Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 40890

(In response to the question, "How does legalized gay marriage force anything upon anyone?")

A good question. Here's something you might not have considered:

Let's say John and Martha marry and have a long life together. If John dies before Martha, Martha receives John's pension until Martha dies as well. But, what if Martha dies first and John decides to give his pension to his son, so he marries his son. Nothing wrong with that, right? I mean it's a same-sex marriage and they can't have kids so why not? Well, what about that pension and how does that affect others by continuing the payments for another 30 years? What about social security?

Why limit marriage to a single same-sex couple? Why not 5 same sex couples forming one marriage? Why not 5 opposite sex couples forming one marriage?

There's a well-known homosexual activist named Frank Kameny who says bestiality is okay as long as the animal doesn't mind. Should we allow marriage to animals or just let some people have sex with animals because they have the freedom to do so?

Should transgenders get medical benefits for surgery? How does that affect your medical premiums?

How does alll this affect our culture and society? Where do we draw the line?

scrip, city-data.com 73 Comments [6/13/2008 12:11:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
kingoftheheavies

"so he marries his son"

Well, that's incest, you sick fuck. Are there no depths of depravity you fundies DON'T fantasize about? Incest, beastiality, gay marriage, pedophilia, transgenders...blah, blah, blah.


6/13/2008 12:12:30 PM

They call me V

Well, that certainly was a... nonsensical argument, mostly because it fails harder than Epic Movie in explaining exactly what gay marriage forces on ye' old hetrosexuals

6/13/2008 12:17:07 PM

cool cats

errrr...
Stupidest slippery slope argument ever!

And I still don't see how this forces anything on anyone.

6/13/2008 12:22:01 PM

Septic Sceptic

I just measured it, and we're now beyond slippery slopes. This is the 'slippery pitfall' argument.

6/13/2008 12:25:43 PM

Prager

This slippery slope could replace KY or astroglide!

6/13/2008 12:31:13 PM

IanC

/sigh

Agree with 'slippery pitfall' .

6/13/2008 12:36:00 PM

aaa

Just word salad.

6/13/2008 12:38:12 PM

tmr

The disgusting mind of a fundie is not a place normal people should tread.

6/13/2008 12:45:23 PM

Niobe

There's this thing where children get their parents belongings upon death... what's that word again?

And I love how they make it out like the gays are ripping of security. Not like they're paying all the same taxes without being able to benefit from them or anything.

6/13/2008 12:50:50 PM

Shann

It's rare to see so many full of shit statements clustered together like that. Bravo.

6/13/2008 12:55:43 PM

Jacob

Yeah, this whole argument kind of leaps around a bit. FAIL.

6/13/2008 1:00:02 PM

apYrs

Let's say John and Marty can't marry but have a long life together. If John dies before Marty, but Marty can't receive John's pension despite the fact that John paid into it, and for any potential spouse, until he retired.

That's one reason why we queers want to marry: so that we give our partners the benefits that we have to pay for anyway and that they'd get as spouses

6/13/2008 1:09:27 PM



You're right, scrip, I hadn't thought of that. The reason being that I'm not sick like you. Now scram off.

6/13/2008 1:11:02 PM

ultimate-crunch

I always love it when people think they are blowing my mind with absurd and extreme conclusions, that I actually have no difficulty in accepting. Woohoo 5-way gay animal marriage!

6/13/2008 1:14:49 PM

Paschal Wagner

So if he married his daughter, you'd be OK with it?

6/13/2008 1:15:33 PM

Katz

Um, how about the fact that you can't legally marry your child no matter what state you're in? Or the fact that even if you could, John could easily do the same with his daughter?

Also, how the hell do you have a strictly heterosexual partnership with five people in it?

6/13/2008 1:26:37 PM

Paler_Face

Slippery pitfall, with a black hole at the bottom.
Why do fundies keep equating homosexuality with incest, bestiality and pedofilia?

