Homosexual Marriage

[Kamehameha34]

Intolerance of other opinions is only bigotry if those are equal..

No, you are wrong. Read my posts please.

Homosexual relationships are unequal to heterosexual ones for one main reason...children.

So a sterile male shouldn't be allowed to marry?

[Jack]

Homosexual relationships are unequal to heterosexual ones for one main reason...children.

Marriage is about two consenting adults who love each other and wish to formally and legally declare their union. Marraige has never been solely about children, until the concept of gay marriage arose, and those opposed thought they'd found a convenient argument to use against it.

Do you oppose 70 year olds who decide to get married? As Kam mentioned, do you object to the infertile and those who never intend to have children to marry? Would you endorse divorce for couples who, despite being able to do so, refuse to have children after so many (5, 10?) years of marriage? You should, if children are the only valid reason for two people to marry.

[pikatore]

Gay couples can easily adopt a kid, so just because they aren't pumping out babies themselves, they are still contributing in thier own way towards our future. Better for a kid to be in a family with gay parents that enjoy the financial and legal benefits hetero parents already have and become a person with a stable foundation, then holed up forgotten in an orphanage, or starve to death in some poverty striken country.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe You should have kept your job. That's what a lot of heteros would have done. When you have kids you have to be prudent. Can't take chances.

I told you I'm a "stay at home spouse with no kids". There are millions of heterosexual married couples where one is a "stay at home spouse with no kids". So why bring up kids?

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Why did you have to slap my hands? Greater good? Yeah, I'll bet. I believe 99.9% of people are quite selfish. They may be altruistic from time to time, but it's mostly what can I get out of it, not my neighbor.

Believe what you like. In my case, you'd be dead wrong. I've always thought it was in the best interest of the US to make sure kids get an education and have been willing to pay for it via taxes. I also believe disadvantaged kids should get free transport to school, and healthy meals to power those brain cells. All this, despite the fact that I am gay. So, when you're speaking about me, I can assure you, your "selfish" argument does not apply. But you can go on being your cynical self. Doesn't change reality.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Gays want to pay less taxes and get more benefits. Does this sound like everybody is going to have to pay more? Sounds like it to me. Even you will be paying more if you're working.

Gays want equal benefits for an equal set of conditions. Either the benefits are good for both, or neither should get them.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Millions also work two jobs. Not many stay at home Moms anymore, sorry, you could work parttime. If you worked forty years, you should be getting retirement, SS, or be close to some of that. Being single all those years you should have a nice nest egg, and no kids running around would make you guys pretty much on easy street unless you made a bad choice somewhere. Starting a buisness means you had some cash socked away more than likely.

First, there are millions of stay at home spouses with no kids. The US census confirms this.

Second, I am 13 years away from collecting SS and pension.

Third, the fact that millions of hetero couples also "...have a nice nest egg, and no kids running around..." put them "...pretty much on easy street..." as well. Yet, if one spouse stays at home, and the couple check "married filing jointly", they'll get a tax break. I like it when you unknowingly support my issue. Feel free to continue doing so.

And finally, where did you get this "starting a business" idea? My spouse works for an employer. I described how that employer does not recognize same sex couples with regard to benefits. Please pay attention.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Heteros could look at it as discriminatory that you are receiving the same benefits and you don't have all the same burdens. I don't think it's blatant anything. You've created that scenario in your mind. If that's the case as I said before, singles are also discriminated on. They don't get the same tax breaks, they may get health insurance at work, but their married counterpart gets more paid by the company for his family. The married Mom might have to use more personal days, sick days, some of which you may lose if you don't use them. This is discriminatory towards singles who may not always use up their personal time.

Look, if you can't be bothered enough to follow the discussion, why participate? I've corrected your errant assertions. I've demonstrated the situations are identical between sets of hetero and gay couples.

The issue boils down to equal benefits for equal conditions. I have described real life conditions that exist. You've attempted to change/talk around the argument. You've used subterfuge (or are unable to read for content) in a feeble attempt to connect unrelated points. Through all this, your best shot has been "it's just how the system works -- it's our privilege for living here".

