In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[Sunder]

Personally I don't think it should. It shouldn't be the government's business to define social phenomena.

This was an issue I used to hash out a lot with libertarian types a decade ago. It was very easy for them to argue from a "principled" position which said that govt. shouldn't meddle with marriage anyway, ergo there was no need for any kind of equality campaign. Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good, though. While completely abandoning the legal perks of marriage for all couples might be someone's ideal solution, it's clearly not going to happen anytime soon, ergo extending those same privileges to gay couples was the proper equitable solution.

[Brive1987]

But ...

http://i.imgur.com/Jb3qnc0.jpg

Do you think a government has the right or ability to define what marriage is?

No. That is a cultural social construct. Government can set the legal side.

I appreciate the good old days when marriage was a celebration set in the context of cultural or actual church commitment which was itself a metaphor for traditional commitment and continuity of the established chain. Civil ceremonies in wild meadows were verging on the PoMo. But whatever.

Broadening the marriage bit (rather than the legal wrapper) makes that component meaningless. Which, I suspect, is half the reason the liberal "all about mes" want to own it. They can't bare anything that is traditional and institutional. It threatens their snowflake independence.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Same sex marriage? All for it. I don't understand people who would be against it.

As for government's involvement, taxes reduction or even taxe cancellation are good reasons why it still has to stay within the system. Many other advantages too (joint bank account, parcel delivery...). If your view of marriage is only a love/spiritual one, just do like the ancient Romans and rub some dirt on your to-be's forehead. Still won't help you with the IRS or Postal service, though...

[Brive1987]

Oh I forget to met mention the wonderful duality of the old church wedding. Public commitment to family, children, instilling values etc etc. albeit in the skyndaddy house - but meh. A framework is a framework.

Then scurry off out of sight and do the legal govt contract bit. Then triumpal recessional.

Gays can have all the legal rights in the world. They can have commitment ceremonies. Whatever. But as I said marriage should retain it's relevant and consistent social definition which comes with boundaries.

And fuck this shit.

http://i.imgur.com/VBz7Dk4.jpg

This is mocking and crapping on the institution because really they want to stamp on it, own it and change it to suit. Typical SJW entryism.

You are not a girl. You are not a bride. You are fucking offensive with intent.

[KiwiInOz]

Snip

You are fucking offensive with intent.

I thought that was the Pit's motto.

[KiwiInOz]

As for the theatre of that image? Meh.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Nah, we're just fucking within tents. Large tents. To accommodate all the fatties posting here. That would be me.

[KiwiInOz]

Pseudomonas - good to see you here. Was worried that you might have fallen in the chipper.

[Brive1987]

"Top student"

The way Watson slides them in, you could almost miss what this tweet was really all about.

http://i.imgur.com/DsnYfnC.jpg

[shoutinghorse]

Oh I forget to met mention the wonderful duality of the old church wedding. Public commitment to family, children, instilling values etc etc. albeit in the skyndaddy house - but meh. A framework is a framework.

Then scurry off out of sight and do the legal govt contract bit. Then triumpal recessional.

Gays can have all the legal rights in the world. They can have commitment ceremonies. Whatever. But as I said marriage should retain it's relevant and consistent social definition which comes with boundaries.

And fuck this shit.

http://i.imgur.com/VBz7Dk4.jpg

This is mocking and crapping on the institution because really they want to stamp on it, own it and change it to suit. Typical SJW entryism.

You are not a girl. You are not a bride. You are fucking offensive with intent.

Gives us something to point & laugh at though :D

[Brive1987]

Snip

You are fucking offensive with intent.

I thought that was the Pit's motto.

I guess it's my broken nature to like order. Order in the AS sphere without SJ wingnuts. Order in our use of foundational terms. Order in who's appropriate to squeeze into a meringue dress. Logic to the framework that defines society.

I'd probably have made a good nazi.

Don't mind me.

[shoutinghorse]

"Top student"

The way Watson slides them in, you could almost miss what this tweet was really all about.

http://i.imgur.com/DsnYfnC.jpg

Hardly a great endorsement of the school if that vacuous cunt was one of its top students. :doh:

[InfraRedBucket]

TommyR has lost his blue twitter badge. Twitter is now in the business of visibly indicating ideological purity.

