Homosexual Marriage

[RickSp]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Notice a complete absence of even a mention of same-sex marriage, if you can.

More bull and word games. I guess if you lack the balls to support your own positon that is all you have left, troll.

[RickSp]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 For most married couples they pay less in income taxes. As well there are gift and estate taxes that married couples pay less of.

Spare me. Dual income couples invariably pay more than two single taxpayers. Gift and estate taxes may or may not higher depending on the circumstances. In most cases two working gay folks will pay significantly more tax if married than if single. The claim that gays are trying to save in taxes is simply wrong, not unlike the rest of your arguments.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: RickSp More bull and word games. I geuss if you lack the balls to support your own positon that is all you have left, troll.

Ive supported my argument repeattedly, and youve bitched and whined each time I did for repeating it. I have not addressed the argument you ascribe to me because I did not make it. You made it up in your own head.

[RickSp]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 OF COURSE!!! procreation is not an issue in gay marriage. Thus the limiting of marriage to heterosexual couples

And yet you have said that same sex marriage has zero effect on heterosexual procreation. What part of your argument isn't stupid?

[RickSp]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Ive supported my argument repeattedly, and youve bitched and whined each time I did for repeating it. I have not addressed the argument you ascribe to me because I did not make it. You made it up in your own head.

Spare me troll. You are word games and bad wind. Why don't you call me a "fag hag" again?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Nothing stops that child from being adopted by a single person, a related couple or a platonic couple. Not sure of your point regarding a single sex couple

This is not a thread about singles people or platonic couples, this is a thread about gay couples, try to focus barn, you might get the point then instead of trying to shift the focus.

Nope

Then you admit the interest is in raising not birthing.

I contend it is in the christian interest that the child be raised by both mother and father.
Secular reasoning states there is little difference in who or how many raise a child.

The legitimate interest is in the mother and father raising the child because this is prefered over them not doing so

Prefered by who? We have been through the studies and shown the links. every negative one you can drag up can be countered with a positive link.
This is a case of religious interference with government.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: RickSp Spare me. Dual income couples invariably pay more than two single taxpayers.

You dont have a clue

In 1996, forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single, according to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average penalty was $1,380. Several pieces of legislation have been passed since the late nineties to do away with these penalties. For example, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 introduced section 1(f)(8) to the Internal Revenue Code, which mitigates the marriage penalty effect in the lower tax brackets. Section 1(f)(8) adjusts the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for joint return filers relative to the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for unmarried spouses. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the benefit to joint return filers by eliminating the marriage penalty for 2003 and 2004 and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended the benefit to 2005-2007. Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010. Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote by: RickSp Gift and estate taxes may or may not higher depending on the circumstances.

Only circumstance is when no tax is due for either. Otherwise it is always lower for a married couple. ZERO estate or gift taxes for married couples.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Then you admit the interest is in raising not birthing.

Ive never stated otherwise. Grasping for a strawman. If there is no birthing of the child, there is no concern as to the raising of a child.

Quote by: SoylentGreen I contend it is in the christian interest that the child be raised by both mother and father. Secular reasoning states there is little difference in who or how many raise a child.

Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, BC Roman law. its the same across most all cultures, religions and historical periods long before christianity even existed.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Prefered by who? We have been through the studies and shown the links. every negative one you can drag up can be countered with a positive link. This is a case of religious interference with government.

???? Ive only shown positive studies. Studies that have shown that children raised by their mother and father do better than children who are not.... so I cant imagine what you are going on about now with these "negative" studies.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: RickSp Spare me troll. You are word games and bad wind. Why don't you call me a "fag hag" again?

"fag hag" again

[Jack]

For those who cannot debate in a civil manner, we have an app for that.

Knock off the personal asides and stick to debating the topic.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement Umm, denying voting rights to convicted felons, denying Social Security benefits to people under a specified age and at least a thousand other scenarios.

I believe that "at least a thousand other scenarios" is hyperbole.

Prisoners, like military personnel, willingly give up certain rights (citizens rights but not human rights). Military personnel do so by contract and prisoners do so by committing crimes. Children are under the guardianship of an adult because they are mentally incapable of making certain decisions on their own. So what others would you like to proffer as an example?
Neither of those examples you give qualifies as a legal argument.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Steve Johnson Questatement's facts and figures given on p558 clearly show that homosexual marriage has not improved the vicissitudes of gay couples.

The vicissitudes of gay couples? Me thinks you use the term incorrectly.

vi⋅cis⋅si⋅tude   /vɪˈsɪsɪˌtud, -ˌtyud/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vi-sis-i-tood, -tyood] Show IPA Use vicissitudes in a Sentence –noun 1. a change or variation occurring in the course of something. 2. interchange or alternation, as of states or things. 3. vicissitudes, successive, alternating, or changing phases or conditions, as of life or fortune; ups and downs: They remained friends through the vicissitudes of 40 years. 4. regular change or succession of one state or thing to another. 5. change; mutation; mutability.

So what you are saying is that homosexual marriage has not improved the "changes" of gay couples. Is this what you meant to say? Because it makes no sense.

Homosexuality is clearly harmful behaviour.

How is homosexuality more harmful than heterosexuality?

I can see no reason for the government to bastardise the meaning of marriage to favour a group that is harming themselves and society.