By saying this, you essentially acknowledge that, given an equal set of circumstances between hetero and gay couples, it's ok for the hetero couple to check "married filing jointly" and get a special tax break, but not a gay couple.

That situation is unfair, unequal, and needs to change.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Gambr1nus I think I am going to stop posting on this thread because the banner adds make me feel kind of uneasy. They are gross at best.

Nice avatar. Lotta class, there.

Quote by: texasdave Homosexual relationships are unequal to heterosexual ones for one main reason...children.

I'm a married heterosexual without children. You want to tell me my relationship is inferior to a breeder's?

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Heteros could look at it as discriminatory that you are receiving the same benefits and you don't have all the same burdens.

My wife stays at home while I work. We have no kids. We get a tax break. Why isn't anyone trying to eliminate my marriage? Is there any reason other than discrimination?

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=CoffeeSaint;398613]

My wife stays at home while I work. We have no kids. We get a tax break. Why isn't anyone trying to eliminate my marriage? Is there any reason other than discrimination?

Privacy.

If your wife worked you'd probably pay more taxes. Her working many times puts a couple in a higher tax bracket.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=pikatore;398526]

Gay couples can easily adopt a kid, so just because they aren't pumping out babies themselves, they are still contributing in thier own way towards our future. Better for a kid to be in a family with gay parents that enjoy the financial and legal benefits hetero parents already have and become a person with a stable foundation, then holed up forgotten in an orphanage, or starve to death in some poverty striken country.

How many would actually adopt?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Privacy. If your wife worked you'd probably pay more taxes. Her working many times puts a couple in a higher tax bracket.

Don't start that BS. Dirty Name couldn't make it fly, and neither can you.

Simple answer is to give tax breaks to parents when they become parents. This idea that we need to make better parents by giving them money before they become parents is just ridiculous.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=italiangm;398607]

I told you I'm a "stay at home spouse with no kids". There are millions of heterosexual married couples where one is a "stay at home spouse with no kids". So why bring up kids?

What's the US population? I don't know of hardly any hetero families where one stays home, unless they are disabled or unskilled, but most have children.

Believe what you like. In my case, you'd be dead wrong. I've always thought it was in the best interest of the US to make sure kids get an education and have been willing to pay for it via taxes. I also believe disadvantaged kids should get free transport to school, and healthy meals to power those brain cells. All this, despite the fact that I am gay. So, when you're speaking about me, I can assure you, your "selfish" argument does not apply. But you can go on being your cynical self. Doesn't change reality

I didn't single you out. I said most everyone is selfish. That's just how people are. We are survivors.

Gays want equal benefits for an equal set of conditions. Either the benefits are good for both, or neither should get them.

Gays want equal benefits when they have a relationship.

First, there are millions of stay at home spouses with no kids. The US census confirms this.

I would bet most are elderly. Most young people are working.

Second, I am 13 years away from collecting SS and pension.

I was going by the 40 years of working plus say 18 when you started. That would make you at least 58. That would be 4 years from collecting SS.

Third, the fact that millions of hetero couples also "...have a nice nest egg, and no kids running around..." put them "...pretty much on easy street..." as well. Yet, if one spouse stays at home, and the couple check "married filing jointly", they'll get a tax break. I like it when you unknowingly support my issue. Feel free to continue doing so.

It's easier for people with no kids to have a nice nest egg. So, you want more people to get "tax breaks"? The government runs on money, and all the social programs need money. More people getting "tax breaks" means less money, so what will happen? Raise taxes.

And finally, where did you get this "starting a business" idea? My spouse works for an employer. I described how that employer does not recognize same sex couples with regard to benefits. Please pay attention.

I thought you said you had to entertain his guests to aid his business that he was starting. I made a mistake, sorry.

Look, if you can't be bothered enough to follow the discussion, why participate? I've corrected your errant assertions. I've demonstrated the situations are identical between sets of hetero and gay couples.

