacause im a full time student
she recived a dependent spouse tax refund of $500 for the whole year
now if i was claiming auststudy insted as an independent person thats around $250 plus a week and then rent assistance ($100 a week) is on top of that
so the goverment saved itself:
52 * 250 = 13,000 - 500 = 12,500 JUST from the federal goverment (and then there are the state electricity subsidies ect) by us living together
then there is the lower carbon footprint because couples use less power simply because they tend to be in the same room under one light using one TV ect
the goverment has a HUGE insentive to pair people off
futher more the "tax benift" your talking about is the dependent spouse benifit. this is aimed to lower the cost when one person is finantually suporting another and its not actually limited to spouses but ANY dependent person.
if you removed this you would see an increase in welfare costs because people would be claiming for themselves rather than claiming only a dependent.
just a rough calculation from PB and my last tax returns,
i earned less than 2000 across the whole year beacause im a full time student
she recived a dependent spouse tax refund of $500 for the whole year
now if i was claiming auststudy insted as an independent person thats around $250 plus a week and then rent assistance ($100 a week) is on top of that
so the goverment saved itself:
52 * 250 = 13,000 - 500 = 12,500 JUST from the federal goverment (and then there are the state electricity subsidies ect) by us living together
then there is the lower carbon footprint because couples use less power simply because they tend to be in the same room under one light using one TV ect
the goverment has a HUGE insentive to pair people off
Asguard:
So? It's not exactly fair to people such as myself, who want to remain single. It's not fair to homosexuals or polygamists, either.
Irrespective of whether some good would come out of it (which is debatable, considering that increased marriage = increased divorce, resulting in a burden to the family court system, as well an increased population due to the increase in sex), it's not the place of the State to coax people into marrying each other. Next they'll be providing bonuses to adults who continue to live with their parents.
So? It's not exactly fair to people such as myself, who want to remain single. It's not fair to homosexuals or polygamists, either.
Irrespective of whether some good would come out of it (which is debatable, considering that increased marriage = increased divorce, resulting in a burden to the family court system, as well an increased population due to the increase in sex), it's not the place of the State to coax people into marrying each other. Next they'll be providing bonuses to adults who continue to live with their parents.