A verified badge does not imply an endorsement by Twitter.

:liar:


https://support.twitter.com/articles/119135#

Yeah. The tick was surely just to confirm it was who they said they were. whether individual or organisation.
Apart from spoof/parody/maliciously deceptive accounts.
It was never supposed to be an endorsement.

Maybe they will have to replace ticks with another symbol for "verified " accounts.
But do it for everyone. Their self invented problem was the symbol they used is interpreted
by some stupid people and they bow to pressure.

[Hunt]

I'd probably have made a good nazi.

Don't mind me.

Now I'm picturing Crocodile Dundee with an armband.

"Das ist not a knife; das ist a knife."

[Hunt]

Ok, so I imagine all Australians as Crocodile Dundee. So shoot me.

[Brive1987]

Ok, so I imagine all Australians as Crocodile Dundee. So shoot me.

What about Luke Meehan and GeorgeP? Do they fit the stereotype?

[Shatterface]

Same sex marriage? All for it. I don't understand people who would be against it.

As for government's involvement, taxes reduction or even taxe cancellation are good reasons why it still has to stay within the system. Many other advantages too (joint bank account, parcel delivery...). If your view of marriage is only a love/spiritual one, just do like the ancient Romans and rub some dirt on your to-be's forehead. Still won't help you with the IRS or Postal service, though...

I can't get my head around the objections to gay marriage. It costs straight people nothing. Nobody woke up the day they legalised gay marriage and discovered they were less married as a result.

The objections boils down to these:

1) If you extend marriage to homosexuals then you open the door to polygamy. Except that hasn't happened. The arguments against polygamy are still the arguments against polygamy. They aren't effected by gay marriage at all.

2) If you extend marriage to homosexuals then you open the door to marrying trees and monkeys. See above.

3) Marriage is about raising kids. No it isn't. Lots of married couples don't have kids and don't want them. This doesn't make them less married. On the other hand lots of gay couples do have kids. They should get the same child tax benefits as everyone else because the tax benefits are for the children. This also applies to unmarried couples with children.

4) SJWs want gay marriage therefore we should oppose it. That's a bullshit reason even if it were true. Many SJWs oppose marriage of any kind and see gay marriage as conservative. If they don't want to marry they should be free to not marry. The SJW reasoning is the same as the anti-gay marriage reasoning: that other people should be denied a choice to validate their own choices.

[MarcusAu]

Oh I forget to met mention the wonderful duality of the old church wedding. Public commitment to family, children, instilling values etc etc. albeit in the skyndaddy house - but meh. A framework is a framework.
...

Tell it to Jaclyn Glenn

[MarcusAu]

I guess it's my broken nature to like order. Order in the AS sphere without SJ wingnuts. Order in our use of foundational terms. Order in who's appropriate to squeeze into a meringue dress. Logic to the framework that defines society.

I'd probably have made a good nazi.

Don't mind me.

Fuck that - I'm just looking for more excuses to see men in dresses:

[Keating]

Ok, so I imagine all Australians as Crocodile Dundee. So shoot me.

That's pretty much what primary school is here.

[Old_ones]

"Top student"

The way Watson slides them in, you could almost miss what this tweet was really all about.

http://i.imgur.com/DsnYfnC.jpg

Hardly a great endorsement of the school if that vacuous cunt was one of its top students. :doh:

Wait, 1.5 of them were high? How can half a person be high?

Does RW know how to use decimals?

:twatson:

[Keating]

3) Marriage is about raising kids. No it isn't. Lots of married couples don't have kids and don't want them. This doesn't make them less married. On the other hand lots of gay couples do have kids. They should get the same child tax benefits as everyone else because the tax benefits are for the children. This also applies to unmarried couples with children.

As I said above, I think this is the only point at which the state can claim a role at all. Freedom of association means you can choose to rub your genitals with whomever you choose. If you want government provided benefits about who you've chosen to rub your genitals with, then there must be a national interest in it. I'd argue that "traditional marriage" was a proxy for relationships that produced children, not that the intent was to provide benefits to all heterosexual couples. I'm still sceptical that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples, but it certainly happens, is certainly better than single parents, and some heterosexual couples produce god awful children.

My argument is that if we're going to go down this route, then I'd prefer the government get out of the business of marriage and providing benefits to coupledom entirely.