There are times when situations will be the same, no doubt about it, but I was thinking that most heteros do have children, so the true reason for marriage is securing property for those children, but it goes to the other parent or adult to take over. Usually, but I don't know gays either had a spouse who will get the kids, in a gay situation, I don't know how they work that, but that needs to be worked on to safeguard any children involved.

The issue boils down to equal benefits for equal conditions. I have described real life conditions that exist. You've attempted to change/talk around the argument. You've used subterfuge (or are unable to read for content) in a feeble attempt to connect unrelated points. Through all this, your best shot has been "it's just how the system works -- it's our privilege for living here".

There are no truly equal conditions.

By saying this, you essentially acknowledge that, given an equal set of circumstances between hetero and gay couples, it's ok for the hetero couple to check "married filing jointly" and get a special tax break, but not a gay couple.

Yep. They also go into a higher tax bracket with two incomes many times.

That situation is unfair, unequal, and needs to change.

It will lead to a decrease in benefits for everyone, and an increase in Social Security taxes. Companies don't want to give benefits as it is, and singles are definitely discriminated on when it comes to insurance, but letting there be even more spouses will cause companies to have to cut some benefits or increase what the employee pays. You know it will have some effect, it would have to. Benefits can kill companies. Look at the US car manufacturers. Benefits are a big part of their problem.

There is no totally fair way for everyone and you know it. It will change if the people want it to, probably. Sometimes government does what it wants to.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe What's the US population?

According to the US Census Bureau 2005 update, 288,378,137.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I don't know of hardly any hetero families where one stays home, unless they are disabled or unskilled, but most have children.

Of the 181,689,503 males and females living together in a married family household, 78,683,796 of them don't have kids.

Of the 181,689,503 males and females living together in a married family household, 41,587,567 females and 13,142,391 males are not in the labor force.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I didn't single you out. I said most everyone is selfish. That's just how people are. We are survivors.

I think your concept of "selfishness" speaks more about your beliefs, assumptions, and opinions than it does about "everyone".

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Gays want equal benefits when they have a relationship.

When the relationship conditions are equal, correct.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I would bet most are elderly. Most young people are working.

According to the Census, only 1,425,181 people age 65 and above are not in the labor force.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I was going by the 40 years of working plus say 18 when you started. That would make you at least 58. That would be 4 years from collecting SS.

I was an industrious young lad, earning money which required the reporting of taxes at age 12.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe It's easier for people with no kids to have a nice nest egg. So, you want more people to get "tax breaks"? The government runs on money, and all the social programs need money. More people getting "tax breaks" means less money, so what will happen? Raise taxes.

Ah, so you don't care if American citizens meeting the same tax criteria are treated unequally. Well, at least you are living up to your "selfish" estimation of others. Of course, there are other options besides raise taxes. We could simply eliminate the "married filing jointly" tax break for married couples without children. That would give the government plenty of cash to run on, and level the playing field. I can't wait to hear the tantrum you'll throw at that suggestion.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I thought you said you had to entertain his guests to aid his business that he was starting. I made a mistake, sorry.

Apology accepted.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe There are times when situations will be the same, no doubt about it, but I was thinking that most heteros do have children, so the true reason for marriage is securing property for those children, but it goes to the other parent or adult to take over. Usually, but I don't know gays either had a spouse who will get the kids, in a gay situation, I don't know how they work that, but that needs to be worked on to safeguard any children involved.

Here you are trotting out the "kids" trojan again, when the numbers above clearly suggest there are a LOT of childless married couples.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe There are no truly equal conditions.

That's code for "I'm selfish, leave my special tax break alone."

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Yep. They also go into a higher tax bracket with two incomes many times.

No doubt. But that's not what we're talking about here, remember? Single income, no kids.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe It will lead to a decrease in benefits for everyone, and an increase in Social Security taxes. Companies don't want to give benefits as it is, and singles are definitely discriminated on when it comes to insurance, but letting there be even more spouses will cause companies to have to cut some benefits or increase what the employee pays. You know it will have some effect, it would have to. Benefits can kill companies. Look at the US car manufacturers. Benefits are a big part of their problem. There is no totally fair way for everyone and you know it. It will change if the people want it to, probably. Sometimes government does what it wants to.

