Feds Deny Death Benefits to Gay Congressman's Spouse

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's the end all, be all.

Take the cats. Female cats "hide" thier litter so the old "Tomcat" won't find them. If he does, then he might kill the kittens because somehow he knows the female will come back into heat and he can do the "wild thing" again. It's a perfectly natural response, but it's not right.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.


The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.


Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

Hmmmm....if being gay were normal, and not being able to procreate because you can't get another man pregnant were normal.........

"normal" people would be able to differentiate between attraction and procreation.

hhmmmmmm....

What do you think the point of being attracted to the opposite sex is?
your views on attraction and procreation are too narrow. without getting into too much verbage.. attraction satisfies one instinct, while procreation satisfies another. Gay attraction is simple enough..just as you are attracted to women, others are attracted to the same sex.

Procreation is an instinct that kicks in when a mate is found.

To make it simpler (or not) what about those couples that marry and CHOOSE never to have kids? or couples that go have vesectomies or have other "fixes" done to stop having children? Attraction does not automatically lead to procreation. So gay attraction has no impact one way or another on the instincts needed to be satisfied for procreation/

my .02

my .02


So are you saying that a gay man would go have sex with a woman to fulfill his need to procreate?

:roll: and you thought what I said earlier about repubs fighting for the right to have gay sex was dumb?

you aren't even trying to comprehend, there is no point in discussing this with someone who is so willing to be ignorant.

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,334
126
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: OrByte
I think the ONE good thing that has come out of the Foley debacle is this:

Clearly, all republicans are NOW willing to fight for Foley's right to have gay sex with young underage males...

now who would have guessed THAT would happen in this day and age!?

I'm politically liberal. I support Foley's (and all other gay adults') rights to have sex with other consenting adults. I.e., anyone over the age of 16.

If a heterosexual man has sex with a 17 year old, he's a stud, or just very lucky. If a gay man has sex with a 17 or 18 year old, he's a "pedophile". These double standards are coming primarily from Democrats. Not that Democrats have ever done much for gay people. (Other than DOMA and of course don't ask don't tell.)


I agree with you on this one. I'll also add the double standard with older women having sex with young boys, as opposed to older men having sex with young girls.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: JD50
Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

That's the problem, you can't really explain it....

Because it has been drilled into his head since before he can remember.

Another good point, anything that someone was raised to believe must not be true, since it was "drilled into their head since before they can remember"

I guess the sky isn't blue and the water isn't wet then.

If you can't make a case against something other then to say that "It's not normal", don't expect to convince a lot of people with your golden rhetoric.

The point is you have to analyze and come to your own decisions.Who is to say what is normal and what isn't. I say if it isn't hurting anybody, then what business is it of mine??

I'm not trying to convince anybody, I have rarely seen people change their minds on this message board. The reason that I say that gay is not normal and straight is normal is because of the obvious reasons. If being gay were normal, and everyone was gay, then who would be having kids? If you can pull up an article somewhere detailing an epidemic of gay people going out and having straight sex just to have kids then I might go with the point that homosexual attraction and procreating are mutually exclusive.

and with that being said it is obvious my whole short and simple explanation is lost on you.

attraction is not a precursor for procreation. Procreation is the precursor for procreation..attraction only makes it more fun :)
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,334
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.


The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.


Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

Hmmmm....if being gay were normal, and not being able to procreate because you can't get another man pregnant were normal.........

"normal" people would be able to differentiate between attraction and procreation.

hhmmmmmm....

What do you think the point of being attracted to the opposite sex is?
your views on attraction and procreation are too narrow. without getting into too much verbage.. attraction satisfies one instinct, while procreation satisfies another. Gay attraction is simple enough..just as you are attracted to women, others are attracted to the same sex.

Procreation is an instinct that kicks in when a mate is found.

To make it simpler (or not) what about those couples that marry and CHOOSE never to have kids? or couples that go have vesectomies or have other "fixes" done to stop having children? Attraction does not automatically lead to procreation. So gay attraction has no impact one way or another on the instincts needed to be satisfied for procreation/

my .02

my .02


So are you saying that a gay man would go have sex with a woman to fulfill his need to procreate?

:roll: and you thought what I said earlier about repubs fighting for the right to have gay sex was dumb?

you aren't even trying to comprehend, there is no point in discussing this with someone who is so willing to be ignorant.


You were saying that republicans were fighting for the right of someone to have gay sex with a minor. I have not seen one Republican or conservative on this board saying that it is ok to have sex with a minor, gay or straight.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: JD50
If you can pull up an article somewhere detailing an epidemic of gay people going out and having straight sex just to have kids then I might go with the point that homosexual attraction and procreating are mutually exclusive.