6/13/2008 1:36:49 PM

Poisoned Rationality

Um... If the guy wants to give his pension to his son, he could leave it to him as an inheritance. No marriage necessary. And the fact that you thought of that speaks more about you than it does about us. *Eyeroll*

Also, I don't think medical insurance pays for sex change operations, since they don't consider it medically necessary. I could be wrong about that, but that would explain why a lot of people can't afford it or have to save for years to get one. None of that really matters in response to the stupid of the OP, but it just sort of stood out to me.

6/13/2008 1:38:04 PM

kingoftheheavies

I don't mind having a five-way hetero relationship, as long as the other four are smokin'-hot chicks.

6/13/2008 1:42:46 PM

Count Zapolai

One could argue that this argument is a good reason for seperating legal and socio-religious sides of partnerships of various sorts. It is certainly morally objectionable that fake partnerships should be abused to obtain financial benefits, so the law could take an objective view of the nature of the relationship between the parties.

I.e., two elderly ladies cohabit, they are not civil partners, married, or for that matter, homosexual, merely cost sharing. Their tax, and medical status, in my view, should be analagous to a married couple in the same circumstances.

Alternatively, a long term non-married couple should not be penalised for this fact. Certainly, a father in a non- married couple should neither loose paternity rights, nor evade child support obligations simply because that family has not decided to marry prior to the child being born.

In the bizarre world of scrip, a farmer might indeed decide to marry his sheep. Provided that has no legal consequences, it isn't of any concern to the rest of society, although, it is extremely likely, if not invariable, that such a case would involve the abuse of a non-consenting animal; arguably similar to the incest example mentioned above.

This avoids the government mandating the nature of ones personal relationships, which are no-ones buisiness but ones own.

6/13/2008 1:50:52 PM

John

Well, what about that pension and how does that affect others by continuing the payments for another 30 years? What about social security?

With private pensions, when you elect a beneficiary to continue your pension, your pension is reduced to pay for it. The reduction is proportional to the age difference. I know someone who elected her four year old granddaughter. She didn't have to marry her to do it. All the law says is that if you're married to someone, you can't drop them as a beneficiary without their permission.

Social Security charges gays (and heterosexual singles) the same tax as married people, despite giving married people substantially more benefits. So right now, they're just subsidizing married peoples' benefits with the money they collect from unmarrieds.

6/13/2008 2:00:10 PM

stogoe

Also, how the hell do you have a strictly heterosexual partnership with five people in it?

Easy, you just have one member of each of the five genders:

Male
Female
Zordinando
Lubott
Aieroniq

6/13/2008 2:13:45 PM

DW

Does scrip live in Austria by any chance?

6/13/2008 2:30:59 PM

Delmania

Here's something you may not have considered:

What if Martha has the pension and marries her son? Nothing wrong right? I mean, it's a marriage of a man and woman, right?

Why not indeed? There's a reason polygamy is illegal in the United States, why not go research that?

I am not sure how an animal constitutes a consenting adult.

Is the surgery required for the person's well being?

6/13/2008 2:47:38 PM

James

"Let's say John and Martha marry and have a long life together.... Well, what about that pension and how does that affect others by continuing the payments for another 30 years? What about social security?"

Assuming all of your logical premises are true, which they aren't, then the exact same thing would apply to John marrying his daughter and giving her the pension. What you appear to be arguing is for pension reform rather than against gay marriage.

"There's a well-known homosexual activist named Frank Kameny who says bestiality is okay as long as the animal doesn't mind."

I'm straight, and I personally couldn't give a shit if someone has sex with an animal. It's bloody strange, but it's not like I have to do it if someone else does.

"Should we allow marriage to animals or just let some people have sex with animals because they have the freedom to do so?"

Marriage is a legal contract, and animals lack the capacity both to consent to the contract and gain any benefit from it.

"Should transgenders get medical benefits for surgery?"

Yes.

"How does that affect your medical premiums?"

Not much I'd imagine. I'm not sure how medical insurance works since we have the NHS in Britain, but I'm pretty sure the premiums should be based on your own risk. The incidence of gender dysphoria is pretty low in the general population anyway.

"How does alll this affect our culture and society? Where do we draw the line?"

You're American. You barely have a culture. Maybe if you get with the times your culture and society could be one of tolerance and mutual respect?

6/13/2008 3:01:14 PM
1 2 3