[MarcusAu]

Wait, 1.5 of them were high? How can half a person be high?

Does RW know how to use decimals?

:twatson:

She was obviously not topp in math.

Remedial lessons are obviously required:

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compre ... UY200_.jpg

[KiwiInOz]

Wait, 1.5 of them were high? How can half a person be high?

Does RW know how to use decimals?

:twatson:

She was obviously not topp in math.

Remedial lessons are obviously required:

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compre ... UY200_.jpg

She did say that she was only half stoned.

[Kirbmarc]

Personally I don't think it should. It shouldn't be the government's business to define social phenomena.

This was an issue I used to hash out a lot with libertarian types a decade ago. It was very easy for them to argue from a "principled" position which said that govt. shouldn't meddle with marriage anyway, ergo there was no need for any kind of equality campaign. Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good, though. While completely abandoning the legal perks of marriage for all couples might be someone's ideal solution, it's clearly not going to happen anytime soon, ergo extending those same privileges to gay couples was the proper equitable solution.

I'm pro-legal equality. I simply see it as a legal question, at least as far as the government is concerned, and not as a.cultural war.

I guess that if you really have the same rights for all kinds of contracts then it becomes only a semantic matter of how you call those contracts, and I'm not interested in it. Call it legal union if you're squeamish about calling it marriage for whatever reason.

If it works in the same way before the law I don't see why it's important to quibble one way or the other.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

3) Marriage is about raising kids. No it isn't. Lots of married couples don't have kids and don't want them. This doesn't make them less married. On the other hand lots of gay couples do have kids. They should get the same child tax benefits as everyone else because the tax benefits are for the children. This also applies to unmarried couples with children.

As I said above, I think this is the only point at which the state can claim a role at all. Freedom of association means you can choose to rub your genitals with whomever you choose. If you want government provided benefits about who you've chosen to rub your genitals with, then there must be a national interest in it. I'd argue that "traditional marriage" was a proxy for relationships that produced children, not that the intent was to provide benefits to all heterosexual couples. I'm still sceptical that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples, but it certainly happens, is certainly better than single parents, and some heterosexual couples produce god awful children.

My argument is that if we're going to go down this route, then I'd prefer the government get out of the business of marriage and providing benefits to coupledom entirely.

What about happiness? Such as the happiness of being legally recognized as a couple? Maybe it offends your religious roots? Happiness often offends religious types and SJWs. No surprise there.

(Sorry, pissy mood again)

[Keating]

What about happiness? Such as the happiness of being legally recognized as a couple? Maybe it offends your religious roots? Happiness often offends religious types and SJWs. No surprise there.

If your happiness with your partner relies on a piece of paper from the government, or from the perks the government provides, then your relationship has bigger problems.

Similarly to what Kirb said just above, what I'm proposing would be "legal equality". I'm saying the state shouldn't be issuing heterosexual marriages either. That is also legal equality, but it means the state doesn't have the ability to dictate what constitutes a valid relationship. Reducing state power in this instance seems a net good to me.

[Kirbmarc]

Oh I forget to met mention the wonderful duality of the old church wedding. Public commitment to family, children, instilling values etc etc. albeit in the skyndaddy house - but meh. A framework is a framework.

I think you have nostalgia for a past which never actually existed.

People still broke those vows at a high rate and with few real consequences (if they were men, and so couldn't get pregnant). It was more of social signalling than about true and believed commitment. Avoiding social scandal and making sure one didn't raise the children of another were the main drives for the formality of marriage. Personal,individual commitment wasn't part of the deal (indeed many times neither was personal, individual consent, marriage was more of a contract between families).

And fuck this shit.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/VBz7Dk4.jpg[/img]

This is mocking and crapping on the institution because really they want to stamp on it, own it and change it to suit. Typical SJW entryism.

You are not a girl. You are not a bride. You are fucking offensive with intent.

TRIGGERED. :lol:

[MarcusAu]

I'm not sure it's a good idea for the government to take a position on whether people love each other, or even what makes them happy.

Some things people are going to have to figure out for themselves.

Reals over feels - or however the saying goes.

[Kirbmarc]

As long as you don't want to legally or socially punish people for offending your fee-fees and you don't bar my anyone else, you can believe that you are whatever you think you are. Just don't expect everyone to agree.

