Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

Recommended Posts

will someone PLEASE give that man a blow job so we can impeach him??!

sheesh, HETERO people have done ALL the damage to marriages in America. sounds to me like someone is trying to distract us from the real issues again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But everybody knows that all gay people are promiscuous devil worshipping pedophiles! And they kick puppies!

Okay. Not really. I don't believe in gay marriage which is why I wouldn't have one. I also don't believe that my opinion should be made into law. Marriage is a contract as far as the state is considered. Any two adults of legal age, regardless of gender, should be able to enter into a contract without interference from the state.

All reasons the government puts up against gay marriage are religious in nature and should not be considered in a nation that values separation of church and state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay people have every right and protection under the constitution, same as blue eyed people, right handed, and red heads. ;) True.

I think this matter will end up being settled state by state, which is probably better for the country in the long run. Oddly the conservative right not so long ago was championing states rights, more in agreeement with the founding fathers, but over their hot issues, they want federalism.

At some point the special benefits afforded those who are married become patently unfair, since the institution no longer serves the original intended purposes.

I as a single man, will demand to have a tax reduction of 40% to match the marriage benefit, I will demand the the benefit of passing my estate tax free to my survivors, I will demand the full use of all company benefits accorded to those who are married, e.g. the ability to place anyone I choose on my medical plan, likewise the chance to grant spouse equivalent Medicare and Social Security benefits upon anyone I designate. Just because I choose not to be married or cohabitate doesn't mean I should be taxed at a higher rate or have fewer government benefits.

Anyhoo, I think that gay marriage is inevitable.

It will be interesting what happens after this redefinition of marriage occurs. Once the realization settles in that social institutions can no longer be defined by law based on history, or tradition, or religion, there are no conceptual limits.

The next obvious shibbolith to fall will be plural marriages, e.g bigamy, polygamy, polyandry. There is no argument that can be used against them. Just trot out every one used in favor of gay marriages. Besides, the Mormons and Muslims give wonderful examples of succesful societies. While many of you may think I am being silly or absurd, I firmly expect to see this happen before I pass on. It will take another 25 to 30 years to be accepted, but it is the next logical extension.

Later, incestuous marriages. Why can't you marry your sister or father or first cousins? The old bit about government proctecting us against defective children is pure Eugenics. It is e.x.a.c.t.l.y what Hitler did, and so did many US states in the early 20th century. Think about it. Does the government have any business in your bedroom? If they do, then shouldn't they be prohibiting others with genetic defects like Downs Syndrome, Bipolar, Cystic Fibrosis, etc. from marrying?

I'll stop there. Enough grist for the mill.

a.m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay people have every right and protection under the constitution, same as blue eyed people, right handed, and red heads. ;) True.

When was the last time someone was fired, or kicked out of the U.S. military, for being blue-eyed or

right-handed?

At some point the special benefits afforded those who are married become patently unfair, since the institution no longer serves the original intended purposes.

I as a single man, will demand to have a tax reduction of 40% to match the marriage benefit,

It's been a long time since I ran the numbers, but it used to be that filing jointly when both salaries

were similar carried a higher tax burden. Then again, expecting the U.S. Tax Code to make sense

is just crazy!

I will demand the the benefit of passing my estate tax free to my survivors

That general issue applies to dying "intestate" ... Then again, there isn't a will that can't be broken.

I will demand the full use of all company benefits accorded to those who are married, e.g. the ability to place anyone I choose on my medical plan, likewise the chance to grant spouse equivalent Medicare and Social Security benefits upon anyone I designate. Just because I choose not to be married or cohabitate doesn't mean I should be taxed at a higher rate or have fewer government benefits.

Now THAT would be REALLY useful! My insurance is much cheaper than my mother's, and I could pay a

top premium and it still be cheaper all around than having her carry separate insurance. The HMOs and

so forth would hate it. Come to think of it, that's probably the impetus behind the Defense of Heterosexual

Divorces legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay people have every right and protection under the constitution, same as blue eyed people, right handed, and red heads. ;) True.

When was the last time someone was fired, or kicked out of the U.S. military, for being blue-eyed or

right-handed?

The military operates in a special sub-set of laws called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. All sorts of behavior or actions that would either not be crimes or would be completely protected for civilians. For example, defaming the President is a crime. Slandering a senior officer is a crime, even if the comments are true, e.g. "He's' a lousy general, he beats his wife, his dog and his driver". Being mentally ill will likely result in being discharged, failure to pay "just debts" even though the soldier is not otherwise in debt and this has no effect on his performance, failure to provide "adequate" support to spouse and children.

So, I shan't debate the merits of the don't ask don't tell policy set by Congress, but as I have shown there are many other similar, and less emotionally charged policies.

I as a single man, will demand to have a tax reduction of 40% to match the marriage benefit,

It's been a long time since I ran the numbers, but it used to be that filing jointly when both salaries

were similar carried a higher tax burden. Then again, expecting the U.S. Tax Code to make sense

is just crazy!

