|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 10, 2009 22:22:26 GMT -5
Obama is seeking to have the "Defense of Marriage Act" repealed in Congress so that benefits can be extended to domestic partners.
What is to stop two buddies from living together and taking advantage of these benefits?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by packerfanfran on Oct 11, 2009 6:35:14 GMT -5
My thoughts....So you believe every married heterosexual couple are married for the right reason? I suppose there are none that stay together for the sake of the kids..or stay together because it's cheaper to live in the same house and share expenses than it is to start all over...or stay together because of the tax break they get...or stay together because it would not look good in the eyes of their family or friends if they split up. I say we should have "marriage police" who make sure that every married couple is married for the right reason. If they are found "in violation", then let's lock them up and throw away the key.  |
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 11, 2009 6:54:23 GMT -5
There will always be people who take advantage of the system. I know a person who is gay but is married soley for the benefit of having health-insurance. Is it wrong? I think so, but there's nothing stopping him.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 11, 2009 7:01:50 GMT -5
I agree with Fran, maybe we should have marriage police, so then they could throw those people in jail and have that ol' ball 'n' chain, har har har.
I think marriage is a stupid thing anyone (even though I'm married), you're telling my that I have to state my faith and committment to someone in front of my friends and family? Why can't my wife and I come to an understanding that we're in love and we are committed to eachother? To make it legal for her to benefit from my estate I should be able to stipulate that in a document with my lawyer. That's why I don't understand why homosexuals just try something new and see that the sanctity of marriage is broken.
But when Obama has his health-care bill passed we wont have this "slippery-slope" of a real life "Chuck and Larry".
|
|
|
|
Post by townhalleditor on Oct 11, 2009 8:16:01 GMT -5
The Marriage Act does need to be repealed as it is a safe haven for biggots to use law to support their discrimination.
Replealing the act will also break the religious hold and influence that religion has upon our courts and upon our legislatures.
Platonic friends who have decided to live together to bring about financial and domestic stability in their lives should not be discriminated against either because they have not entered the "institution of marriage." Some people just are not relationship material and should not be penalized because they are not having sex with a man or a woman. This country is too hung up on people having sex on how they have sex. There are bigger problems facing our people and the world. Also, I think many are duped by the "notion of romance."
Romance is a literary creation and facade, but I know that is for another discussion.
By repealing the Marriage Act, there will be no reason for the government to categorize people and I believe that will lead to less discrimination in the long run.
If the act can be repealed, perhaps when two men or two women live together, it won't be assumed they are gay or lesbian and that can only lead to more openess and inclusiveness in the long run.
No citizen of this nation should be discriminated or "labeled" for how they live their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 11, 2009 8:44:46 GMT -5
If I recall, there are some US states that still have antiquated laws stating that there cannot be inter-racial marriages.
I don't believe they're enforced, but getting legislators to change them ain't easy in Bible Thumper Country.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 11, 2009 9:39:46 GMT -5
If I recall, there are some US states that still have antiquated laws stating that there cannot be inter-racial marriages. I know a few people in this state that would love this law and would love to see it enforced. |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 11, 2009 9:44:37 GMT -5
I think people should take an IQ test before marriage. If they fail, they become wards of the state because eventually they will anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 11, 2009 10:33:54 GMT -5
I think people should take an IQ test before marriage. If they fail, they become wards of the state because eventually they will anyway. If you had your way everyone who you didn't agree with and those "Pinkos" would be in jail anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 11, 2009 20:20:11 GMT -5
I think people should take an IQ test before marriage. If they fail, they become wards of the state because eventually they will anyway. If you had your way everyone who you didn't agree with and those "Pinkos" would be in jail anyway. I would agree with your assessment, but I woudln't keep them in jail here. Send them to Cuba because they have great healthcare there. |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Oct 11, 2009 20:59:00 GMT -5
It was not tooooo long ago, when Americans would be paid lots of money after marrying a foreigner who would later become a US citizen. I could have become a millionaire by marrying several Filipinos and Latin American babes, but my inner amoeba told me that doing so was wrong. In fact, my Filipino Stepmother had some BEAUTIFUL Filipino babes that would have loved to have kept the marriage permanent, BUT it simply did not seem right. I guess that I am a little boring and old fashioned by refusing such attractive opportunities. |
|
