sees_all1

And there is absolutely zero chance for their position to be politically motivated, right?

If the issue is whether two people can get money from the government to help and protect their children by keeping the parents together, does it really matter what gender the parents are, or if the child was adopted or not? (or born from a surrogate, sperm bank donor...) I'd rather have homosexuals make that argument and partly agree with them on those points than to disagree on what marriage is and have them jump down my throat for being a bigot for not allowing them to "marry" or have their relationship be equal in the eyes of the law.The other thing that hasn't been explored is how children develop when growing up with same sex parents. Dads and Moms are very different people, and lacking one could be detrimental to child developement. Unfortunately this issue is too touchy for any legitimate research to be done.

It's not a compelling case against homosexual marriage, it's the case for traditional families. My point is that over the past 100 years, laws have been passed to give incentives for married people to stick together in order to strengthen families. The underlying assumption is that one parent will work, and the other parent will stay at home with the kids raising them. The laws make it easier for families to live under a single income. The point is that there are civil unions which grant homosexual couples many of the same protection as marriage, but not all of them. Homosexuals want "marriage" because they want all the benefits of marriage; I'm arguing that these benefits of marriage aren't really applicable to homosexual couples because they can't procreate. When these laws were passed giving bonuses to marriage, they had the intent of helping and protecting children by keeping their parents together. They weren't passed trying to make two classes of people. Another thing that is irksome is the fact that pretty much everywhere in the U.S. recognizes civil unions, which is the same thing as marriage without the heterosexual part. There are still benefits civil unions don't receive that marriages do, but that's because marriage is meant for procreation and raising families, and civil unions are meant for people that are devoted to one another. Homosexuals are fighting for the definition of marriage to change because they feel it's easier to change one word to get all benefits immediately instead of having to explain why they need the same incentives for marriage meant to keep children safe. EDIT: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i-oppose-gay-marriage

Once there was a thread where the point was to post more than anyone else. The thread entered infinity when the thread creator made a rule that only that rule could be posted. The end? The Next Post Will post a youtube video from the slingshot channel.

I'm sorry for you.

I had a bite of a piece of fish yesterday, and found out I didn't like it. I took another bite anyway. The Next Post Will describe the last post.

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/7-Tax-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html Another one not listed there is with Social Security, and married couples with a single earner. When the single earner dies, the spouse continues to receive benefits afterwards, even though the spouse never *worked* for the benefit. The idea is that one parent would go make money, and the other would go take care of the kids, both being full time jobs. Another government benefit exclusive to marriage is not having to testify against your spouse in court.

You know marriage is one of the seven sacraments in the church right? Why do gays want to associate themselves with us bigots? <_<

See the article, there is a connection between poverty and single parenting. http://www.policymic...live-in-poverty EDIT: The idea though is two are better than one when raising children. And the people most likely to have children are heterosexual couples. Once again, I despise the idea of social engineering. I think it's big government at the worst. But I don't buy into the idea that homosexuals are "fighting" for equality or are fighting against oppression.

... $100 is more than $50, yes. You needed a study to find that out? The tax incentives for married couples aren't to discriminate against homosexual couples, its for the children.

They might not have kids, but they still can raise them. Parenting still happens well into people's 60's... not to mention grand parenting, etc.

Marriage has always been about having children and procreating. It's a historical fact, it's also the reason why in many places incest is illegal, and blood related siblings can't marry. I'm not arguing about special cases such as infertile couples, I'm arguing broadly about biological fact. If two people decide to marry but not have kids, they're missing the point of marriage. On a slightly related note, I disagree with social engineering and generally I'd prefer a simpler tax code (i.e. I'd just as soon take away incentives for being married). However, it seems that most of societies ills are linked to poverty, and the traditional family does a better job at overcoming poverty than single parents. http://www.policymic.com/articles/11316/27-3-of-single-parent-households-live-in-poverty

By all means, commit to one another. Their motive isn't marriage, it's equality, which means tax incentives. And yet, strangely, despite being prompted to on several occasions, you have yet to provide a single fair and reasonable argument as to why homosexuals and heterosexuals shouldn't be entitled to the same tax incentives as each other. I don't have a burden to prove that. You want to change the status quo, you explain why it needs to be changed. The marriage tax code exists with the idea that dad works, mom stays at home with the kids. Why do homosexual couples deserve the same tax treatment as the traditional family? Unmarried heterosexual couples don't get these benefits. Best friends living together as roommates don't get these benefits. Homosexuals don't want to argue this in the court of public opinion, or get legislation drafted and passed for their special circumstance. They are trying to get all these benefits simply by changing the definition of marriage. They're arguing for special treatment, and conflating the issue by calling it "rights." As if by existing you automatically have the right to be married.

I like it. It blurs out the stats I don't care about.

Cause they're all BIGOTED! <_< By all means, commit to one another. Their motive isn't marriage, it's equality, which means tax incentives.

You're missing the point of marriage. How? Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children. There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage." And here I've gone my whole life thinking that marriage was a pact or agreement between two people who plan to spend the rest of their lives together while supporting, caring for, and loving each other. Guess I was mistaken. Ever hear the phrase, "consummate the marriage?" Means try to make a baby.

You're missing the point of marriage. How? Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children. There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage."

You're missing the point of marriage.

"Homosexual marriage" will never be equal to "Heterosexual marriage" because homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce within a marriage. If you want to discuss tax incentives, I'm all ears.

Brief history lesson. The government realized that it was beneficial for society to have the nuclear family as the individual unit. So they put tax incentives among other reasons for people to get married and to stay married. Each of these incentives were rigorously debated and took a long time to bring into law. Fast forward to now. Homosexual rights and "marriage equality" are only about the quickest way to get the same money. The quickest way to get homosexual couples the same incentives is to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. If there was no incentive to being in a marriage, I firmly believe this would be a non issue. While I disagree with the principles of social engineering, many of societies ills come from the breakdown of the traditional family. Not going to cite statistics, but it's easy to find that children in families with single or divorced parents do much worse than children with both parents. Also the majority of welfare money is spent on families with single parents. It's also easy to see the correlation between poverty and crime rates, etc.

Shell shock live 2, on armorgames

I look like a child molester. TNPW describe their favorite font.

banned for not using comic sans

WHY NOT JUST MAKE 10 LOUDER TNPW INCLUDE ONE EMOTICON

OK - ALL CAPS FOR ME TNPW DO THE SAME.