Gay Marriage, Gay this and Gay that.

[IBCoupe]

Not very likely means nothing today. 20 years ago I would not have thought a lot of things would be likely. Lots of politicians are striving to give more and more to the "struggling" single person these days.

Like what?

[audtatious]

Don't matter. It's all racist and birthright stuff anyway. Not worth the conversation.

[IBCoupe]

Well, I had a response, but then thought better of it because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The reason that kind of shift in the tax law is that we don't have much of a precedent for it, and the current tax code doesn't seem to foster that kind of reasoning. It only barely fosters the logic behind "imputed" income, like the kind you get by not renting out your home or not paying for a babysitter because you've chosen to stay home.

If those logical possibilities remain political impossibilities, I don't see "co-dependency as a marriage benefit" getting very far, being that there isn't even the tax logic behind it.

[mattblancarte]

"Danbury letter" as it which surely states there shall never be a religion allowed in the US.......Hell, let's mandate stoning of Christians while we are at it.

Huh? What is this inflammatory garbage? I feel like I'm reading a Sarah Palin FB newsfeed update.

Religions of all types are protected under the constitution. The US Federal Government is also protected from religions of all types and their conflicted, barbaric dogmas.

Don't float that s*** in here, please. You know that you have every right to practice your own religion, and no one from the federal government will lift a finger to stop or persecute you.

If discussion surrounding religion is seriously banned within this forum, lets keep it that way. Otherwise, I'm prepared and motivated to argue the gay rights issue from that angle. I'm also prepared and motivated to debate any topic surrounding religion.

Hash offered up the concept of government keeping their hands out of marriage. We had this discussion in a pretty long thread quite a while ago, and I'm 100% behind that idea.

[audtatious]

[mattblancarte]

0y. Your sarcasm flew over my head that time, as it tends to do on occasion. Was late when I read the thread. My apologies, monsieur.

Mental damage did occur at the time.

[audtatious]

np. Seems you've hear that crap before. Did I do a good job of regurgitating it?

[mattblancarte]

Almost too good of a job. lol I well acquainted with Religious debate, and apologist arguments coupled with extreme embellishments of the reality of public tenor drive me nuts. That exact type of argument shows up way too often in serious discourse.