Real case of "gay cowboys"

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
your statement about homo and hetro not being able to ever be friends crossed the line, and you should be called on it just as a straight person should

You can't handle the truth? I'm just pointing out the reality, which is that their can never be equality between homosexuals and heterosexual and therefore the possibility of genuine friendship is precluded. Don't shoot the messenger.

There is equality and true genuine friendship between me and my friend. I went to high school with him and he's a great guy. The only equality that I cannot affect would be whatever equality is or is not provided by law.

It is obvious to me that you have so closed your mind to the possibility of friendship and equality that you yourself are depriving yourself of it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: OdiN
The only thing I'm against that you probably are not is gay marriage.

To me, Marriage = Man + Woman, and to call a union between two men or two women "Marriage" is..well demeaning to some and it cheapens the institution of Marriage. However..so many have already done this even in the marriage of a man and woman...so that upsets me as much - not just the gay marriage thing.

Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me and if that's the life that two consenting adults choose then I don't see a reason why they shouldn't have the same type of benefits and legal protections as a couple who chooses Marriage do.

However...laws have to be changed/created for this to happen. Perhaps you should spend less time posting rants about the wrongs against gays and spend more time writing to and meeting with the lawmakers of your state, donating your time to a group that is actually trying to get something done, instead of just complaining and doing nothing.

That is all.

Lol, I rest my case. I am sickened by people like you, who claim to treat homosexual people equally, then immediately outline the reasons why it is important to NOT treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. you can't even see your own prejudices. my god!

 

[Siddhartha]

A certain percentage of the population is homosexual. This means that there are and were homosexual cowboys, soldiers, football players, doctors, lawyers, judges, senators, teachers, etc.

Do not let your homophobia get you into a state of denial.

I posted this earlier but can't find it.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: OdiN
The only thing I'm against that you probably are not is gay marriage.

To me, Marriage = Man + Woman, and to call a union between two men or two women "Marriage" is..well demeaning to some and it cheapens the institution of Marriage. However..so many have already done this even in the marriage of a man and woman...so that upsets me as much - not just the gay marriage thing.

Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me and if that's the life that two consenting adults choose then I don't see a reason why they shouldn't have the same type of benefits and legal protections as a couple who chooses Marriage do.

However...laws have to be changed/created for this to happen. Perhaps you should spend less time posting rants about the wrongs against gays and spend more time writing to and meeting with the lawmakers of your state, donating your time to a group that is actually trying to get something done, instead of just complaining and doing nothing.

That is all.

Lol, I rest my case. I am sickened by people like you, who claim to treat homosexual people equally, then immediately outline the reasons why it is important to NOT treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. you can't even see your own prejudices. my god!

Where does it say that I wanted them treated differently? Oh that's right..the bolded part says that I have no problem with equal rights.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me

Oh well, how fvcking generous of you. thank you so much.

no, actually, I won't call it a domestic partnership - I'll call it a marriage, because that is what it is.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: OdiN
To me, Marriage = Man + Woman, and to call a union...

Wow, great. Thanks for bringing that up. Definitely hasn't been rehashed enough here... and it certainly never sparks flamewars. Go back to Politics & News.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Lol, I rest my case. I am sickened by people like you, who claim to treat homosexual people equally, then immediately outline the reasons why it is important to NOT treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. you can't even see your own prejudices. my god!

And I'm sickened by gays like you who want unequal treatments under the law.
Yes, the law should apply to straight couples, but not to gays.
Nice double standard.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: OdiN
Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me

Oh well, how fvcking generous of you. thank you so much.

no, actually, I won't call it a domestic partnership - I'll call it a marriage, because that is what it is.

The dictionary disagrees...

marriage n. 1. the social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments.

I still want to bring this thread back on subject. Text

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
your statement about homo and hetro not being able to ever be friends crossed the line, and you should be called on it just as a straight person should

You can't handle the truth? I'm just pointing out the reality, which is that their can never be equality between homosexuals and heterosexual and therefore the possibility of genuine friendship is precluded. Don't shoot the messenger.

There is equality and true genuine friendship between me and my friend.

No. There isn't. You think you should be able to marry - but you don't have the generosity or decency to extend that blessing to your so-called friend. I call that selfishness.

Originally posted by: OdiN
I went to high school with him and he's a great guy.

yeah, he's a great guy for not calling you on your bullsh1t. My guess is that your presence in his life has harmed his self-esteem, not helped it. Your subtle disdain for him, expressed in your every comment about him, would no doubt have had a corrosive effect on his self esteem.

Originally posted by: OdiN
The only equality that I cannot affect would be whatever equality is or is not provided by law.

And you don't think he should be treated equally under law. Sorry, but that is bigotry.