Ok, pulled this number from under the rug. I thought this was all changed about 5 or 6 years ago. There is no single answer. It varies wildly depending on how much each makes, and tax is greater the more the two make and the closer the two incomes are in amount. Incomes in 15% bracket or lower get a decent break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;) Bush needs a good thrashing

IF people want to be married, and they are consenting adults, whats the problem?

my opinion likly doesn't count since I've been living in sin since '88 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, 2 dumpy middle aged ladies look like a MAJOR threat to MY marriage...i just KNOW my 18 year union will just dissolve like a teaspoon of sugar in hot tea because of them......*sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree it will probably eventually be left up to the individual states to decide. Yes, the religious right are sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong, BUT what about the federal level? Wouldn't it bankrupt social security and insurance and such if gay marriage were made legal? So many more people to cover? Or am I wrong and just don't know enough about it?

AM, it is still legal to marry your first cousin in some places.

Croix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

will someone PLEASE give that man a blow job so we can impeach him??!
Brilliant! It's the least I can do for my country!

lily (slipping on blue dress, renting Brown Bunny for pointers, getting rabies shot just in case)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT what about the federal level? Wouldn't it bankrupt social security and insurance and such if gay marriage were made legal? So many more people to cover? Or am I wrong and just don't know enough about it?
That's a typical right-wing argument. Supposedly less than 10% of the population is gay. That's not bankrupting anybody. What about all the illegal immigrants getting free and legal health care and education? Are they more deserving of benefits than hard-working, tax-paying gay American citizens? Not in my opinion.

I would have to dig up the statistics, but it has been shown that gay people are quite often in "helping professions," such as teachers, doctors, nurses, veterinarians, and whatnot. I certainly have done my time in teaching kids, working with abused kids, and working with SSI food stamp cases. Put those all together, and it's 18 years of service to my community. Add my time at the nonprofit vet clinic, and it's 21 yrs of service to my community.

Yet, I don't deserve equal rights and equal benefits of marriage under the LAW? That is horseshit. I can't believe that there's even any debate about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that was my argument. Just an argument I've heard against it. Other than for religious reasons. That's why I was asking.

I'm wondering if it were made legal how many more people would feel open to exploring that side of themselves. (We're all somewhere on the spectrum folks). And how much the scales would tilt. I always use to half-ass joke with Marine that my next husband is gonna be a woman. But if it were to be made legal. Now, that would no longer be a joking matter.

Croix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez...such fuss made over gay people and their rights.

Other developed nations have allowed gays in the military. Other developed nations are allowing gay marriages. Has the sky fallen? Has the world come to a hideous end?

No.

I'm so sick and tired of this argument. I'm especially nauseated at W's use of this as political fodder. Polls down in all areas? Why, just bring in the homophobia!

Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Bill Frist, R-TN, is currently supportive of Bush's idea.

Now, let's watch the moderate Reps/Dems change his opinion in 3... 2... 1...

[As a physician, he has personally observed gay couples on video and has determined that they are incapable of ever raising children]

*ducks to avoid flames*

*geese too*

--herrfous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, I don't deserve equal rights and equal benefits of marriage under the LAW? That is horseshit. I can't believe that there's even any debate about it.

Having listened to these arguments for years I had a sudden realization yesterday while pondering this thread.

**Gays are NOT demanding equal rights, they are demanding Special rights in marriage.**

Stay with me on this folks.....

Gay men and women have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Regardless of being homosexual/heterosexual we all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

To my knowledge NO LAW IN THE COUNTRY prohibits gays from marrying. What they generally may not do is marry someone of the same sex. And, I as a heterosexual have the same laws applied to me. I may not marry someone of the same sex.

Homosexuals are NOT in fact being discriminated against. No marriage license asks whether the man and woman are either homo or heterosexual.

So.. be honest. The gay movement IS asking for NEW and SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, that have nothing to do with equality of present laws.

a.m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.. be honest. The gay movement IS asking for NEW and SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, that have nothing to do with equality of present laws.
I can't believe you, AM. You've always been so fair and reasonable, but this is crap.

The current legal state of affairs is that HETEROsexuals have SPECIAL priveleges because they are allowed to MARRY the person they are in love with, sexually attracted to, and want to spent their lives with.

If it were legal for you to marry ONLY men, would you? Just for the legal benefits? I think not.

And, furthermore, would you feel/believe that your 2-guy platonic marriage was just the same as the gay guys who were married, in love, and living their lives fully and passionately? Don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libby,

I have argued neither FOR nor AGAINST a change to marriage laws. I am discussing this in purely logical and legal specifics.

The present marriage laws, by the letter of the law, have nothing whatsoever to do with love, nor with sexuality (at least for people above the age of consent).

The registrar issuing licenses does not peform ANY tests of whether the marrying parties are in love, or what their orientation is. Further, no test is performed as to WHY two people desire to be married.

The government does not grant marriages between men and women based on love. To argue that homosexuals are being discriminated based on love is inaccurate, and not the real basis for demanding the privilege legal marriages, its the benefits and status.

My second point about the demand for same sex marriages not being about equality, is the hidden point that has been unrecognized.

That not just homosexuals will be able to have same sex marriages, but heterosexuals will as well. It is quite presumptious of you to say that this is an unthinkable situation, but most assuredly it is not. Heterosexuals may desire same sex marriages of convenience with absolutely no sexual connotations. Society will start to become complex indeed.

Things that make you go, hmmmmm.

a.m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...