scrip #fundie

scrip #fundie city-data.com

(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?

74 comments

old comment by 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.

old comment by 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.

old comment by 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?

old comment by Horsefeathers

Oh good god...

"Nothing wrong with that, right?"

You apparently don't think so. This is your little hypothetical, remember?

"I mean it's a same-sex marriage and they can't have kids so why not?"

Oh, I can think of a handful of reasons right off the top of my head.

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

You're not bright. I'll play along though. What's to stop John from marrying his daughter under the current rules of marriage (as far as you seem to understand them that is)? I mean, they're of opposite sex so, by your reasoning, it should be perfectly okey-dokey.

"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?"

Fine by me. Personally I don't give a damn who marries who or how many. It'd be a hell of a legal/tax mess to figure out though when it comes to divorce or death.

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

Frank appears to have a similar number of brain cells to yourself. You two should get along just fine.

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

Consent you moron. Look it up.

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

Medical benefits such as what? A tax rebate or some shit? Discount coupons? Explain yourself. I'm pretty sure that it's considered an elective surgery and, as such, probably isn't covered by most insurance companies as it is.

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

You mean how does the real issue effect our culture and society, or this bullshit you've just spewed forth?

old comment by AXB

"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?"

Um, by your logic, the exact same thing can happen between a father and his daughter, not just his son. You're extremely unintelligent.

"Should transgenders get medical benefits for surgery?"

Um... yes? Just because you don't agree with someone else's lifestyle or beliefs doesn't mean you get to strip them of their rights to do what they want with their lives. I find sex-changes creepy and weird, but just because I don't like something doesn't mean I can keep another person from living the way they want to.

old comment by Vulpin

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

They should if their body dysphoria is such that only SRS can relieve it (the standards of care for transgendered (note the spelling) don't simply allow for anyone to get SRS or even hormones as a means of reducing errors, and very few if any transgendered people would argue against the SoC for gender identity). Right now it doesn't affect anyone's premiums at all - SRS is covered by almost no carriers, and thus is personally funded by the individual in question (to the tune of over $20000 if they choose USAian doctors). Hormones are often prescribed, but with as small a population as transfolk are, the collective hit on medical premiums is much lower than, say, the hit from ADHD meds.

old comment by splattaflix

Let's say John and Martha marry and have a long life together. If Martha dies before John, but comes back from the dead, would it still be necrophilia? But what if the dog dies first? Should they eat the body or have sex with it? Maybe they should marry the dog first, then they can have the dog's pension when it dies.

What if Martha wanted to become a male dog? should she get medical benefits for the surgery? Or should she have sex with a corpse first? If the corpse was female, is this acceptable, since the dog can't have puppies? If the dog DID have puppies, and John marries 5 of them for the pension, is that considered beastiality or pedophilia?

If John and Martha married their gay child, would we still be able to own dogs? How would that affect our culture and society?

- see that, I'm thinking like scrip. It's not hard, really. Just take homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia, throw em in a word blender, and then pour em down a slippery slope, and voila: instant fundie argument.

old comment by Boadicea

Jumpin' Jeebus on a pogo stick! Why do fundies have such a hard time with the concept of CONSENT?!

Sex with animals is wrong because animals CANNOT GIVE CONSENT! If animals COULD give consent, do you really think they'd consent to being killed so we could eat them? Make shoes out of them? Yeesh ...

Sex with children is wrong because children CANNOT GIVE CONSENT!! If a child cannot sign a legal contract, join the military, vote, or get a driver's license, they CANNOT GIVE CONSENT TO SEX!! How hard is this to undertand?!

And fundies need to understand the different between pedophilia (sexual attraction to prepubescent children of either sex) and pederasty (sexual attraction to pubescent children, i.e. teenagers).

Considering how much of this bullsh*t we see, I'v decided that becoming a fundie turns you into a pervert because all they seem to think about is sex with kids, teenagers, animals, dead people, blah, blah, blah.

Blech.

scrip #fundie city-data.com

74 comments

Confused?