The problem with people like Muscato or the trans SJW brigade is that they demand that you use their preferred pronuons or accommodate their bathroom rules for them, not that they offend anyone by saying that they're Strong Womyn with a "girlcock", a stubble and balls. Whatever.

[VickyCaramel]

3) Marriage is about raising kids. No it isn't. Lots of married couples don't have kids and don't want them. This doesn't make them less married. On the other hand lots of gay couples do have kids. They should get the same child tax benefits as everyone else because the tax benefits are for the children. This also applies to unmarried couples with children.

As I said above, I think this is the only point at which the state can claim a role at all. Freedom of association means you can choose to rub your genitals with whomever you choose. If you want government provided benefits about who you've chosen to rub your genitals with, then there must be a national interest in it. I'd argue that "traditional marriage" was a proxy for relationships that produced children, not that the intent was to provide benefits to all heterosexual couples. I'm still sceptical that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples, but it certainly happens, is certainly better than single parents, and some heterosexual couples produce god awful children.

My argument is that if we're going to go down this route, then I'd prefer the government get out of the business of marriage and providing benefits to coupledom entirely.

This is all very simple. Marriage is a legal contract, government is in the business of enforcing the law, therefore marriage is the state's business.

Once upon a time, this involved things like dowries, these days it involves things like pensions, inheritance and liability for debt. Most countries now have a whole separate set of laws regarding children which don't require marriage.

There have been situations where a gay man has been in a coma, but his partner is not recognized as next of kin, meaning a family which he hasn't seen in years can come in, ban his partner from seeing him, and being given the decision to switch the machines off and inherit the couple's house.

There is no reason that a gay couple shouldn't be entitled to the same legal protections as straight couples. This could be done with civil partnerships but why create a separate classification?

The church only got involved in the marriage business once they realized they could make money from it. However, they should be protected from being forced into anything they don't want to do.

Most countries that have made gay marriage legal have done so while giving religious institutions protections, all without too much trouble. This need not be complicated, but the way I understand it, Australia has dragged it's heels on the protections for the church.

[InfraRedBucket]

:lol:

[Brive1987]

Oh I forget to met mention the wonderful duality of the old church wedding. Public commitment to family, children, instilling values etc etc. albeit in the skyndaddy house - but meh. A framework is a framework.

I think you have nostalgia for a past which never actually existed.

People still broke those vows at a high rate and with few real consequences (if they were men, and so couldn't get pregnant). It was more of social signalling than about true and believed commitment. Avoiding social scandal and making sure one didn't raise the children of another were the main drives for the formality of marriage. Personal,individual commitment wasn't part of the deal (indeed many times neither was personal, individual consent, marriage was more of a contract between families).

And fuck this shit.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/VBz7Dk4.jpg[/img]

This is mocking and crapping on the institution because really they want to stamp on it, own it and change it to suit. Typical SJW entryism.

You are not a girl. You are not a bride. You are fucking offensive with intent.

TRIGGERED. :lol:

No, it was aspirational. Falling short doesn't negate the value of a baseline of expectation and approach. I think you are too cynical about this.

[Brive1987]

And yes. I got married in an ivy covered school chapel with a choir. 27 years later we are close to pushing our two kids (16 and 20) out of the nest.

Mission accomplished.

[MarcusAu]

I often fall short when I aspire to a baseline.

It does not look too good on my yearly performance review.

[MarcusAu]

And yes. I got married in an ivy covered school chapel with a choir
...
Mission accomplished.

Some people push polygamy too far.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Bigamy isn't a matter of recognizing a new type of marriage, it's allowing someone to have multiple simultaneous marriages.

Bigamy involves deceit.

Polygamy is different and is a live issue in America.

Utah did not become a state because it wanted all marriages to be equal.

Even now, there are people in Utah who believe all marriages should be equal.

Which have historically been exploitive, ill-defined and poor for children. Mormons that argue for polygamy would run screaming if the women were granted the same rights as women in traditional 2-person marriage.

[Kirbmarc]

Oh I forget to met mention the wonderful duality of the old church wedding. Public commitment to family, children, instilling values etc etc. albeit in the skyndaddy house - but meh. A framework is a framework.