Originally posted by: OdiN
It is obvious to me that you have so closed your mind to the possibility of friendship and equality that you yourself are depriving yourself of it.

It's about self-respect. No self-respecting homosexual would tolerate someone like you in their lives.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: OdiN
Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me

Oh well, how fvcking generous of you. thank you so much.

no, actually, I won't call it a domestic partnership - I'll call it a marriage, because that is what it is.

You want to jump in and call it a Marriage? That is like a black person demanding to have their skin identified as white. I don't know how better to put it.

Look...Marriage to me is something which, because of religious and personal reasons, is sacred. To have two men being joined and called "Marriage" is just as distasteful to my sensibilities as a man and woman who are joined but have no respect for the institution of marriage. That unfortunately happens a lot, and it offends me equally as much as if two men joined is called marriage. Do you understand now?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: OdiN
Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me

Oh well, how fvcking generous of you. thank you so much.

no, actually, I won't call it a domestic partnership - I'll call it a marriage, because that is what it is.

You want to jump in and call it a Marriage? That is like a black person demanding to have their skin identified as white. I don't know how better to put it.

Look...Marriage to me is something which, because of religious and personal reasons, is sacred. To have two men being joined and called "Marriage" is just as distasteful to my sensibilities as a man and woman who are joined but have no respect for the institution of marriage. That unfortunately happens a lot, and it offends me equally as much as if two men joined is called marriage. Do you understand now?

Of course he wont understand it. That wouldnt allow his to feel persecuted, and he couldnt play his "I'm a victim of poor me"card anymore.
He thrives on feeling like a victim, and he thrives on maintaining that stereotype of hate. Without he, hes nothing.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Specop 007
More to the point, he WANTS a double standard. If you note, hes angry because the gay partner lost everything in accordance with the laws.
Not only does he claim there is a double standard, but he in fact WANTS a double standard to exist which would make gays except from current laws!!!

as I have pointed out, legal precedent would have supported the surviving partner over the relatives of the deceased - if they had been married heterosexuals. Because the couple was same-sex, and therefore unable to marry, none of the legal precedent which favors the surviving member of the marriage over other relatives was brought into play. Your willful refusal to acknowledge this reveals your real (i.e., anti-gay) agenda.

LOOK! MORE HATE!! YAY!!

Yeah, I'm anti-gay. Boy you sure pegged me, damn.

Still striving for that double standard eh? Or did you fail to read the article you posted?

"Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature."

The will was not legally binding, it was INVALID. Apparently so is your understanding of the issue. Rather then admit the will was invalid you spew your hate propoganda.

And my point is that if they had been allowed to marry, they wouldn't have even NEEDED a will, because the property automatically goes to the surviving spouse. The POINT - you moron - is that there are hundreds of years of legal precedent protecting married HETEROSEXUALS from these kinds of snafus in the writing of wills, but ZERO protections for homosexual couples. So married heterosexuals can utterly fvck up the construction of their will - it can be legally invalid - and legal precedent means the property will still go to the surviving spouse.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

No. There isn't. You think you should be able to marry - but you don't have the generosity or decency to extend that blessing to your so-called friend. I call that selfishness.

yeah, he's a great guy for not calling you on your bullsh1t. My guess is that your presence in his life has harmed his self-esteem, not helped it. Your subtle disdain for him, expressed in your every comment about him, would no doubt have had a corrosive effect on his self esteem.

And you don't think he should be treated equally under law. Sorry, but that is bigotry.

It's about self-respect. No self-respecting homosexual would tolerate someone like you in their lives.

1. Yes I believe in Marriage. I am not preventing my friend from doing so. If he wants to engage in a social and religious joining with a woman, I'm not going to complain.

It is a label, a name. Marriage is man and woman. For two men...that does not compute. Call it whatever you want. Make up a word - I don't care WHAT you call it. I'm not saying that it shouldn't carry equal rights. You can have your word and have it mean whatever you want. I already have my word.

Do you want to be called straight? No, I don't think so. A homosexual would probably not want to be referred to as a heterosexual just as a heterosexual wouldn't want to be referred to as a homosexual. So why would you want a label that means a joining of a man and a woman? Wouldn't you find that offensive?

2. I have helped my friend, not harmed him. Your assumptions are compeltely wrong and they offend me. I harbor no disdain or hate for him. He is a good friend.

