|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Nov 30, 2023 14:49:33 GMT
Marriage promotes neediness, breeding, navel gazing, is disempowering and the state has made an industrial complex out of it. It is exploitative and that is not care. Take two of these pills each day with water and let me know if the symptoms persist. Was my response a bitter pill to swallow? |
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Nov 30, 2023 14:52:05 GMT
Take two of these pills each day with water and let me know if the symptoms persist. Was my response a bitter pill to swallow? Nope. Get well soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 30, 2023 15:27:11 GMT
Honestly, I can't argue with that. You should be able to receive your partner's SS benefits just as a heterosexual partner would.
I just don't like being merged into a heteronormative institution. I would like civil unions to be available for us which protect our rights as couples. But the LGBT movement opposes civil unions and demands marriage.
Thanks for your reply. It would be difficult to dispute perceptions of marriage as heteronormative. As a privilege granted only to opposite-sex couples for so long, it never had an opportunity to be perceived as anything else until earlier this century, when made available as a legal right to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or identity. I can't say my husband and I ever felt anything intrinsically heteronormative about our relationship, either before or after its legal recognition. Same-sex couples have been settling down to build lives together longer than any of us have been around, and that's all we set out to do nearly 42 years ago: share a home and a life together. I'm sure some of the resistance to civil unions as an alternative was down to uncomfortable connotations of "separate but equal" and its unfortunate historical realities, but there were more salient practical considerations. Establishing the mechanisms by which such unions could be codified in all 50 states would have amounted to reinventing the wheel. Why complicate matters with legal constructs intended to duplicate ones already in place, needing only to be inclusive to same-sex couples and administered by the existing mechanisms? As a point of interest, there are still 10 or 12 states that recognize "civil unions," "domestic partnerships" or, as they're known in Hawaii, "reciprocal beneficiaries." |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal1 on Nov 30, 2023 15:51:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Dec 1, 2023 9:26:48 GMT
Was my response a bitter pill to swallow? Nope. Get well soon. It’s a bitter pill to swallow having to put up with breeders. Thanks for making society unwell. |
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Dec 1, 2023 9:31:40 GMT
By the time my husband had his second heart attack in 2016, the cardiac unit at the hospital where he'd received care for his first one in '08 had been closed, leaving our only option a local Catholic hospital. Our marriage guaranteed me the legal right to ICU visits, all information about his condition and participation in treatment decisions. Without those legal protections, hospital administers could have made an issue of it, leaving all such matters to one of his sisters as next-of-kin, who could have excluded me from all such matters if they chose to. That would have been regressive. Since his death in January of this year, the survivor benefits from his SS have allowed me to remain in the home we purchased together 16 years ago. So, our marriage was - and remains - anything but "outdated" to me. For the record, we viewed marriage as simply the wisest business decision for us. As a so-called institution, it never meant anything to us from any sort of cultural standpoint. Honestly, I can't argue with that. You should be able to receive your partner's SS benefits just as a heterosexual partner would.
I just don't like being merged into a heteronormative institution. I would like civil unions to be available for us which protect our rights as couples. But the LGBT movement opposes civil unions and demands marriage.
This is the issue with state sticking its nose into relationships and placing too much importance on ANY marriage. It shouldn’t be discriminating couples based on a contractual legal marriage status. This is immoral and unethical. |
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Dec 1, 2023 9:50:20 GMT
It’s a bitter pill to swallow having to put up with breeders. Thanks for making society unwell. That’s probably why you are in a permanent state of bitterness. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Dec 1, 2023 21:14:55 GMT
Honestly, I can't argue with that. You should be able to receive your partner's SS benefits just as a heterosexual partner would.
I just don't like being merged into a heteronormative institution. I would like civil unions to be available for us which protect our rights as couples. But the LGBT movement opposes civil unions and demands marriage.
This is the issue with state sticking its nose into relationships and placing too much importance on ANY marriage. It shouldn’t be discriminating couples based on a contractual legal marriage status. This is immoral and unethical. The state has an interest in heterosexual families with children. So state licensing is legit. Me & my boyfriend? Stay the fuck outta my life. |
|
|
|
Post by mowlick on Dec 1, 2023 22:47:05 GMT
My marriage is in pretty good shape, probably as a result of 50 years of practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Dec 2, 2023 0:56:27 GMT
It’s a bitter pill to swallow having to put up with breeders. Thanks for making society unwell. That’s probably why you are in a permanent state of bitterness. The breeder is not sweet tasting. |
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Dec 2, 2023 1:02:52 GMT
This is the issue with state sticking its nose into relationships and placing too much importance on ANY marriage. It shouldn’t be discriminating couples based on a contractual legal marriage status. This is immoral and unethical. The state has an interest in heterosexual families with children. So state licensing is legit. Me & my boyfriend? Stay the fuck outta my life. It is only legit on paper legislation for exploitation purposes, marriage is an institute that is made up and used for fiscal and control agendas. It is supposed to be viewed as a positive societal stigma and a simpleminded goal to keep the breeders dropping out more useless sprogs. Imagine living ones life with the notion of growing up just to get married. It is a suburbanite, insular mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Dec 2, 2023 1:03:12 GMT
My marriage is in pretty good shape, probably as a result of 50 years of practice. Practice for what? |
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Dec 2, 2023 1:15:05 GMT
That’s probably why you are in a permanent state of bitterness. The breeder is not sweet tasting. |
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Dec 2, 2023 1:17:16 GMT
The breeder is not sweet tasting. With emphasis on the sour. |
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Dec 2, 2023 2:39:00 GMT
Yes.
|
|
