andy31
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 02:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, you said to Ionus:

Quote:
Your view on this issue is not going to prevail.


How exactly can you message that? By you and others refusal to acknowledge a common sense, or by the fact, that most states cave in to gays whining, and let them get married?

In either case Ionus, I, and vast number of Americans are able to recognize how ridiculous gay marriage is. I personally hope that reminding states will keep their sanity and will not sign up to this.
andy31
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 02:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sorry, it should be : "... measure this" and not "... message this".
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 03:22 pm
@andy31,
Andy...

...next year there will be more states allowing gay marriage than this year...and the year after that...even more.

And the courts will be siding with the "allowing gay marriage" side more and more.

That'd be my bet.

Bet whichever way you want.


andy31
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 03:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Not if majority will be in republican hands. Someone will stand for principles. Otherwise I'd agree with you, but I still wouldn't bet on it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 04:29 pm
@andy31,
Not sure why you want to deny some people the right to marry, Andy, or why you think "the Republicans" will champion your prejudice, but you, and anyone else thinking as you do, are on the losing side of this particular issue.

This is, as someone suggested earlier, toothpaste that will never be put back into the bottle.

I am happy most people in this country are intelligent enough to see that the time has come for this move...and will insure that it happens.
andy31
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 05:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
This is, as someone suggested earlier, toothpaste that will never be put back into the bottle.


It did happened in California, just to be reversed again.
Another example is prohibition - equally stupid law that was reversed.
Although partially I am in agreement with you Frank. In deed some states are doom--they accept that law, now they are stuck with it.

You have repeatedly ask me (and you asked Ionus) why would I not just let gay couples be married if they want to.
I can't speak for Ionus, but I see this to be not only legal issue, but also a moral issue. So as much as you can change the law, you can't change the morality part of it.




Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 06:55 pm
@andy31,
a moral issue.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 08:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Absolute, abject nonsense on your part. Not worthy of a reasonable reply.
Then I win that one .

Quote:
Nobody thinks gays "need" marriage...in fact, nobody thinks straights "need" marriage.
Wrong . The law is laid out for marriage to give people access to their spouse and the spouse's property . If you had of researched the problem, you would know many gays have been denied access to their loved ones on their death bed .

Quote:
No. If you want to make yourself understood...do so.
It is only you who cant understand . Rose coloured glasses, methinks .

You have ignored any difficulty presented . To the aged and the young, radical is always the best way . The young because they see things simplistically, the aged because they want to see change before they die . That I think is why you have avoided anything difficult .

Quote:
Your view on this issue is not going to prevail. Live with it.
I find it interesting that instead of tackling any difficulties I have raised you spend your time with the equivalent of "nyah nyah, I win, you lose" comments.

Look at your bloody minded attitude . We will force everyone, and if the consequences are damnable, then it is not our fault, we will have moved on to another huge injustice, where we will save the world !!! Again. Or still.

Greenies are like that...just do as we say who cares about the consequences .
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2015 08:30 pm
@djjd62,
As a grub, I dreamed of marrying a butterfly . What I ended up marrying was Mothra .

In principle, I strongly want homosexuals to be accepted by the mainstream but it is counterproductive to force 45% to accept something so 5% of 6% can use the term married . Just give them a legal recognition so the bloody awful things that have happened to some couples will stop .
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 05:11 am
@Ionus,
If you want to think you "won" something...fine with me. Don't mind if I laugh.

No one "needs" marriage in order to gain access to to property or to see a loved on on his/her death bed. Many people do that without being married. There is no "need." Gays "want" the right to marry...and they will get it, despite people like you.


Quote:
You have ignored any difficulty presented . To the aged and the young, radical is always the best way . The young because they see things simplistically, the aged because they want to see change before they die . That I think is why you have avoided anything difficult .


I am sure there are people here laughing with me about the thought of me avoiding "anything difficult."

Your views will not prevail in this, Ionus...and more than likely there will come a day when people will wonder what motivated people like you on this. My guess is...the same kind of thing that once motivated people to suppose women should not own property...or be allowed to vote.

Your views on this are a joke for a future audience.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 05:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
No one "needs" marriage in order to gain access to to property or to see a loved on on his/her death bed.
I told you to do your research Frank . There are next of kin that have denied a homosexual partner access to see their loved one because they have no status . The law decides who is next of kin .

Quote:
I am sure there are people here laughing with me about the thought of me avoiding "anything difficult."
I still maintain you ignored any difficulties presented, perhaps because you dont know the answers or perhaps because you are too bloody minded to care about forcing people to agree to things .

