Gay Congressman's Spouse Denied Benefits

By the way…Omg, both, republican and democrats knowingly allowed a man who slept with a page to remain in congress. And, even allowed him to draw a pension!!! Omg! They should all be investigated for allowing him to continue to serve!!!

/sarcasm off

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And you end up with government dictating who, and how many people, can marry. What if bi-sexuals want to marry one person of each gender? Why should they have to commit to only half of their sexual identity? Or, why should polygamy between consenting adults, sound of mind, be illegal? Yes, yes, slippery slope arguement, I know. But, I’m asking these questions sincerely.
[/quote]
I understand where you are coming from here, believe me. And I think it would be nice if we could do a little de-regulating in some ways, but let me throw a hypothetical at you:

Let’s say we have a child who just so happens to be a ward of the state. It is in everybody’s best interests to see the child adopted by a guardian who has the means and the desire to do so.

When screening possible adoptive parents, what criteria should the state use in choosing a suitable home for the child? We have plenty of studies that show a stable home life for kids is best achieved by a married couple. Shouldn’t the state be discriminatory as far as wanting to get the “best possible deal” for the child?

You see, in cases like this, marital status matters to a government, and it would behoove us to recognize the benefits of the institution. As nice as it would be to avoid the sometimes messy debate about this topic, we can’t just throw our hands up in the air and call the whole thing off, can we?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way…Omg, both, republican and democrats knowingly allowed a man who slept with a page to remain in congress. And, even allowed him to draw a pension!!! Omg! They should all be investigated for allowing him to continue to serve!!!

/sarcasm off[/quote]

They shoul all be forced out! It is the end of the world!

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you end up with government dictating who, and how many people, can marry. What if bi-sexuals want to marry one person of each gender? Why should they have to commit to only half of their sexual identity? Or, why should polygamy between consenting adults, sound of mind, be illegal? Yes, yes, slippery slope arguement, I know. But, I’m asking these questions sincerely.

I understand where you are coming from here, believe me. And I think it would be nice if we could do a little de-regulating in some ways, but let me throw a hypothetical at you:

Let’s say we have a child who just so happens to be a ward of the state. It is in everybody’s best interests to see the child adopted by a guardian who has the means and the desire to do so.

When screening possible adoptive parents, what criteria should the state use in choosing a suitable home for the child? We have plenty of studies that show a stable home life for kids is best achieved by a married couple. Shouldn’t the state be discriminatory as far as wanting to get the “best possible deal” for the child?

You see, in cases like this, marital status matters to a government, and it would behoove us to recognize the benefits of the institution. As nice as it would be to avoid the sometimes messy debate about this topic, we can’t just throw our hands up in the air and call the whole thing off, can we?[/quote]

You often talk of “proof” and “plenty of studies”

would you mind linking to this well of knowledge? :slight_smile:

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
You often talk of “proof” and “plenty of studies”

would you mind linking to this well of knowledge? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Again? Jeez we’ve done this a million times around here already. I will hunt them down if you’re serious. Which I know you’re not. :slight_smile:

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you end up with government dictating who, and how many people, can marry. What if bi-sexuals want to marry one person of each gender? Why should they have to commit to only half of their sexual identity? Or, why should polygamy between consenting adults, sound of mind, be illegal? Yes, yes, slippery slope arguement, I know. But, I’m asking these questions sincerely.

I understand where you are coming from here, believe me. And I think it would be nice if we could do a little de-regulating in some ways, but let me throw a hypothetical at you:

Let’s say we have a child who just so happens to be a ward of the state. It is in everybody’s best interests to see the child adopted by a guardian who has the means and the desire to do so.

When screening possible adoptive parents, what criteria should the state use in choosing a suitable home for the child? We have plenty of studies that show a stable home life for kids is best achieved by a married couple. Shouldn’t the state be discriminatory as far as wanting to get the “best possible deal” for the child?

You see, in cases like this, marital status matters to a government, and it would behoove us to recognize the benefits of the institution. As nice as it would be to avoid the sometimes messy debate about this topic, we can’t just throw our hands up in the air and call the whole thing off, can we?[/quote]

The arguement- with which I agree- is that government should recognise civil unions which carry the same legal rights and obligations as mariages currently do while leaving the term “marriage” to religios institutions and out of the realm of government.

As far as the debate about children, “studies have shown” that gay parents are just as effective at raising healthy and successful children as their striaght counterparts. This may be a result of gay households being typically wealthier than the average or maybe two mommies really can be twice as nurturing.

How did I end up on this topic?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you end up with government dictating who, and how many people, can marry. What if bi-sexuals want to marry one person of each gender? Why should they have to commit to only half of their sexual identity? Or, why should polygamy between consenting adults, sound of mind, be illegal? Yes, yes, slippery slope arguement, I know. But, I’m asking these questions sincerely.

I understand where you are coming from here, believe me. And I think it would be nice if we could do a little de-regulating in some ways, but let me throw a hypothetical at you:

Let’s say we have a child who just so happens to be a ward of the state. It is in everybody’s best interests to see the child adopted by a guardian who has the means and the desire to do so.

When screening possible adoptive parents, what criteria should the state use in choosing a suitable home for the child? We have plenty of studies that show a stable home life for kids is best achieved by a married couple. Shouldn’t the state be discriminatory as far as wanting to get the “best possible deal” for the child?

You see, in cases like this, marital status matters to a government, and it would behoove us to recognize the benefits of the institution. As nice as it would be to avoid the sometimes messy debate about this topic, we can’t just throw our hands up in the air and call the whole thing off, can we?[/quote]

Then see if the potential parent(s) have the desire and means to do so. Marital Status isn’t the governments business. Adoption or not.

Marriage has always been defined as 1 man + 1 woman. That is the way it is defined and that is the way EVERY STATE IN THESE UNITED STATES wants it.

How do I know this? Because NO STATE LEGISLATURE ANYWHERE has changed the definition of marriage. In fact, more and more state legislatures are reaffirming the one and only one definition of marriage.

Now, if two men or women want to set up house together…go for it. None of my business. However, if they want the benefits of marriage, they have to get married by the standards set by law and that is to a person of the opposite gender. Otherwise…too bad!

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Marriage has always been defined as 1 man + 1 woman. That is the way it is defined and that is the way EVERY STATE IN THESE UNITED STATES wants it.

How do I know this? Because NO STATE LEGISLATURE ANYWHERE has changed the definition of marriage. In fact, more and more state legislatures are reaffirming the one and only one definition of marriage.

Now, if two men or women want to set up house together…go for it. None of my business. However, if they want the benefits of marriage, they have to get married by the standards set by law and that is to a person of the opposite gender. Otherwise…too bad![/quote]

Strange how the facts silence the oppostion. Hey you gays and leftys – what do you have to say about the post above?