The meaning of marriage has been bastardized throughout history. All kinds of people marry for all kinds of reasons, NOT specifically for love.
You mean YOU don't want the meaning of marriage to be changed from the modern meaning (a man and a woman) that we have imparted to the word marriage.

Marriage is a religious term adopted by the government. Since the government adopted it and gave benefits to a religious ceremony then the government cannot discriminate against a particular citizen based on race, age, gender, religious affiliation or sexuallity. It's called the Civil Rights Act.

It is interesting that the statistics came from Canada; a country that can't even maintain or increase its population because of low birth rate. The average number of live births per woman is only 1.6 which is lower than muliparity. Consequently Canada relies on immigration to maintain its population. Once again we see the importance of procreation to a nation. It is obvious that government were right to promote procreation within a marriage setting.

Regardless of Canada's population problem, your premise fails because procreation is not REQUIRED of married couples. In order to make your premise valid, you would have to deny marriage to anyone not wanting or incapable of creating children.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Neither of those examples you give qualifies as a legal argument.

Not sure why you keep making legal pronouncements when you know nothing about the law.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Its called the rational basis test.

A law that touches on a constitutionally protected interest must be rationally related to furthering a legitimate government interest. Rational Basis Test legal definition of Rational Basis Test. Rational Basis Test synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

And this test fails to exclude gays because they are citizens and their happiness or lack thereof has an impact on society. It is not in the governments nor the country's best interest to deny a group of adult citizens their pursuit of happiness in the same manner as other adult citizens.

Here in America we have 30 state constitutional amendments, 10 + states with legislation and federal legislation that mandates the denial of marriage to anyone but a man and a woman.

And... there were states with laws against interracial marriage too as well as laws promoting slavery and various other laws that we found to be unconstitutional.

Hetero sexuals only is rationally related to the government interest of encouraging mothers and fathers to raise their children together in a comitted relationship. Only a heterosexual couple can create their child.

I like how you use the word "encourage" as a tactic to avoid an absolute. Unfortunately "encourage" is insufficient as an argument. Mothers and fathers do not always raise their children together, nor stay married, nor get married to have children nor have children when married. For your argument to have any standing you HAVE to ask every couple that wishes to marry if they plan or physically can, have children. If not then they should not be allowed to marry.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 It seems most gays define themselves by their sexuality.

It only seems that way because they are fighting for their rights which are denied them based on their sexual orientation.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 No one does until they start demanding a government license, tax breaks and entitlements for doing so.

Why shouldn't they demand the same rights as other adults?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo The meaning of marriage has been bastardized throughout history. All kinds of people marry for all kinds of reasons, NOT specifically for love.

The meaning has consistantly, throughout history for all kinds of people has been between a man and a woman.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo You mean YOU don't want the meaning of marriage to be changed from the modern meaning (a man and a woman)

What ARE you going on about? Its always been between a man and a woman. Care to identify any point in history when it was not?

[Steve Johnson]

Quote by: dan4reason I think that gay marriage is only right in so far as it does not force others to accept gays.

Gay marriage IS forcing others to accept gays. Furthermore they want to destroy marriage and turn it into a different entity. A kind of pseudo marriage.

The fingers of the hand are not equal; you cannot force equality on what is not equal. There is NEVER any procreation between gay couples so it is intrinsically not equal to a heterosexual union.

Anyone who feels that they are homosexual should meditate, pray and ask some questions.
One of them could be: what is sperm for? Is it glue or a type of gum for sticking pieces of paper together? Perhaps it could be used to increase the coefficient of viscosity for engine oils?

Another suggestion would be maybe, just maybe it could be involved in procreation. This is achieved by sexual intercourse and internal fertilisation with the opposite gender. Every man has the potential to be normal. Sperm is not there for decoration.
Homosexuality could be an emotional imbalance that fools the victim into thinking that he can only have romantic relationships with same-sex.
Yet the fact that gays produce sperm that is attracted to and fertilises female ova, shows that there is an innate attraction between male and female.

Could it be that prayer, meditation and reasoning is the answer to averting homosexuality and thus not having to encounter the carbuncle that is homosexual marriage?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Why shouldn't they demand the same rights as other adults?

The tax breaks and entitlements are granted to serve a legitimate governmental interest. An interest that homosexuals are incapeable of fulfilling. Just as people under 65 dont receive Social security retirement benefits because to do so wouldnt fulfill the purpose of Social security.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Ive never stated otherwise. Grasping for a strawman. .

Yes you did.

Quote by: barnhardt2010 . Only a heterosexual couple can create their child.

If there is no birthing of the child, there is no concern as to the raising of a child

We have already discussed adoption, again try to focus. Who births and who raises a child does not have to be the same.

Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, BC Roman law. its the same across most all cultures, religions and historical periods long before christianity even existed.

Giving birth is the same, the raising of the child differs in all of these societies.

Try to focus again, your complaint is that gays are asking for special benefits, and of course your not claiming that the only special benefits from government they can get is for birthing , are you?

???? Ive only shown positive studies. Studies that have shown that children raised by their mother and father do better than children who are not.... so I cant imagine what you are going on about now with these "negative" studies

Studies show that it is the enviroment that counts, the people supporting the children is important not the sex of the people.