You're simply amplifying your notion that everyone is "selfish" again, uninterested in what's fair and just.

[texasdave]

Gay marriage is not fair and just. It is extra and unnecessary.

[Maryjane]

Gay marriage is not fair and just.

Nice to see you finally understand and are willing to admit it.

[texasdave]

You left out the most pertinent part, that it is extra and unnecessary.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: texasdave Gay marriage is not fair and just. It is extra and unnecessary.

It's no less necessary than straight marriage between an infertile man and a woman.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's no less necessary than straight marriage between an infertile man and a woman.

Or a straight marriage between seniors.

[texasdave]

Heterosexual marriages must be treated with equality under the law. Whether they produce children or not. But since homosexual marriages CANNOT under any circumstances produce the benefit of children then it is neither necessary nor prudent for the state to sanction those realationships. No one on this forum has been able to argue against that.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: italiangm;398676[quote ]According to the US Census Bureau 2005 update, 288,378,137. Of the 181,689,503 males and females living together in a married family household, 78,683,796 of them don't have kids.

That means over 103 million do have kids. But.....what about all those that were married and had kids. No longer getting the married tax breaks possibly, some probably had kids, and they grew up and moved out.

Of the 181,689,503 males and females living together in a married family household, 41,587,567 females and 13,142,391 males are not in the labor force.

So...... over 54 million don't have jobs. Some of that would need explanation to me. Sounds like maybe some are retired, some stay at home Moms, some disabled, some don't need to work, or want to.

I think your concept of "selfishness" speaks more about your beliefs, assumptions, and opinions than it does about "everyone".

I was going by survival, which is the number one instinct, and would imply a certain amount of selfishness.

Ah, so you don't care if American citizens meeting the same tax criteria are treated unequally. Well, at least you are living up to your "selfish" estimation of others. Of course, there are other options besides raise taxes. We could simply eliminate the "married filing jointly" tax break for married couples without children. That would give the government plenty of cash to run on, and level the playing field. I can't wait to hear the tantrum you'll throw at that suggestion.

We don't have a flat tax, so we pay at varying rates for varying reasons. We all pretty much pay some taxes, like sales tax, but even some get out of that if they have a business. The married filing joint isn't always a break. Many gays wouldn't want it they had even incomes. When the incomes are unbalanced you might get a little break, but I don't think this is a huge break. Our government isn't going to give huge taxbreaks.

Here you are trotting out the "kids" trojan again, when the numbers above clearly suggest there are a LOT of childless married couples.

Are they childless or the kids have moved out, we wouldn't count our kids anymore. They don't live here.

That's code for "I'm selfish, leave my special tax break alone."

Maybe on your part. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Don't forget we'll all pay more for these 'breaks". Lack of revenue means you raise taxes on everybody.

You're simply amplifying your notion that everyone is "selfish" again, uninterested in what's fair and just.

I don't think all citizens are equal in wants and needs. A lot of this stuff is actually advantageous to heteros, like the partner benefits. All partners would have to get it, not just gays, so hey, I don't agree with that, either. My idea of "fair and just" is just different from yours.

Marriage is basically unnecessary, it's just a tradition, why change the tradition? If you're gonna. just do away with it. Just make the world all the more dull. I'd say this is where this will all lead in the end.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Nice avatar. Lotta class, there. I like New Riders of the Purple Sage. Y'all like homosexual marriage, which one is worse? I'm a married heterosexual without children. You want to tell me my relationship is inferior to a breeder's? My wife stays at home while I work. We have no kids. We get a tax break. Why isn't anyone trying to eliminate my marriage? Is there any reason other than discrimination?

....

[Jack]

No one on this forum has been able to argue against that.

Of course not, because it's just your unsupported opinion. No one can convince a person their thoughts are unreasonable, uneducated or inaccurate. Only the person themselves can educate themselves out of ignorance.