Marriage equality, and the SCotUS

[Estonian dude]

I am not even anti-gay or anything. I personally know a few gay people and I get along with them. Just like with any other normal human being. Only thing that I don't like is how they always whine how their rights are broken or whatever. And gay parades and other such stuff. And the fact that most of them have to announce their homosexuality everywhere. Ok, I may be a bit harsh here, but it is my personal opinion. If you are a gay, be a gay, you just don't have to proclaim it everywhere. The same like how I don't proclaim everywhere that I am a heterosexual. I know that this thing really can't be compared, but I don't give a damn.

 

I just think that this whole thing is way over-blown. As I said, marriage is a legal contract just like any other and I don't see why there should be any limits to it.

 

I personally am actually of opinion that every single person is bisexual when they are born, but society forms us and hormones kick later in that determine our sexuality. So yeah, seriously this thing has just a huge bell hanged onto it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not sure why people even have an issue with homosexuality any more. I don't understand how you can be in favour of denying a couple the right to commit to one another simply because they have matching genitalia. Hopefully society will look back on this in a decade or two with a massive sense of embarrassment.

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.

[Plugpoint]

I'm not sure why people even have an issue with homosexuality any more. I don't understand how you can be in favour of denying a couple the right to commit to one another simply because they have matching genitalia. Hopefully society will look back on this in a decade or two with a massive sense of embarrassment.

By all means, commit to one another. Their motive isn't marriage, it's equality, which means tax incentives.

Their motive isn't tax incentives, it's equality, which means marriage. Who the [bleep] gets married for the tax incentives anyway?

[obfuscator]

all i know is that rainy and I should have been married years ago, but we couldn't because he's a monkey, and this makes me MAD

[sees_all1]

I'm not sure why people even have an issue with homosexuality any more. I don't understand how you can be in favour of denying a couple the right to commit to one another simply because they have matching genitalia. Hopefully society will look back on this in a decade or two with a massive sense of embarrassment.

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.

[Blake]

I am not even anti-gay or anything. I personally know a few gay people and I get along with them. Just like with any other normal human being. Only thing that I don't like is how they always whine how their rights are broken or whatever. And gay parades and other such stuff. And the fact that most of them have to announce their homosexuality everywhere. Ok, I may be a bit harsh here, but it is my personal opinion. If you are a gay, be a gay, you just don't have to proclaim it everywhere. The same like how I don't proclaim everywhere that I am a heterosexual. I know that this thing really can't be compared, but I don't give a damn.

 

I just think that this whole thing is way over-blown. As I said, marriage is a legal contract just like any other and I don't see why there should be any limits to it.

 

I personally am actually of opinion that every single person is bisexual when they are born, but society forms us and hormones kick later in that determine our sexuality. So yeah, seriously this thing has just a huge bell hanged onto it.

 

It's the same thing as you talking about being estonian and all that jazz all the time. Why is it different if they are talking about them being homosexual? Using your words, if you are estonian, just be estonian, you don't have to proclaim it everywhere.

About them whining about their rights - if you were "oppressed", for lack of a better word, of something, be it race or nationality, and you had the chance to protest (or whine, like you say) about it, I'm sure that you would.

[muggiwhplar]

Scumbag Saqs: dislikes how in-your-face many gays are; won't shut up about his Estonian heritage :lol:

[Ginger_Warrior]

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 much as I'm arguing there's no difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, you may also assume that I see no difference in unmarried heterosexual couples and married heterosexual couples when in both cases, the spouses are living together in a committed relationship.

 

I don't think it's fair to suggest that homosexuals are asking for special treatment by themselves. Whether you want to face reality or not, family life in the 21st Century is changing, perhaps more rapidly now than it ever has done in human history. The husband is no longer necessarily the highest earner. Homosexuality is now generally tolerated across society. It isn't seen as unusual for a child to be born to an unmarried couple, or even a single parent.

 

Marriage is a great social institution, but it is one that is changing. Sticking your head in the sand and denying stark reality is not a progressive way of looking at this issue.

[Estonian dude]

I know I am a scumbag. But I also know that I am alone, of a breed on a brink of extinction. Homosexuals don't have such a problem.

Being an Estonian is about the only thing making me unique. Granted, I know a few more Estonians on TIF, but none on OT.

 

And I am of such controversial character, I have my own controversial views and I am not afraid to show them.

 

Sorry if I might hurt some of you, but I actually honestly think TIF is probably the place where I feel most free in my sayings. It is only place for me to discuss such topics at all, since when I argue with someone IRL, I have done it so much that nearly everyone I know frowns on me for that. And also they don't like my views.

[TTanT]

I'm not sure why people even have an issue with homosexuality any more. I don't understand how you can be in favour of denying a couple the right to commit to one another simply because they have matching genitalia. Hopefully society will look back on this in a decade or two with a massive sense of embarrassment.

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.

