http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/pol...33011.html

The Republicans could win this thing if Romney would pull the stick out of his a$$ and support legalization... by 10-15 points easily

Ease up on the gay marriage argument, maybe don't come out and say you support gay marriage, but at least tone down the rhetoric and then ease up on the drug war and the GOP would walk away with this thing.

I've had the discussion before with some friends that are gay and a point was made that maybe everyone is hung up on the wrong thing when it comes to gay marriage. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage. If you were to grant a gay couple the same rights as a married couple and call it something else, that might would appease a majority. There'll be a few out there fighting to use the word marriage because that's what they do (See the ACLU).

(10-18-2012 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I've had the discussion before with some friends that are gay and a point was made that maybe everyone is hung up on the wrong thing when it comes to gay marriage. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage. If you were to grant a gay couple the same rights as a married couple and call it something else,

I would still have a problem, b/c they aren't "rights" they're earned benefits. And gay couples don't earn them.

But, others might be arguing over the semantics and this would assuage them.

(10-18-2012 09:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I've had the discussion before with some friends that are gay and a point was made that maybe everyone is hung up on the wrong thing when it comes to gay marriage. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage. If you were to grant a gay couple the same rights as a married couple and call it something else,

I would still have a problem, b/c they aren't "rights" they're earned benefits. And gay couples don't earn them.

But, others might be arguing over the semantics and this would assuage them.

Torch, you might need to elaborate more on the rights vs benefits and how gay couples don't earn them.

And I'm not drawing you into an argument, I'm just curious as to what that means.

(10-18-2012 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I've had the discussion before with some friends that are gay and a point was made that maybe everyone is hung up on the wrong thing when it comes to gay marriage. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage. If you were to grant a gay couple the same rights as a married couple and call it something else,

I would still have a problem, b/c they aren't "rights" they're earned benefits. And gay couples don't earn them.

But, others might be arguing over the semantics and this would assuage them.

Torch, you might need to elaborate more on the rights vs benefits and how gay couples don't earn them.

And I'm not drawing you into an argument, I'm just curious as to what that means.

Fair enough, but I've done that on this board several times. In short: marriage benefits are given by society b/c marriage benefits society. Married people live longer and are healthier. They provide and raise offspring for the next generation.

This is a value for value, contract-type (not a formal contract) relationship. Unfortunately, it has been blurred, mostly by the sloppy language of calling these earned benefits, "rights" or "entitlements", and by the repeated attacks on the institution of marriage, especially over the past 150 years.

(10-18-2012 09:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I've had the discussion before with some friends that are gay and a point was made that maybe everyone is hung up on the wrong thing when it comes to gay marriage. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage. If you were to grant a gay couple the same rights as a married couple and call it something else,

I would still have a problem, b/c they aren't "rights" they're earned benefits. And gay couples don't earn them.

But, others might be arguing over the semantics and this would assuage them.

Torch, you might need to elaborate more on the rights vs benefits and how gay couples don't earn them.

And I'm not drawing you into an argument, I'm just curious as to what that means.

Fair enough, but I've done that on this board several times. In short: marriage benefits are given by society b/c marriage benefits society. Married people live longer and are healthier. They provide and raise offspring for the next generation.

This is a value for value, contract-type (not a formal contract) relationship. Unfortunately, it has been blurred, mostly by the sloppy language of calling these earned benefits, "rights" or "entitlements", and by the repeated attacks on the institution of marriage, especially over the past 150 years.

I can agree with that statement.

So do you agree that if two people of the same sex love each other, they should get to have that as well?

So marriages that can't produce children because the man is sterile or the woman went through menopause shouldn't be awarded marriage "benefits"? How does living longer "benefit" society? Aren't they collecting more from SS and Medicare?

(10-18-2012 11:03 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I can agree with that statement.

So do you agree that if two people of the same sex love each other, they should get to have that as well?

Get to have what?

(10-18-2012 11:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:03 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I can agree with that statement.

So do you agree that if two people of the same sex love each other, they should get to have that as well?

Get to have what?

The earned benefits. I mean I understand the legality issues. That's why I'm saying the word "marriage" maybe the issue. If it were to be called something else that meant the same maybe that could appease the majority of gay couples. I think several of them are looking at the legal issues only (tax breaks, having a say in healthcare, etc). There'll be those few hold outs that's backed by Amnesty International and the ACLU wanting the word "marriage". I really think if a candidate can provide a legal method for gays to be married without it being called a "marriage" you could appease both sides.

(10-18-2012 11:22 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:03 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I can agree with that statement.

So do you agree that if two people of the same sex love each other, they should get to have that as well?

Get to have what?

The earned benefits.

No, b/c they don't provide the societal benefits. That's really the point. There is no value for society, so why should it be giving anything back?

(10-18-2012 11:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:22 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:03 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I can agree with that statement.

So do you agree that if two people of the same sex love each other, they should get to have that as well?

Get to have what?

The earned benefits.

No, b/c they don't provide the societal benefits. That's really the point. There is no value for society, so why should it be giving anything back?

So because they can't produce nor raise children, it's not a benefit to society? Well gay men can't, gay women could. I would've thought that a happy member of society would be a productive member of society.

But this issue doesn't affect me one way or another. I like to get others views.

