(10-16-2009 05:44 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-16-2009 01:47 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2009 01:37 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-16-2009 12:49 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2009 11:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Its in vogue to have mulatto children these days.

Where did you come up with this doozy?

What doozy? You are sheltered if you think mulatto children are extraordinary or bizarre. Some of the most beautiful women in the world today are mulatto. Halle Berry is mulatto. Their skin is not too light not to dark, makes them very attractive. There are many first-generation offspring in the US. I don't get it doozy?

Your claim above is that having mulatto children is fashionable, which I don't understand. If your point was that people of mixed race can be attractive, I won't disagree but it certainly wasn't clear from the sentence above.

Clear or not, you certainly took it a negative way. We know where your mind is. Check that, we know where your mind has been.

I got NEWS for you, I like the term mulatto, and those that see it as a Political Incorrect word, fine, dustbin it, or whatever the hell else you want to do with it. It is a word, like it or not. Look it up!!! But don't tell me I cannot/should not, use it because you are hypersensitive to it. BOO-HOO, does it hurt? I don't like the terms Mixed-breed or bi-racial or multiracial, so what!!!? I'm not crying about it. Does that matter to you? No it does not. Liberal leaners. Like that any better. How about, Cracker.

I thought we were supposed to take words literally like in the "Mao" thread? Now we are supposed to read something in your statements that isn't there? Btw, it doesn't surprise me you still use the word. I am sure the older southerners still use it. A reminder of the good old days when a white can be white and blacks were slaves.

I really don't know where you all are coming up with mulatto being on some banned word list.

(10-18-2009 08:17 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I really don't know where you all are coming up with mulatto being on some banned word list.

It's not. Liberals love to describe their ethnicity by using multiple words separated by a hyphen. That's why I call them ass-holes.

(10-16-2009 12:12 PM)Rebel Wrote:  At present, it's wrong. Fundamentally, however, why is it the government's business to get involved in anyone's marriage? Why do I need a license to get married? Why are marriages now institutions that need to be recognized by the state, and not just my religion of choice?

Why? The f'n tax code. That's the only reason. We need the Fair Tax.

...and the judge needs to go. If he rules like this, then he's not ruling by rule of law, but the rule of his opinion.

I think you've got a lot of good points here, but there are other reasons - inheritance, power of attorney, property rights, custody, etc. - that do make a compelling case that the government has to get involved sooner or later. But, with all of the issues regarding gay marriage as well as things like this, I think you're asking the right questions.

My reading of Brookes question is that he questions the use of "in vogue" not mulatto or any other term. Shooting the messenger in this case or the way that he asked it is silly. The statement that it's "in vogue to have mulatto children" is a pretty charged statement that implies that parents are being extremely superficial in choosing who and how to procreate.

(10-17-2009 04:00 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(10-16-2009 12:12 PM)Rebel Wrote:  At present, it's wrong. Fundamentally, however, why is it the government's business to get involved in anyone's marriage?

Agree

Why do I need a license to get married? Why are marriages now institutions that need to be recognized by the state, and not just my religion of choice?

Couldn't agree more

Why? The f'n tax code. That's the only reason. We need the Fair Tax.

* Hospital Visitation Rights – Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.

* Health insurance – Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there’s no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.

* Spousal Privilege – Same-sex couples have no right to refuse to testify against one another. So everything you say, write, email, fax, etc. to your partner is admissible in court and can be used against. you.

* Inheritance rights – Same-sex couples have no automatic rights to inheritance in the absence of a will.

* Family leave – Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.

* Pensions – Most pension plans only pay survivor benefits to a legal spouse. Same-sex partners get no pension support for surviving partners.

* Nursing homes – Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.

* Home protection – The laws that protect married couples from being forced to sell their homes to cover high nursing home bills don’t apply to same-sex couples. A same-sex partner can be forced to sell, and forced out of the home to satisfy nursing home bills if he/she lives in the home but does not own it.

* Retirement savings – Married people can roll over a deceased spouses 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes. Same-sex partners must withdraw everything, pay income taxes on it, and lose the tax deferral benefits.

* Taxes – Marries spouses may inherit unlimited property from a deceased spouse, tax free. Same-sex partners pay taxes on any amount over set state and federal limits.

* Social Security benefits – Unless you’re married, you get no Social Security from a dead spouse. If you have kids, they will get it and you may be custodian of it until they’re adults.


Even out the legal benefits, and there's no longer a realistic reason for this to be a government issue. It should have always been left to the churches to decide.

While I get what you're saying... these benefits are not "automatic" in a marriage. They require filing paperwork. Same-Sex couples can solve most of these issues ALSO by filing paperwork... Maybe its a bit more cumbersome, but it needn't be. i'm pretty confident an attorney can spit out the necessary documents in about 5 minutes... just fill in the names and sign.

You also don't pay the marriage tax penalty... one can work and pay all the bills... the other can collect unemployment. Many of the rest of these are "don't have a legal right"... as opposed to "are barred from"

I get what you're saying, and it isn't 100% equal... but it's not as far as some would like to make it sound.