I think you have nostalgia for a past which never actually existed.

People still broke those vows at a high rate and with few real consequences (if they were men, and so couldn't get pregnant). It was more of social signalling than about true and believed commitment. Avoiding social scandal and making sure one didn't raise the children of another were the main drives for the formality of marriage. Personal,individual commitment wasn't part of the deal (indeed many times neither was personal, individual consent, marriage was more of a contract between families).

And fuck this shit.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/VBz7Dk4.jpg[/img]

This is mocking and crapping on the institution because really they want to stamp on it, own it and change it to suit. Typical SJW entryism.

You are not a girl. You are not a bride. You are fucking offensive with intent.

TRIGGERED. :lol:

No, it was aspirational. Falling short doesn't negate the value of a baseline of expectation and approach. I think you are too cynical about this.

You call it cynicism, I call it realism.

Utopian futures and Edenian pasts are useful fantasies to support some policies or others (which might or might not beneficial depending on context) but it's best not to believe in either too much.

[katamari Damassi]

Oh I forget to met mention the wonderful duality of the old church wedding. Public commitment to family, children, instilling values etc etc. albeit in the skyndaddy house - but meh. A framework is a framework.

Then scurry off out of sight and do the legal govt contract bit. Then triumpal recessional.

Gays can have all the legal rights in the world. They can have commitment ceremonies. Whatever. But as I said marriage should retain it's relevant and consistent social definition which comes with boundaries.

And fuck this shit.

http://i.imgur.com/VBz7Dk4.jpg

This is mocking and crapping on the institution because really they want to stamp on it, own it and change it to suit. Typical SJW entryism.

You are not a girl. You are not a bride. You are fucking offensive with intent.

I just hope the guys in that photo opt to hyphenate their names.

[John D]

"Top student"

The way Watson slides them in, you could almost miss what this tweet was really all about.

http://i.imgur.com/DsnYfnC.jpg

Hardly a great endorsement of the school if that vacuous cunt was one of its top students. :doh:

If there were 3 students there could never be 50% of them high. There could be 33%, 66%, or 100%.... but nothing close to 50%. No math in Communications degree programs I guess.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm all in favor of The Skank smoking even more weed. Mollifies her urge to hurt the World back.

I'm still liberating the dog if I see him.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm all in favor of The Skank smoking even more weed. Mollifies her urge to hurt the World back.

I'm still liberating the dog if I see him.

[AndrewV69]

If there is no moral, ethical or other reason to deny marriage to two people who love each other, why can't a man have four wives?

In principle, nothing. Lobby for it if you want it. Build a support crew. Get the law changed. Then try and find four women who want to marry you. Easy.[/quote]

Or get as many sex slaves as you want. It is permitted you know.

[MarcusAu]

There could be a low Signal to Noise ratio in Communications degrees.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

If governments are going to regulate the legality of marriage, it might help to legally define 'a marriage.'

[Matt Cavanaugh]

If governments are going to regulate the legality of marriage, it might help to legally define 'a marriage.'

[shoutinghorse]

I'm all in favor of The Skank smoking even more weed. Mollifies her urge to hurt the World back.

I'm still liberating the dog if I see him.

Should be easy to spot now he's got Hi Viz.

https://i.imgur.com/n5ThT2I.png

[franc]

"Skepchick becoming self-aware", 2011, oil on canvas, Francus Hogglenonymous, $250,000 - open to competing bids

https://i.imgur.com/tkCMZ2E.jpg

[feathers]

I can't get my head around the objections to gay marriage. It costs straight people nothing. Nobody woke up the day they legalised gay marriage and discovered they were less married as a result.
...
3) Marriage is about raising kids. No it isn't. Lots of married couples don't have kids and don't want them. This doesn't make them less married. On the other hand lots of gay couples do have kids. They should get the same child tax benefits as everyone else because the tax benefits are for the children. This also applies to unmarried couples with children.

From the state's point of view, marriage is just a legal partnership contract with some more rights, which may translate in tax deductions or subsidies which cost the community money. Although that's not entirely fair to people who'd rather stay single, I think it's no big deal, especially since so many people are married they largely finance their own tax breaks.

More fundamentally, we should wonder why the state should sponsor such partnerships if not for the children, that is, either for procuring more citizens or for protecting those children's legal rights should their parents fall short.