3. Yes I think he should be treated with equal rights...I have already stated that I think that.

4. Apparently you are wrong about the self-respect thing because my friend has no problem with me nor any self-respect problems.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Specop 007
More to the point, he WANTS a double standard. If you note, hes angry because the gay partner lost everything in accordance with the laws.
Not only does he claim there is a double standard, but he in fact WANTS a double standard to exist which would make gays except from current laws!!!

as I have pointed out, legal precedent would have supported the surviving partner over the relatives of the deceased - if they had been married heterosexuals. Because the couple was same-sex, and therefore unable to marry, none of the legal precedent which favors the surviving member of the marriage over other relatives was brought into play. Your willful refusal to acknowledge this reveals your real (i.e., anti-gay) agenda.

LOOK! MORE HATE!! YAY!!

Yeah, I'm anti-gay. Boy you sure pegged me, damn.

Still striving for that double standard eh? Or did you fail to read the article you posted?

"Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature."

The will was not legally binding, it was INVALID. Apparently so is your understanding of the issue. Rather then admit the will was invalid you spew your hate propoganda.

And my point is that if they had been allowed to marry, they wouldn't have even NEEDED a will, because the property automatically goes to the surviving spouse. The POINT - you moron - is that there are hundreds of years of legal precedent protecting married HETEROSEXUALS from these kinds of snafus in the writing of wills, but ZERO protections for homosexual couples. So married heterosexuals can utterly fvck up the construction of their will - it can be legally invalid - and legal precedent means the property will still go to the surviving spouse.

i'm gonna jump in here one more time and point out that odin said that homosexual couples should be afforded the same rights as hetrosexual couples...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: OdiN
Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me

Oh well, how fvcking generous of you. thank you so much.

no, actually, I won't call it a domestic partnership - I'll call it a marriage, because that is what it is.

You want to jump in and call it a Marriage? That is like a black person demanding to have their skin identified as white. I don't know how better to put it.

Look...Marriage to me is something which, because of religious and personal reasons, is sacred. To have two men being joined and called "Marriage" is just as distasteful to my sensibilities as a man and woman who are joined but have no respect for the institution of marriage. That unfortunately happens a lot, and it offends me equally as much as if two men joined is called marriage. Do you understand now?

Do I understand you now? Lol, I understand you better than you understand yourself. And I am sickened. Please have the decency to refrain from presenting yourself as supportive of equality for gay people. That is duplicity on your part. Stop being so two-faced, and own up to your own double standards. I might have a shred of repect for you if you did that.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Lol, I rest my case. I am sickened by people like you, who claim to treat homosexual people equally, then immediately outline the reasons why it is important to NOT treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. you can't even see your own prejudices. my god!

And I'm sickened by gays like you who want unequal treatments under the law.
Yes, the law should apply to straight couples, but not to gays.
Nice double standard.

I believe that he's not talking about making the law apply to straight couples but not gays, but the other way around. If a spouse in a heterosexual couple dies, the other spouse is the beneficiary of the estate. However, this is not the case for this gay couple. That fact comes first, then followed by the incorrect will (which I'm guessing wouldn't matter that it was incorrect in a heterosexual marriage).

However, the article doesn't mention if they wanted to get married or if heterosexual couples are legally married if they live together for so long as in this case. So perhaps a heterosexual couple could be treated the same way or differently. More facts are needed.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Specop 007
More to the point, he WANTS a double standard. If you note, hes angry because the gay partner lost everything in accordance with the laws.
Not only does he claim there is a double standard, but he in fact WANTS a double standard to exist which would make gays except from current laws!!!

as I have pointed out, legal precedent would have supported the surviving partner over the relatives of the deceased - if they had been married heterosexuals. Because the couple was same-sex, and therefore unable to marry, none of the legal precedent which favors the surviving member of the marriage over other relatives was brought into play. Your willful refusal to acknowledge this reveals your real (i.e., anti-gay) agenda.

LOOK! MORE HATE!! YAY!!

Yeah, I'm anti-gay. Boy you sure pegged me, damn.

Still striving for that double standard eh? Or did you fail to read the article you posted?

"Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature."

The will was not legally binding, it was INVALID. Apparently so is your understanding of the issue. Rather then admit the will was invalid you spew your hate propoganda.

And my point is that if they had been allowed to marry, they wouldn't have even NEEDED a will, because the property automatically goes to the surviving spouse. The POINT - you moron - is that there are hundreds of years of legal precedent protecting married HETEROSEXUALS from these kinds of snafus in the writing of wills, but ZERO protections for homosexual couples. So married heterosexuals can utterly fvck up the construction of their will - it can be legally invalid - and legal precedent means the property will still go to the surviving spouse.

And yes, that sucks. So do something about it. Get some laws made. They won't be made with homosexuals sitting around doing nothing but complaining. Organize something...do SOMETHING. But complaining about it on an internet forum is NOT the way to best use your drive to bring these issues to light.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: OdiN
Call it a domestic partnership or whatever name you guys want to come up with. That's fine by me

Oh well, how fvcking generous of you. thank you so much.

no, actually, I won't call it a domestic partnership - I'll call it a marriage, because that is what it is.