Quote:
My guess is...the same kind of thing that once motivated people to suppose women should not own property...or be allowed to vote.
Your guess is wrong . I stated what my motivation is but you didnt read it or couldnt comprehend it . Incidentally there are many instances in history where women had power and property, thats just another area where the new post-Nazi generations have bullshited to everyone .

Quote:
Your views on this are a joke for a future audience.
I hope you are around to take responsibility for your views .
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 05:47 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
No one "needs" marriage in order to gain access to to property or to see a loved on on his/her death bed.
I told you to do your research Frank . There are next of kin that have denied a homosexual partner access to see their loved one because they have no status . The law decides who is next of kin .


Learn to read. I have no doubt that some homosexual partners have been denied access...and have never suggested otherwise. But in order for your "need to be" to be correct...EVERY person in that category would have to be denied access.

And that is not so. People CAN sign papers to grant access to person and property WITHOUT the NEED of marriage.

Wake up...then post...unless you are just here to entertain...in which case: THANK YOU...YOU ARE A DELIGHT.
Wink

Quote:
Quote:
I am sure there are people here laughing with me about the thought of me avoiding "anything difficult."
I still maintain you ignored any difficulties presented, perhaps because you dont know the answers or perhaps because you are too bloody minded to care about forcing people to agree to things .


You can "maintain" anything you want, Ionus, but I will be here for you forever if necessary...and will never avoid anything no matter how laughingly "difficult" you might think it to be.

Quote:
Quote:
My guess is...the same kind of thing that once motivated people to suppose women should not own property...or be allowed to vote.
Your guess is wrong . I stated what my motivation is but you didnt read it or couldnt comprehend it . Incidentally there are many instances in history where women had power and property, thats just another area where the new post-Nazi generations have bullshited to everyone .


The motives for your opposing same sex marriage ARE similar to previous motives for opposing the rights of women to own property and to vote...WHETHER YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE IT OR NOT.

But it is fun watching you try to rationalize your conduct...because it is evidence that even someone like you can see it for the nonsense it is.


Quote:

Quote:
Your views on this are a joke for a future audience.
I hope you are around to take responsibility for your views .



I'll "be around" for as long as I am around. Whether I am around or not will not change the fact that your views on this issue are a joke for a future audience.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 06:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Learn to read.
No, you learn to read . You said
Quote:
No one "needs" marriage in order to gain access to to property or to see a loved on on his/her death bed.
I pointed out one case I am familiar with, not quite "no one" but read the following: http://www.growthhouse.org/gayissue.htmlAre you still sure no one needs marriage ?

Getting angry Frank ? I am laughing my head off... it will be the way you have been brainwashed to believe...nothing else is acceptable is it ? Why dont you agree to a separate status that is not called marriage ? Everyone wins except you .

Quote:
The motives for your opposing same sex marriage ARE similar to previous motives for opposing the rights of women to own property and to vote...WHETHER YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE IT OR NOT.
Just saying it isnt good enough, no one is that in love with your posts . Where are the similarities ?

Quote:
But it is fun watching you try to rationalize your conduct
Oh I am having fun too, waiting for you to produce something apart from your demand to do it your way . Dont you have any facts ? You know...FACTS ? I know you like bold, perhaps because your arguments dont exist you try to emphasise text as part of an overcompensation .

You are convinced you are the wave of the future but I see the people of the future laughing at you for your bloody mindedness and inability to see any other reasonable alternative . They will probably put that down to radicalisation of the aged and the modern trend to do anything to prove you are not a bad person . There are whales and sharks you could save, rather than marrying off 5% of 6% of the population . That would also prove how very sweet you are...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 06:20 am
@Ionus,
No, Ionus...I am not getting angry.

You are so confused.

You said one NEEDS marriage to gain access to things I have shown one does not need marriage for...but you are still trying to make it seem you were correct.

Let us cover just that one thing.

You originally said that one needs marriage in order to gain access to property or to see a loved on his/her death bed.

That simply is INCORRECT. Access to property…and access to people on their death bed CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED without a marriage.

You are completely and utterly wrong on that.

The link you offered simply shows that if there is a marriage…those rights cannot be denied. But to suppose that indicates it is a necessity is absurd on your part, Ionus.

So why not simply acknowledge you are completely wrong on this…and we can move on.

Or stick with the bullheadedness…and we can just bandy this back and forth.

Your call.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 07:35 am
@Frank Apisa,
Lets just bandy this back and forth . Did you read the ref ? If you did, you would have noticed that some gay couples have had a hell of a time when one was dying, quite a common occurrence not so long ago . Without marriage they even now have to sign lots of paperwork, put it in place, perhaps threaten with lawyers, and even then they may have problems . READ THE REF !

