"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/27/2013 9:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hence the "B" in the acronym

It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory.
I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and
then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.


They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they
missed.

I saw an article in the paper tonight.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/


I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how,
precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that
seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco"
Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince
him to tell us what he bases his objections on.

I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical
grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and
rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here
brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've
not heard in years.

What's left in reasons to object?


From a modern, practical and non-religious point of view I think the main
objection is based on the same reason that gays are striving *for* legal
recognition of same sex marriages.

Money.

Those who are pushing for legal recognition of same sex marriages are
doing so in order to qualify for the same tax breaks and financial/social
benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Otherwise, there is no
compelling reason to have legal recognition of gay couples living and
sharing their lives together. They can just do so. There are no laws
against it that I know of.

Remember, it wasn't very long ago that the remote *concept* of legal,
same sex "marriages" was unheard of.

The concern many have is where do you draw the line? The government
giveith and the government takeith away when it comes to tax codes.

Those who object based on religious grounds are really in the same boat
you are in when you complain about religious organizations working to
influence legislation that furthers their interests.
You object because it "jams their beliefs down your throat".

Maybe some people want to raise families and teach their children in
older, more traditional beliefs and values. A government that condones
same sex marriages is probably just as offensive to some people as the
religious zealots are offensive to you.

Disclaimer: This is my gut feeling for the objections some have. It is
not necessarily what I believe. I believe that I really don't give a ****.

I think the gay marriage part is also partly HIPPA related. A partner can
not get involved in the hospitalization and healthcare like a spouse can.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 23:03:09 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/27/2013 9:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hence the "B" in the acronym

It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory.
I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and
then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.


They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they
missed.

I saw an article in the paper tonight.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/


I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how,
precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that
seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco"
Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince
him to tell us what he bases his objections on.

I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical
grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and
rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here
brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've
not heard in years.

What's left in reasons to object?


From a modern, practical and non-religious point of view I think the main
objection is based on the same reason that gays are striving *for* legal
recognition of same sex marriages.

Money.

Those who are pushing for legal recognition of same sex marriages are
doing so in order to qualify for the same tax breaks and financial/social
benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Otherwise, there is no
compelling reason to have legal recognition of gay couples living and
sharing their lives together. They can just do so. There are no laws
against it that I know of.

Remember, it wasn't very long ago that the remote *concept* of legal,
same sex "marriages" was unheard of.

The concern many have is where do you draw the line? The government
giveith and the government takeith away when it comes to tax codes.

Those who object based on religious grounds are really in the same boat
you are in when you complain about religious organizations working to
influence legislation that furthers their interests.
You object because it "jams their beliefs down your throat".

Maybe some people want to raise families and teach their children in
older, more traditional beliefs and values. A government that condones
same sex marriages is probably just as offensive to some people as the
religious zealots are offensive to you.

Disclaimer: This is my gut feeling for the objections some have. It is
not necessarily what I believe. I believe that I really don't give a ****.

I think the gay marriage part is also partly HIPPA related. A partner can
not get involved in the hospitalization and healthcare like a spouse can.

A good reason for a 'Spousal License'.

Hope you're having a great day!

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 23:03:09 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I think the gay marriage part is also partly HIPPA related. A partner can
not get involved in the hospitalization and healthcare like a spouse can.

The last time I was in a hospital situation one of the stack of forms
I had to fill out was a medical disclosure/consent authorization that
would let you list virtually anyone as your health advocate.

But if you can not fill out the form, your partner is out.