You want to jump in and call it a Marriage? That is like a black person demanding to have their skin identified as white. I don't know how better to put it.

Look...Marriage to me is something which, because of religious and personal reasons, is sacred. To have two men being joined and called "Marriage" is just as distasteful to my sensibilities as a man and woman who are joined but have no respect for the institution of marriage. That unfortunately happens a lot, and it offends me equally as much as if two men joined is called marriage. Do you understand now?

Do I understand you now? Lol, I understand you better than you understand yourself. And I am sickened. Please have the decency to refrain from presenting yourself as supportive of equality for gay people. That is duplicity on your part. Stop being so two-faced, and own up to your own double standards. I might have a shred of repect for you if you did that.

I don't have those double standards that you speak of.

Look...I'm saying that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.

Where's the double standard in that?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Specop 007
More to the point, he WANTS a double standard. If you note, hes angry because the gay partner lost everything in accordance with the laws.
Not only does he claim there is a double standard, but he in fact WANTS a double standard to exist which would make gays except from current laws!!!

as I have pointed out, legal precedent would have supported the surviving partner over the relatives of the deceased - if they had been married heterosexuals. Because the couple was same-sex, and therefore unable to marry, none of the legal precedent which favors the surviving member of the marriage over other relatives was brought into play. Your willful refusal to acknowledge this reveals your real (i.e., anti-gay) agenda.

LOOK! MORE HATE!! YAY!!

Yeah, I'm anti-gay. Boy you sure pegged me, damn.

Still striving for that double standard eh? Or did you fail to read the article you posted?

"Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature."

The will was not legally binding, it was INVALID. Apparently so is your understanding of the issue. Rather then admit the will was invalid you spew your hate propoganda.

And my point is that if they had been allowed to marry, they wouldn't have even NEEDED a will, because the property automatically goes to the surviving spouse. The POINT - you moron - is that there are hundreds of years of legal precedent protecting married HETEROSEXUALS from these kinds of snafus in the writing of wills, but ZERO protections for homosexual couples. So married heterosexuals can utterly fvck up the construction of their will - it can be legally invalid - and legal precedent means the property will still go to the surviving spouse.

I suggest you get off your gay horse and review state laws. Most states have restrictions on what is considered a "domestic couple", be it straight OR gay. Just because a man and woman live together, doesnt mean they are automatically a domestic couple.
Additionally, they could have made a legal binding will. The failure isnt in the state laws, its in the couples. They didnt do what was necesary in the will. ITS THAT SIMPLE. If they had followed the laws and got the signature, the issue of domestic couples, gay, married, whatever, wouldnt even be a factor.
Your blaming state laws on what comes down to their own laziness to properly address the issue.

 

[Siddhartha]

It is pointless to argue with bigots. You are not going to change their opinions. Their bigotry is based on beliefs they learned at an early age. It would take a major life altering experience for them to change the way the think.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It is pointless to argue with bigots. You are not going to change their opinions. Their bigotry is based on beliefs they learned at an early age. It would take a major life altering experience for them to change the way the think.

i'm not sure who this is directed at...

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It is pointless to argue with bigots. You are not going to change their opinions. Their bigotry is based on beliefs they learned at an early age. It would take a major life altering experience for them to change the way the think.

i'm not sure who this is directed at...

I'm just going to assume it's neither of us.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It is pointless to argue with bigots. You are not going to change their opinions. Their bigotry is based on beliefs they learned at an early age. It would take a major life altering experience for them to change the way the think.

My opinion that this particular gay couple was too lazy to do the proper paperwork?
Damn right you wont change my mind on it.
I dont do half my taxes then submit it just cause I dont want to do them, i do it correctly. And they should have done the same with the will. Not buy the $40 Make-A-Will kit from Office Depot, but went and had an attorney draw up a proper, legally binding will.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It is pointless to argue with bigots. You are not going to change their opinions. Their bigotry is based on beliefs they learned at an early age. It would take a major life altering experience for them to change the way the think.

My opinion that this particular gay couple was too lazy to do the proper paperwork?
Damn right you wont change my mind on it.

Of course, what you willfully refuse to acknowledge is that if it had been a married heterosexual couple who had been "too lazy" to do the proper paperwork, the outcome would have been very different.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It is pointless to argue with bigots. You are not going to change their opinions. Their bigotry is based on beliefs they learned at an early age. It would take a major life altering experience for them to change the way the think.

i'm not sure who this is directed at...

I assume it is directed at Odin and Specious 007