Because if children are not the reason and there are no other motives, I see no need why the law should extend extra rights to people who want to live together.

[franc]

My fucking redneck south coast boondock, meth cooking, truck driving, pig shooting, 15yo impregnating shit-hole voted 65% for fag marriage with an 80% response.

Ball's in your court you SJW fucknuts. Go on. Spit on us again.

[MarcusAu]

"Skepchick becoming self-aware", 2011, oil on canvas, Francus Hogglenonymous, $250,000 - open to competing bids

https://i.imgur.com/tkCMZ2E.jpg

Rather festive colours.

You could bring out a set of Xmas cards.

[franc]

You could bring out a set of Xmas cards.

Minimalist purity you fucking peasant. Get a "dogs playing pool" walmart item.

[MarcusAu]

Right Ho.

https://img1.etsystatic.com/053/0/91020 ... 7_sauz.jpg

[Lsuoma]

Hey Matt, is it possible you have an older mouse, or a dirty mouse that is double-clicking?

He's getting rather old but he's a good mouse.

Nice. When the band was great.

[Lsuoma]

I'd probably have made a good nazi.

Raise your hand if you agree with this.

[VickyCaramel]

I can't get my head around the objections to gay marriage. It costs straight people nothing. Nobody woke up the day they legalised gay marriage and discovered they were less married as a result.
...
3) Marriage is about raising kids. No it isn't. Lots of married couples don't have kids and don't want them. This doesn't make them less married. On the other hand lots of gay couples do have kids. They should get the same child tax benefits as everyone else because the tax benefits are for the children. This also applies to unmarried couples with children.

From the state's point of view, marriage is just a legal partnership contract with some more rights, which may translate in tax deductions or subsidies which cost the community money. Although that's not entirely fair to people who'd rather stay single, I think it's no big deal, especially since so many people are married they largely finance their own tax breaks.

More fundamentally, we should wonder why the state should sponsor such partnerships if not for the children, that is, either for procuring more citizens or for protecting those children's legal rights should their parents fall short.

Because if children are not the reason and there are no other motives, I see no need why the law should extend extra rights to people who want to live together.

This is a list of legal consequences of forming a marriage or civil partnership in England and Wales.

1. For the purposes of capital gains tax, a married couple/civil partners can claim private residence relief for only one dwelling, even if they live apart.[1]

2. Married/civil partners can possess joint property without needing to agree a contract.

3. A spouse of a British citizen is entitled to a residence permit if the spouse is from the EU. If not, to apply for residence the British spouse must meet a minimum income requirement of at least £18,600 a year for the past six months. This rises to £22,400 for families with a child, and a further £2,400 for each further child.

4. A spouse may not be compelled by a criminal court to disclose private communications with their spouse.

5. When a married couple/civil partners separate, the courts have wide powers to divide their property and may set aside prenuptial agreements.

6. Wills are revoked on marriage or formation of a civil partnership (unless made in contemplation of marriage/formation of a civil partnership). Similarly, a divorced former spouse cannot benefit from a will made before divorce/dissolution.

7. No inheritance tax is payable on an estate inherited by a surviving spouse/civil partner, if they are UK domiciled.[2]

8. The surviving spouse inherits part or all of the estate of a spouse who dies intestate. The exact rules for intestacy are different in the countries of the UK. In England and Wales, if there are children, the survivor inherits the first £125,000 plus personal possessions plus a life interest in half the remainder; if there are no children but the deceased has surviving parents or siblings, the surviving spouse inherits the first £200,000 plus personal possessions plus half the remainder; otherwise the survivor inherits the whole estate.

9. The surviving spouse is paid a proportion of their deceased spouse's pension. The exact amount has been a subject of legal challenge following the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013: same-sex couples are only entitled to pass on a proportion of their pension since 2005 introduction of civil partnerships, considerably lowering the amount of pension provision they would pass on in the event of their death than if they had been married to an opposite sex partner. A legal challenge to change this failed in 2015.[3][4]

10. Women who become spouses to male peers and knights usually receive titles which last for the length of a marriage. Men who are married to women who are made dames do not receive titles. In the case of same-sex partnerships, whether civil partnerships or marriages, the male spouse of an ennobled man does not get any title—nor would the female partner of a similarly ennobled woman. David Furnish, the husband of Sir Elton John, has argued that there still remains a legal inequality on this matter.[5]

And here are a list of Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_an ... ted_States

While these legal consequences would effect any children within a marriage, most are actually about the rights of the partner. When you start reading through these lists, the provisions are perfectly sensible and desirable.