Your living in denial of basic facts . I have shown you a ref but you think it has different wording . Shall I pull the ref apart and explain it to you so you will understand ?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 07:46 am
@Ionus,
Yes, I read the reference. And some gay couples do have that trouble...just as some non-gay couples who are not married have that trouble.

But the fact that SOME gay (and non-gay) couples have that trouble...

...DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE NEEDS TO MARRY in order to gain access to property or to people on their death bed.


There are other alternatives. (See: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/hospital-visitation-guide-for-lgbt-families


http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/protecting-your-visitation-decision-making-rights


YOU WERE TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS!

Just acknowledge that you were wrong...and we can move on...or...I guess we will have to just bandy.

You do know how to write the words, "I was wrong on this"...do you not?

I've done it when I have been wrong.

You were wrong this time...so get some practice doing it. I think you will need the practice.

And I am smiling from ear to ear while writing this...so don't think I am angry. I have done some yelling...because it appears you do not "hear" too well...and I want to be sure I get through to you.


Wink
andy31
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 06:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, correct me if I'm wrong. I see you've dedicated some effort, to prove that marriage is not necessary (from secular point of view). I won't argue reather you provided some compelling evidence enough to prove your point or not. But if you did, than that would leave us with a very week reason why to change existing marriage laws: just because gays want it.
Correct? You, yourself argue that marriage is not needed for any legal gains. Therefore, this reduces motivation of the demand.

What are we doing than? Satisfying one group histeria?
Is this what the entire commotion is all about?

I believe, considering our appeasing nature, for sake of not hurting anyone's feelings, we are ready to do almost anything, any minority will ask for.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2015 09:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
It's essential that lesbians and gay men understand their legal rights and take assertive steps to enforce them. Courtesies and decisionmaking authority that would be automatic in heterosexual relationships may be actively denied when a lesbian or gay relationship is involved. Life partners may be denied access to one another at the deathbed unless they have made advance directives expressing their wishes, with appropriate power of attorney relationships expressed in writing and kept on file with all health care providers. Please review our links for empowered health care and death with dignity. In hospital settings insist that the power of attorney form granting you access be placed on file at the nursing station as well as the central office, and insist that each physician who provides care has read and agrees to your expressed written preferences. Do not accept any resistance to these directives, and don't hesitate to involve an attorney immediately if there is any question about your legal rights. It's better to cement your position before the crisis rather than allow yourself to be victimized when there is no time to react.
This is from the ref you dont seem to be reading, or at least understanding . If things are this bad with someone who knows they are dying and has to take these drastic measures, how bad is it for an unexpected death ?

Your solution, force 45% of the population to accept marriage for 5% of homosexuals who make up 6% of the population . Your reasoning, sheer bloody mindedness disguised as a crusade .

Of course they NEED marriage, and I think they should have something exactly the same but with a different name . If you cant see the logic of this, then I suspect you are too old to see reason .
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 05:28 am
@andy31,
andy31 wrote:

Frank, correct me if I'm wrong. I see you've dedicated some effort, to prove that marriage is not necessary (from secular point of view). I won't argue reather you provided some compelling evidence enough to prove your point or not. But if you did, than that would leave us with a very week reason why to change existing marriage laws: just because gays want it.
Correct? You, yourself argue that marriage is not needed for any legal gains. Therefore, this reduces motivation of the demand.

What are we doing than? Satisfying one group histeria?
Is this what the entire commotion is all about?

I believe, considering our appeasing nature, for sake of not hurting anyone's feelings, we are ready to do almost anything, any minority will ask for.


There is no NEED for marriage.

But some people want to be married.

I see no reason for the government to rule that although straights may partake of it...gays may not.

If you see something wrong with that...fight it. But you will lose, because this issue has already been decided. It's just that some people haven't realized it yet.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 05:33 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Of course they NEED marriage, and I think they should have something exactly the same but with a different name . If you cant see the logic of this, then I suspect you are too old to see reason .


No one NEEDS to be married to transfer property or to allow for deathbed privileges. It says so right in the piece you claim I misunderstood. Read the thing yourself...or get someone to help you with it.

When you asserted that one NEEDS to be married in order to transfer property or to allow for deathbed visits...


...YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Too bad you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that...but obviously you do not.

Hey...no problem, Ionus. They are not going to throw you out of the Internet because you are lacking in ethics, integrity and honesty.
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/17/2021 at 12:01:14