 

If you're a straight male or female you're allowed to marry anyone you'd like. It's a right in the sense that the government doesn't restrict it. Yet it's taken away from homosexuals just because of who they like to get jiggy with? That's preferential treatment of one group over another, also known as discrimination. Last time I checked the United States was supposed to be against that.

They aren't asking for special treatment, they're trying to gain access to benefits that are being unfairly taken away from them due to their sexuality.

 

Also you've been ignoring the fact that heterosexuals don't need to ever have children for their marriage to be legal. I think this is my third time mentioning it now. Not to mention the fact that gays can adopt. Those are two gaping holes in your argument for your definition of marriage.

[obfuscator]

 

If you're a straight male or female you're allowed to marry anyone you'd like. It's a right in the sense that the government doesn't restrict it. Yet it's taken away from homosexuals just because of who they like to get jiggy with? That's preferential treatment of one group over another, also known as discrimination. Last time I checked the United States was supposed to be against that.

They aren't asking for special treatment, they're trying to gain access to benefits that are being unfairly taken away from them due to their sexuality.

 

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this topic, but I do have to stress what you're saying is not technically true. Straight males and females cannot "marry anyone they'd like", they can marry anyone of the opposite sex, a right gay people have in full as well.

 

Marriage is not a right that some people currently have and do not, it's something that isn't what some people want and so they want to expand it to make it something they do want.

[sees_all1]

Also you've been ignoring the fact that heterosexuals don't need to ever have children for their marriage to be legal. I think this is my third time mentioning it now. Not to mention the fact that gays can adopt. Those are two gaping holes in your argument for your definition of marriage.

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

[nine naked men]

Agreed. We shouldn't let old people marry, either, they're not going to have any kids. Maybe just automatically divorce couples when they reach a certain age.

 

religion

[sees_all1]

Agreed. We shouldn't let old people marry, either, they're not going to have any kids. Maybe just automatically divorce couples when they reach a certain age.

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.

[Giordano]

the traditional family does a better job at overcoming poverty than single parents.

http://www.policymic...live-in-poverty

...

 

$100 is more than $50, yes. You needed a study to find that out?

[sees_all1]

the traditional family does a better job at overcoming poverty than single parents.

http://www.policymic...live-in-poverty

...

 

$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.

[Kaphias]

Agreed. We shouldn't let old people marry, either, they're not going to have any kids. Maybe just automatically divorce couples when they reach a certain age.

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.

Gay couples can't* have kids, but they can still raise them.

 

*I don't really need to explain this, do I?

[Kaphias]

the traditional family does a better job at overcoming poverty than single parents.

http://www.policymic...live-in-poverty

...

 

$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.

And again, gay couples can raise children. Maybe the tax incentives shouldn't come with marriage, but with children?

[Range_This11]

I don't think the government should have any role in any form of marriage in the first place.

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.

 

My parents divorced after 23 years of marriage when I was in 8th grade and it was the best thing that has happened to my family. Both my parents have remarried and are happy and I am closer to my sister, mother, and father than I ever was growing up. Both my sister and I are college graduates and I will be entering a graduate program in the fall (as you know). I don't think that marriage statistics necessarily predict a child or family's economic success.

[sees_all1]

My parents divorced after 23 years of marriage when I was in 8th grade and it was the best thing that has happened to my family. Both my parents have remarried and are happy and I am closer to my sister, mother, and father than I ever was growing up. Both my sister and I are college graduates and I will be entering a graduate program in the fall (as you know). I don't think that marriage statistics necessarily predict a child or family's economic success.

See the article, there is a connection between poverty and single parenting.

http://www.policymic...live-in-poverty

 

EDIT:

And again, gay couples can raise children. Maybe the tax incentives shouldn't come with marriage, but with children?

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.

[Giordano]

[The idea though is two are better than one when raising children. And the people most likely to have children are heterosexual couples.

So lets let gays marry, and with that duo-partnership adopted children will live in a house with two parents instead of one!

 

And if you say they can do this already, they can. But further removing the stigma of gays would make more gays come out, more gays marry/live together, more gays adopt, more orphans will have homes, and said orphans won't be bullied in school for having two dads.

 

 

OR

 

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

[obfuscator]

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

 

You're so clever. I wish I'd thought to post a tired religious strawman argument before religion was even mentioned in the thread. :thumbup:

[nine naked men]

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

 

You're so clever. I wish I'd thought to post a tired religious strawman argument before religion was even mentioned in the thread. :thumbup:

 

I think you'd do well to read the thread more carefully next time, Mr. Y Guy

[obfuscator]

Stick with the old Christian tenants, since I heard the bishop gave our lord an additional fiefdom! I sure wish one of us serfs could get an acre of land to ourselves...

 

You're so clever. I wish I'd thought to post a tired religious strawman argument before religion was even mentioned in the thread. :thumbup:

 

I think you'd do well to read the thread more carefully next time, Mr. Y Guy

edit: you troll

[Ginger_Warrior]

What is going on here?!