Thanks for the explanation.

(10-18-2012 09:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I've had the discussion before with some friends that are gay and a point was made that maybe everyone is hung up on the wrong thing when it comes to gay marriage. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage. If you were to grant a gay couple the same rights as a married couple and call it something else,

I would still have a problem, b/c they aren't "rights" they're earned benefits. And gay couples don't earn them.

But, others might be arguing over the semantics and this would assuage them.

Torch, you might need to elaborate more on the rights vs benefits and how gay couples don't earn them.

And I'm not drawing you into an argument, I'm just curious as to what that means.

Fair enough, but I've done that on this board several times. In short: marriage benefits are given by society b/c marriage benefits society. Married people live longer and are healthier. They provide and raise offspring for the next generation.

This is a value for value, contract-type (not a formal contract) relationship. Unfortunately, it has been blurred, mostly by the sloppy language of calling these earned benefits, "rights" or "entitlements", and by the repeated attacks on the institution of marriage, especially over the past 150 years.

What about gay couples who adopt or straight couples who decide against children?

(10-18-2012 11:33 AM)Dak10 Wrote:  What about gay couples who adopt or straight couples who decide against children?

Children aren't the only benefit I cited. But all of this shows how things get entangled w/ gov't involvement. I don't like seeing the gov't involved, I'm just explaining the logic for decisions.

(10-18-2012 11:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:22 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:03 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I can agree with that statement.

So do you agree that if two people of the same sex love each other, they should get to have that as well?

Get to have what?

The earned benefits.

No, b/c they don't provide the societal benefits. That's really the point. There is no value for society, so why should it be giving anything back?

If a gay couple moves in next door, your property values will probably go up.

(10-17-2012 09:41 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  The Republicans could win this thing if Romney would pull the stick out of his a$$ and support legalization... by 10-15 points easily

I don't know if it would be that easy. Would the votes gained match or exceed the votes lost?

(10-18-2012 12:50 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 09:41 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  The Republicans could win this thing if Romney would pull the stick out of his a$$ and support legalization... by 10-15 points easily

I don't know if it would be that easy. Would the votes gained match or exceed the votes lost?

Well, the votes they might lose sure as hell aren't going to the Democrat.

(10-18-2012 11:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:33 AM)Dak10 Wrote:  What about gay couples who adopt or straight couples who decide against children?

Children aren't the only benefit I cited. But all of this shows how things get entangled w/ gov't involvement. I don't like seeing the gov't involved, I'm just explaining the logic for decisions.

The fags may not live longer, but more often than not they are more physically fit and healthy than heteros's.

(10-18-2012 11:33 AM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I've had the discussion before with some friends that are gay and a point was made that maybe everyone is hung up on the wrong thing when it comes to gay marriage. Everyone is hung up on the word marriage. If you were to grant a gay couple the same rights as a married couple and call it something else,

I would still have a problem, b/c they aren't "rights" they're earned benefits. And gay couples don't earn them.

But, others might be arguing over the semantics and this would assuage them.

Torch, you might need to elaborate more on the rights vs benefits and how gay couples don't earn them.

And I'm not drawing you into an argument, I'm just curious as to what that means.

Fair enough, but I've done that on this board several times. In short: marriage benefits are given by society b/c marriage benefits society. Married people live longer and are healthier. They provide and raise offspring for the next generation.

This is a value for value, contract-type (not a formal contract) relationship. Unfortunately, it has been blurred, mostly by the sloppy language of calling these earned benefits, "rights" or "entitlements", and by the repeated attacks on the institution of marriage, especially over the past 150 years.

What about gay couples who adopt or straight couples who decide against children?

(10-18-2012 11:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  So marriages that can't produce children because the man is sterile or the woman went through menopause shouldn't be awarded marriage "benefits"? How does living longer "benefit" society? Aren't they collecting more from SS and Medicare?

I've had this same thought. To the religious right, the word marriage is one that comes from the bible. In their mind, to change the definition to include something that the bible does not diminishes the word, and thus their "religious union". This, in and of itself, is not a statement against gay marriage. It is a statement PRO "religious" marriage. Since the bible used the word long before Congress assigned benefits to it, I think it appropriate that the government choose another word and apply the benefits it chooses thusly. Recognizing whatever unions it wants to without usurping the religious word. I mean, if the government called paying your taxes "tithing", we should understand that some people would find that offensive, right? I agree that most gay people aren't hung up on the word, so let it go.

As to the discussion above... Obviously, government rules are designed to address the masses and not the exceptions. By and large, couples who are incapable of reproducing are the exception rather than the rule.... as are same sex couples that adopt or women who choose to have babies without men... as compared to "traditional" couples. I understand that Torch is presenting a case he may or may not actually agree with, so I won't hammer him on it... and I hope you guys will afford me the same courtesy... but it certainly appears that credits for raising children or what have you exist whether or not you are married. The majority of the benefits that are derived from the government for being married are contractual assumptions with regard to assets and personal decisions, fairly easily replicable in law. Do it. To the extent that we need the government's approval for estate planning etc... maybe the better answer is to tax the asset, rather than whom it is going to. The unlimited spousal exemption merely delays the taxing of those assets/allows a person to live off of their spouses earnings. That seems like something we could easily solve and make EVERYONE happy.