Actually I have a neice who is gay. She and her friend have been together for 15 years?? They both went and had sex with a guy just to get pregnant. They had talked it out and they had sex with the same guy 1 year apart so now their kids are half-brothers.

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,334
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
[
and with that being said it is obvious my whole short and simple explanation is lost on you.

attraction is not a precursor for procreation. Procreation is the precursor for procreation..attraction only makes it more fun :)


Like I said, I will concede that point if you show me evidence of an epidemic of gay guys going out and having sex with women just to have a kid.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
[
and with that being said it is obvious my whole short and simple explanation is lost on you.

attraction is not a precursor for procreation. Procreation is the precursor for procreation..attraction only makes it more fun :)


Like I said, I will concede that point if you show me evidence of an epidemic of gay guys going out and having sex with women just to have a kid.

you dont get it. And I never said that.

so why should I show you anything?

..so willing to be ignorant...:(

I can at least make the point that there are plenty of gay couples trying to adopt kids.

will that work for you?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,334
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JD50
If you can pull up an article somewhere detailing an epidemic of gay people going out and having straight sex just to have kids then I might go with the point that homosexual attraction and procreating are mutually exclusive.

Actually I have a neice who is gay. She and her friend have been together for 15 years?? They both went and had sex with a guy just to get pregnant. They had talked it out and they had sex with the same guy 1 year apart so now their kids are half-brothers.

Lucky guy;)

Anyways, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I dont think it happens on a regular basis. I could be wrong, and no one really knows if everyone was gay if they would go have sex with the opposite sex just procreate.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,334
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
[
and with that being said it is obvious my whole short and simple explanation is lost on you.

attraction is not a precursor for procreation. Procreation is the precursor for procreation..attraction only makes it more fun :)


Like I said, I will concede that point if you show me evidence of an epidemic of gay guys going out and having sex with women just to have a kid.

you dont get it. And I never said that.

so why should I show you anything?

..so willing to be ignorant...:(

I can at least make the point that there are plenty of gay couples trying to adopt kids.

will that work for you?

Just because I have a different point of view than you does not make me ignorant. I would have to say that making assumptions about someone over a few posts on a message board is pretty ignorant.

No, wanting to adopt a child is not the same as having the natural urge to have sex with a female to have a baby. I believe you brought up the point earlier of a couple not wanting to have kids at all, and I do not think that that is normal either.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JD50
If you can pull up an article somewhere detailing an epidemic of gay people going out and having straight sex just to have kids then I might go with the point that homosexual attraction and procreating are mutually exclusive.

Actually I have a neice who is gay. She and her friend have been together for 15 years?? They both went and had sex with a guy just to get pregnant. They had talked it out and they had sex with the same guy 1 year apart so now their kids are half-brothers.

Lucky guy;)

Anyways, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I dont think it happens on a regular basis. I could be wrong, and no one really knows if everyone was gay if they would go have sex with the opposite sex just procreate.

The way things are now, if one of them were to get killed in a car accident the other's kid might not end up with the surviving parent. If she did, she woulod probably have to go thru a court battle to adopt the child to make sure she would be covered by health insurance.

It's just a big mess the way things are now and it would be a lot easier to allow a civil union between gay couples. The fact is that they are together, have been for some time, have kids, and they aren't going to change because it offends your sensbilities.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,334
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JD50
If you can pull up an article somewhere detailing an epidemic of gay people going out and having straight sex just to have kids then I might go with the point that homosexual attraction and procreating are mutually exclusive.

Actually I have a neice who is gay. She and her friend have been together for 15 years?? They both went and had sex with a guy just to get pregnant. They had talked it out and they had sex with the same guy 1 year apart so now their kids are half-brothers.

Lucky guy;)

Anyways, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I dont think it happens on a regular basis. I could be wrong, and no one really knows if everyone was gay if they would go have sex with the opposite sex just procreate.

The way things are now, if one of them were to get killed in a car accident the other's kid might not end up with the surviving parent. If she did, she woulod probably have to go thru a court battle to adopt the child to make sure she would be covered by health insurance.

It's just a big mess the way things are now and it would be a lot easier to allow a civil union between gay couples. The fact is that they are together, have been for some time, have kids, and they aren't going to change because it offends your sensbilities.


I agree with that, I see nothing wrong with civil unions.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. Why not promote marriage for gay people, as well as heterosexual people. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the State for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier and have much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.


