cameron, homosexual, homophobia, intolerance, gay, marriage, traditional, children, bigotry, asshat, speenweasel, stupid,In the "It's not logic, but it's sure something" category, another
attempt at logic from Playful "I call women fat so I feel like a man!" Walrus.
Is it possibly to truly achieve marriage equality? Despite you, but certainly not with you.
Much of existing family law is predicated on marriage being something that involves both a husband and a wife, as it has been throughout history. who's history, asshat? I love this argument. "
Traditional marriage" as these spleenweasels define it has existed for maybe 100 years. Also, keep in mind before the invention of things like
antibiotics, the average marriage lasted all of 7 years. "Til death do us part" wasn't really that much of a commitment.
If we are truly to have "marriage equality" so that the voluntary association of two men or two women must be treated, under law, exactly the same as natural marriage "natural" marriage? what's that? i love how these asshats add qualifiers to the word "marriage" the way Angelina Jolie adds children to her family.
, I'm curious as to how this would work in the following areas: you could try doing some research this time.
Adoption – Same-sex couples would have just as much standing to adopt as a bride-groom couple, correct? actually, in some places they do without marriage.
Some people who devalue either masculinity or femininity, gender stereotypes are meaningless. they change from culture to culture. try again.
fatherhood or motherhood, being gay doesn't mean one "devalues" fatherhood or motherhood. though by this logic a woman whose husband died would be positively abusive towards her children to wait more than a week to get married.
don't see this is as
a problem, but I think most people do most people you know, perhaps
, even if they support neutering state marriage licensing. adding to something is not neutering. neutering is removing. just ask my dog.
Paternity Assumption the opiners in general have a serious bug up their collective asses about this issue, which really makes me wonder about their personal lives. this is an easily solvable problem: if you get married, any child born during the marriage is automatically considered the child of both partners, unless one partner sues for paternity/maternity testing. that's how it works currently, so why change it?
– In a bride-groom couple, for the protection of the child (and to keep the state from being on the hook for child support he's got a bug up his ass about welfare, too. look, asshat, if the parent ordered to pay support does not or cannot, what do you think happens? yes, we give the custodial parent help so that the child doesn't starve to death. do you think starving children to death is a just punishment for their daring to be poor? or are you trying to argue that a gay couple would be more likely to be poor? is there even an argument here beyond your reflexive hatred of gays/poor people/minorities/single mothers?
), the groom husband, actually. if you're not married, there is no presumption
is considered the legal father by default of any child born to the bride. Would the non-carrying lesbian be considered the default parent of a child her partner carries, whether or not she agreed to the pregnancy, and regardless of how that pregnancy was accomplished? If not, then neither should a groom. Would a lesbian woman be held accountable if it turns out that her partner is secretly bisexual and turns up pregnant? BWAHAHAHAHAHA that's so ignorant/bigoted it's like dadaist humor.
Child Custody - Women are often given preference over men in child custody matters, even when the man begs for custody. perhaps this is walrus' problem in life? Hey, gay people didn't steal your kid. neither did fatties. leave them alone!
How would this work when it comes to same-sex couples who are being divorced? so, women being given preference for no real reason is a good thing? fairness and equity in child custody would be bad? what?!
Would fathers being divorced from mothers gain more from this? Would the biological parent, if any, be favored? not with the presumption listed above, no.
If not, what implications would that have when it comes to traditional stepfathers and stepmothers? as a stepparent is a different thing from a parent, no. get a dictionary.
I will skip "Child Support" as I've already dealt with that issue twice now.
watch in wonder as Walrus answers his own asinine question.
Abortion Rights - One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights? Oh, I can see the dilemma now! I suspect abortion rights will win that battle, especially if feminists realize that men could also use any precedent set. duh, asshat. married hetero couples also use expensive reproductive technologies to procreate, and no, you can't block an abortion by complaining about how much you paid. also, why would a lesbian, after going through that kind of effort to get pregnant, abort just because the relationship ended? it makes no sense.
Community Property was based on the idea that a marriage was creating a cooperative microcosm of society with a division of labor, more likely than not to raise children biologically related to both spouses, thereby perpetuating society. In order to treat all couples equally, would the concept of community property be diminished? since community property is not diminished in cases where both spouses work and there are no children (you know, like mine), no. asshatting asshat. seriously, i'm missing fitz at this point. he does enjoy pulling a fitz, but he does understand the law.
I'll skip alimony, because the question can be answered the same way as the community property question.
And now, for the coup de grace: Walrus argues that we shouldn't allow same sex marriage because
it will throw off marriage statistics. seriously.
Marriage Statistics - Would government agencies be allowed to collect, compile, and release statistics that distinguish between natural and neutered marriage? If not, marriage statistics could show marriage as being less favorable than they have in the past in terms of longevity (of the participants as well as the marriage), fidelity, domestic violence, poverty, mental health, positive effect on children, etc. how about we not allow adoption because it would be hurtful to ask people if their children are adopted or not, and that would throw off statistics related to procreation? also, there is no evidence, none, that same sex marriages don't last as long, or that same sex marriages are more subject to infidelity* (none of the government's concern anyway), domestic violence*, poverty, mental health issues*, or problems with children*. nice try at slipping it in there, though, spleenweaseling asshat.
So there we have it: yet another mess of bigotry, assumptions, baseless assertions, and squickiness, courtesy of the guy who thinks that you have to be fat to be offended by a fat joke.
*You give me some debunked study by
Paul Cameron, et al. to prove this point and I will come over there.