The argument that marriage is about or should be about children is a non-starter.

[jet_lagg]

I can't get my head around the objections to gay marriage. It costs straight people nothing. Nobody woke up the day they legalised gay marriage and discovered they were less married as a result.

The objections boils down to these:

1) If you extend marriage to homosexuals then you open the door to polygamy. Except that hasn't happened. The arguments against polygamy are still the arguments against polygamy. They aren't effected by gay marriage at all.

2) If you extend marriage to homosexuals then you open the door to marrying trees and monkeys. See above.

3) Marriage is about raising kids. No it isn't. Lots of married couples don't have kids and don't want them. This doesn't make them less married. On the other hand lots of gay couples do have kids. They should get the same child tax benefits as everyone else because the tax benefits are for the children. This also applies to unmarried couples with children.

4) SJWs want gay marriage therefore we should oppose it. That's a bullshit reason even if it were true. Many SJWs oppose marriage of any kind and see gay marriage as conservative. If they don't want to marry they should be free to not marry. The SJW reasoning is the same as the anti-gay marriage reasoning: that other people should be denied a choice to validate their own choices.

5) Marriage is state recognition of a religious and cultural institution that does not accept homosexuality, and having the state change these terms from the top down is tantamount to the state restricting one's religious and cultural freedoms.

I still disagree in the end, but it isn't without merit (see: wedding cakes). I was surprised to see how opposed my very anti-religious and gay-friendly inlaws were to homosexual marriage on the grounds that "they should have the same rights but call it something else." I think it triggers in people something like the unease I feel about forced pronoun use. The government is hinting that it's actually in control of your values and not you.

[jet_lagg]

:nin: by Brive I see

[John D]

I have three thoughts on gays and gay marriage.

1) I think the biggest reason people don't like gays/gay rights/gay marriage is due to feelings of purity. People who oppose gay behavior are primarily driven by feeling that it is gross/sick/disgusting/perverted etc. These are the same sets of feelings people have about other things like pedophilia or incest. I am not saying being gay is the same as being a pedo.... what I am saying is that it evokes the same set of feelings in many people.

2) The opposition to gay marriage is related to purity emotions. People feel that legalizing gay marriage is similar to legalizing pedophilia. It is not all that rational. People don't want the law to condone impure behavior. It makes perfect sense to some people that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope toward legalizing other uncommon behaviors that are now illegal for reasons that they are considered impure (something like sex with animals comes to mind).

3) The reason gays fought so hard for marriage is that they didn't want to settle for "civil unions". Gays not only wanted the same legal status as straights, they wanted the same legally condoned ethical status. They wanted to push toward the idea that being gay is not only legal, but that it is entirely normal.... even virtuous.

[InfraRedBucket]

Oh dear. the recent appointed new editor of UK mag Gay Times has been sacked following
the exposure of previous tweets.


https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... ality=auto

The newly-appointed editor of Britain's oldest gay title, Gay Times, has been fired after dozens of offensive tweets he had previously written were uncovered.

In an interview with BuzzFeed News published on 15 November, Josh Rivers apologised for a series of racist, misogynistic, and ableist tweets. Later that day he was suspended, and on Thursday his employment was "terminated with immediate effect".

Gay Times said in a statement: "We sincerely apologise for the offence that has been caused, particularly to those members of our wider community to whom such inappropriate and unacceptable commentary was the focus. Gay Times does not tolerate such views and will continue to strive to honour and promote inclusivity."

Rivers was only appointed last month, and the magazine is due to relaunch on 30 November. Gay Times said all articles written by him would be removed from the relaunch edition.

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... ality=auto

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... ality=auto


https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... ality=auto

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... ality=auto

Rivers begins to confess further. “My own inability to accept who I am, to accept the intersection of queerness and blackness, to find a place for myself in the world, that journey I’ve been on has led me to a place where I want to do good in the world.”

More ill advised tweets in link:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwi ... .mogaGorMJ