The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the marriages and families of the 95% of people who are heterosexual.

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.


Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person.


That is like saying a ban on inter-racial marriage is fair becuase everyone gets to marry someone of their own race. What happens if a white person falls in love with a black person? Tough luck? It is an incredibly glib and superficial response, and only indiciates that you are not willing to be honest in this discussion.

Do you seriously think that homosexual people should stay in the closet and marry someone of the opposite sex? Do you seriously think that would be healthy or beneficial for the gay person, the heterosexual spouse, or society at large? No! Gay people do not have the luxury of marrying someone of the opposite sex, because it is totally immoral to deceive another person in that way.

Originally posted by: JD50
Why can't a man marry 10 women,

Because there is a limit on the number of individuals one may marry. This aplies to marriages between same-sex couples as well as marriages between opposite-sex couples. For example, in Massachucetts, gay people are able to marry one person of the same gender, just as heterosexual folks are free to marry one person (of the opposite gender).

Originally posted by: JD50
why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl,

Because a 12 year old cannot legally give consent to marriage.

Originally posted by: JD50
why can't a brother marry his sister,

Theoretically, incestuous marriages resulting in childbirth could produce genetically damaged or genetically unhealthy offspring. The chance of this is relatively low, tho. I personally don't have a moral problem with incestuous relationships (although I think people in these relationships are probably not going to be terribly emotionally or psychologically healthy).

Originally posted by: JD50
why cant a man marry a man?

A man can marry a man (and a woman can marry a woman) in Canada, Massachucetts, Spain, the Netherlands, etc.

Originally posted by: JD50
Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

Social mores play a role. Ultimately, I do not believe that social mores can be allowed to trump equality before the law which is everyone's right as per the constitution.

Originally posted by: JD50
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Being gay is perfectly normal. It is as normal as being left-handed. Every population of humans ever studied has been shown to have homosexuals, just as every human population has left-handed people. It would be highly abnormal for a population to have no homosexual peoplem just as it would be unusual to find a human population with no left-handed individuals.

Originally posted by: JD50
Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

Being homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual. I suspect what you are trying to say is that gay people are statisically rare (being less than 10% of the population). However the fact that a personality trait or biological attribute is rare, does not therefore mean it is undesirable. E.g., being left-handed is uncommon - but it is certainly not true to say that being left-handed is morally undesirable.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JD50
If you can pull up an article somewhere detailing an epidemic of gay people going out and having straight sex just to have kids then I might go with the point that homosexual attraction and procreating are mutually exclusive.

Actually I have a neice who is gay. She and her friend have been together for 15 years?? They both went and had sex with a guy just to get pregnant. They had talked it out and they had sex with the same guy 1 year apart so now their kids are half-brothers.

Lucky guy;)

Anyways, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I dont think it happens on a regular basis. I could be wrong, and no one really knows if everyone was gay if they would go have sex with the opposite sex just procreate.

The way things are now, if one of them were to get killed in a car accident the other's kid might not end up with the surviving parent. If she did, she woulod probably have to go thru a court battle to adopt the child to make sure she would be covered by health insurance.

It's just a big mess the way things are now and it would be a lot easier to allow a civil union between gay couples. The fact is that they are together, have been for some time, have kids, and they aren't going to change because it offends your sensbilities.


I agree with that, I see nothing wrong with civil unions.

LOL, then what are we arguing about??

thread title:

Feds Deny Death Benefits to Gay Congressman's Spouse

If they had a civil union then this wouldn't be an issue.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
what's so bad about legalizing polygamy, as long as it's not done for the purpose of perpetuating insurance fraud or something.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,742
2,518
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
(multiple quotes omitted)
If they had a civil union then this wouldn't be an issue.

Your quoting and requoting confused me, but I think you are missing the point. This couple had a legal marriage (stronger rights than a civil union) under Massachusetts law.
They were denied benefits under federal law because the federal Defense of Marriage Act explicitly states the federal government will not recognize gay marriages, civil unions, or the like-the only thing the federal government will recognize as a marriage is one man and one woman.

If this couple had a civil union the result would be the same-SOL.

Scroll up this thread, I have a couple of earlier posts on point.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
what's so bad about legalizing polygamy, as long as it's not done for the purpose of perpetuating insurance fraud or something.

therein lies the reasoning most conservatives use to combat gay-marriage: it will lead to more and more liberal definitions of marriage that are completely unacceptable. It would open up Pandora's box of marriages. People will eventually claim intolerance when they are not allowed to marry their own children, or dogs, etc...