1 2 3 4
#1157852
Unbehagen
OR - you're an idiot. This is an alternative I doubt you've considered.
5/14/2010 10:59:21 AM
#1157853
freako104
Why not protect a working wife? Why isn't there an interest in protecting the homosexual who is working? After all he is paying taxes.Stereotypes kill your argument and make you look chuvanistic and homophobic.
5/14/2010 11:00:13 AM
#1157856
TGRwulf
WTF is this, I don't even...
5/14/2010 11:03:44 AM
#1157858
Sisyphus
June Cleaver and her ilk are a myth. MOST families can't afford to have only one breadwinner (HATE that term btw). I know more homosexuals with awesome, well paying jobs than I do unemployed homosexuals (funnily enough I can think of at least 4 heterosexuals I know who are on welfare off the top of my head).
And btw if you're going to spout discriminatory bullshit, please try to spell things correctly! It's "tragedy" not "tradegy" and it's "fringes" not "fringers".
Oh, and while we're at it, i suppose you'd be in favour of removing those perks of marriage such as "tax evasion" and "entitlement" from heterosexual marriages too eh? After, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
And one more thing! What's the difference between a housewife "June Cleaver" and a househusband your "bus boy"? Neither contributes to the tax pool, why should one get special protection and one not?
5/14/2010 11:05:46 AM
#1157860
Lucilius
Stereotypes? Sure, but they explain why even ignorant bigots call you an ignorant bigot.
5/14/2010 11:09:07 AM
#1157865
Serph-no-Okami
You can piss and moan and argue all you like, the fact remains that all the countries that allow gay marriage (like mine, so I know what I'm talking about) are doing just fine and most people haven't noticed a single change (exept of course for a bunch of happily married homosexual couples).
5/14/2010 11:14:05 AM
#1157867
Doubting Thomas
Or, why not protect everyone, working or not? And I'm sure there are plenty of financially successful homosexuals out there for every one "unemployed homosexual bus boy."
But, you wouldn't want me to ruin that stereotype, would you?
And by the way, not all women are content to be stay-at-home spouses like June Cleaver.
5/14/2010 11:14:50 AM
#1157871
@ Real American Cowboy
I hope one of the gay people you shoot at shoots back at you. Shoots back and kills your ass deader than Julius Caesar.
5/14/2010 11:19:23 AM
#1157872
D Laurier.
Actualy.... Hetrosexual marriage laws exist because late 20th century homophobes paniced at all the gays getting married, and they forced laws to prohibit gay marriage.
5/14/2010 11:20:30 AM
#1157881
Brainy
@ Real American Cowboy
I dearly hope you are a troll. If not, be careful, there are a lot of us gays out there that can take gun away from you and beat you with it.
I also take exception with the implication that gay people are incapable of being successful or financially stable. I've worked very hard to have a life as comfortable as mine.
5/14/2010 11:34:06 AM
#1157891
Priestling
@1157871: we could always go the Razputin route...
5/14/2010 11:51:12 AM
#1157905
aaa
Free republic is still retarded, part 1254424.
5/14/2010 12:21:06 PM
#1157906
Dark_Lord_Prime
@Brainy:
RAC is, indeed, a troll. He used to hang out on RSTDT, but I don't think I've seen him spouting off over there for awhile.
Just ignore him.
5/14/2010 12:24:31 PM
#1157908
breakerslion
Heterosexual marriage laws exist because it is a relatively stable paradigm wherein each male was provided a micro-domain of alphadom. It was a manageable unit, providing social replacements for workers, breeders, and soldiers. The insinuation of pompous government officials and religious "leaders" as pseudo-parental authority figures insured that such abstracts as patriotism and religious fervor would be successfully indoctrinated into succeeding generations. This maintained the status quo of the power elite (who generally do whatever they please vis marriage and fidelity) and the cannon fodder who are trained to vigorously uphold their own indoctrinated paradigms. In conjunction, they (you, Bernard) are taught to hate anything that does not conform because it threatens the continued comfort and ability of the exploiting and somewhat parasitic class to successfully exploit.
Oh wait, I've mistaken you for someone intelligent enough to debate! What I meant to say was, "That's a whole lot of stupid right there!"
5/14/2010 12:26:02 PM
#1157911
Wookieduck
Yeah, see, the thing is when your argument pretty much rests on a fictional character you lose. Hard. (See also Creationism).
5/14/2010 12:33:19 PM
#1157912
Horsefeathers
"Heterosexual marriage laws exist because in traditional society, there is a compelling national interest in providing protected status to a stay-at-home spouse (June Cleaver) in the event of a tradegy involving the breadwinner."
Say what now?
"At the same time, there is no compelling national interest in providing the same protection to an unemployed homosexual bus boy whose lover dies of AIDS."
This might seem a stupid question but why exactly is "June Cleaver" more important or valuable--and thereby deserving of such legal protection--whereas this person would be unworthy?
"Stereotypes? Sure, but they explain why marriage in the mainstream should be protected, while "marriage" among the fringers is just another form of tax evasion and entitlement."
You've explained nothing. All you've done is use a whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing.
5/14/2010 12:36:51 PM
#1157913
Hey Bernard, the 50s called. They want their attitude back.
5/14/2010 12:37:47 PM
#1157916
MarshalltheIrish
"Stereotypes? Sure, but they explain why marriage in the mainstream should be protected, while "marriage" among the fringers is just another form of tax evasion and entitlement."
Marrying so you don't have to file taxes separately (which means you have to pay more) doesn't really sound like tax evasion or entitlement to me. Then again, I have done actual research on the logical motives for gays to want to be married, rather than draw a disdainful conclusion based on my own set of beliefs.
Can we do a triple nuke of Rapture Ready, Moonbattery, and Free Republic someday?
5/14/2010 12:44:39 PM
#1157917
David G
Therefore by your argument is that we should only allow hetero couples to be married if one is unemployed?
5/14/2010 12:46:07 PM
#1157925
Headache
Oh.. Free Republic...
Where stupid goes to die in the arms of morons.
5/14/2010 1:05:18 PM
#1157928
the old firm
You admit that you are using stereotypes, yet you still use them to further your argument? Wow, talk about ignorant.
5/14/2010 1:08:28 PM
#1157931
Brianisha
Goody, hetero marriage wins out because of chavanism. Makes you want to slap some male pigs.
5/14/2010 1:15:21 PM
#1157934
GigaGuess
Because the House Boy losing his primary source of income and, indeed, possibly his home is just too darn bad for him. June Cleaver needs to be protected at all costs, but the partner that takes care of house and home for his spouse, well...sucks to be him.
5/14/2010 1:18:15 PM
#1157936
Mayhem
"just another form of tax evasion and entitlement."
You mean like churches?
5/14/2010 1:21:44 PM
#1157937
Old Viking
I don't understand why I'm supposed to protect June Cleaver.
5/14/2010 1:27:01 PM
1 2 3 4