Gay Marriage, Gay this and Gay that.

[WDRacing]

Anyone else tired of seeing it in the media? How about the 500 people that are still against gays just kill themselves already. Seriously, why do you care if two dudes gets married? Mind your own f*** business already. What gives anyone the right to decide something for someone else? In fact, gay marriage, gays in the military, gay rights for everyone...who cares anymore? Gays are everywhere, it's just reality. Why are we tying up the judicial system with this crap? That's fraud waste and abuse imho. How many tax dollars are being spent on keeping the gays isolated? To what end?

Can we act with some common sense for once?

[audtatious]

Congress has much better things to do, like contemplate sound levels for commercials.

[Gabes13]

Can we act with some common sense for once?

Never. Because this is America, which was established for the very pursuit of religious freedom. And even though we try to present a church and state division, there is always political intervention with a religious agenda. There will always be a homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy. With religions feeble grasp on faith because of new wave science, moral is all that's left and political action is the only way to see that it is not diminished. Like opinions, however, morals are subjective, bias, and skewed. It's ironic how America presents a free land but is indeed one of the last countries to recognize same sex marriages and rights.

[wingFeather]

Can we act with some common sense for once?

You first homeboy. Who are you to say that gays should be allowed to get married? Kinda funny that you judge others so harshly & then turn around and do the very thing you hate

[Eikon]

I'm against the financial benefits of marriage being given to gay couples.

I am not anti-gay. I am not anti-gay rights. I have no problem with people doing whatever they choose in the privacy of their homes. But, I don't think gays should get all the benefits accorded to married couples.

What would you say if a gay couple approached you and said, "we're gay and we are getting married and you need to give me some of your money"? I'd say no way!

I'll admit that my beliefs about the topic of marriage stem from my religious beliefs. I know its cliche, but I think marriage is "sacred" and some of the benefits should remain exclusive to male/female relationships. Mostly, it is the financial benefits of marriage that shouldn't be accorded. My reasoning is that the extra social security, tax credits, joint status on tax returns, estate taxes, etc... are all give and take. Anyone who gets extra credits winds up sucking more from the total economy which later requires everyone's taxes to increase to pay for it. I just don't want my tax dollars going to gay couples.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have every right accorded to every other individual. I'm just saying there are a few special rights that should be reserved for traditional marriage.

I'm not even against all marriage rights for gays... Just the financial ones that impact taxes that I might have to pay in the future.

I have no problem with gays in the military as long as provisions are made to accomodate the few who would be uncomfortable with it. I have no problem with next of kin laws for health care and other familial rights issues that impact only the couple.

[AppleBonker]

This ^ is ridiculous and why I am absolutely all FOR civil union rights for gays. Why should certain people be denied the benefits granted by our government? It's absolutely ludicrous. I don't care if you hate gays. I don't care if you hate blacks or women, or Jews, or Muslims. That's your own right. But I don't see how our government can afford benefits to certain members of society and not others because they are different or in the minority in some category. You don't want to give financial benefits to gays, fine. But you damn well better not argue for those benefits to be given to straight couples then.

What if I'm destined to be a bachelor the rest of my life? Why is it fair for me to be paying increased taxes because you and your wife are sucking more from the system?

[WDRacing]

Can we act with some common sense for once?

You first homeboy. Who are you to say that gays should be allowed to get married? Kinda funny that you judge others so harshly & then turn around and do the very thing you hate

Your argument holds zero water. I'm not influencing someones personal life by being prejudice. Why can't they get married? By saying they can't, you're pushing YOUR bias on someone else, not the other way around. How am I judging others harshly? By suggesting that people mind their own business? No. You're not prejudiced and biased unless you're telling someone they CAN'T do something when others can.

I'm against the financial benefits of marriage being given to gay couples.

I am not anti-gay. I am not anti-gay rights.

Um...why shouldn't they get financial benefits? Want to be fair, either give them to everyone or no one. Otherwise it's obvious bias. The sacrament of marriage has been gone for years. The divorce rate in America is what, 75%?

[Eikon]

Since when has our government promised that all people should get all benefits?
I don't get social security because I'm not past retirement age.
I don't get the right to cancel a contract because I'm a minor... because I'm not a minor.
I don't get to run a casino because I'm not native american.
I don't get scholarships to college because I'm not female or minority.
I don't get preference in hiring because I'm not minority.
I don't get railroad retirement pension because I never worked for the railroad.
I don't get military health care or pension because I didn't fight in the military.
I don't get unemployment...
I don't get food stamps..
I don't get free health care..
I don't get housing support...

If you're not married, you shouldn't get the financial benefits of a married couple.

Our country is far from granting complete equality to all members. We have a number of examples of special benefits given to special groups of people for specific reasons. Those special benefits are added benefit to those people and not denial of basic rights to everyone else. You are saying that special benefits for traditional married couples = discrimination against everyone else... That is not true. It's just a few extra benefits for those who qualify. I think those few extra benefits reserved for marriage should be reserved for traditional marriage.

[AppleBonker]

Since when has our government promised that all people should get all benefits?
[long list of things you don't qualify for]

I'm all for changing some of those. I don't want people being offered benefits for any arbitrary reason. It should be an all or none deal (the obvious exception being in times of need - but this is a much more complex issue and a whole different argument). And jobs/scholarships/etc should be awarded based on merit.

If you're not married, you shouldn't get the financial benefits of a married couple.

So if I really want these financial benefits I should just marry a random chick? How about this, if there is a gay male couple and a gay female couple they should just marry each other to gain the benefits and then continue living with their same-sex partners? How does that sit with your desire to enforce the sanctity of marriage?

Also, why are these financial benefits awarded? What is the government trying to support encourage?

And, for the record, I'm not arguing that I should be getting the financial benefits of a married couple. I'm arguing that the married couple should not be receiving any benefits. But, if government wants to stick its nose somewhere where it doesn't belong, it shouldn't pick and choose who gets said benefits.

Those special benefits are added benefit to those people and not denial of basic rights to everyone else

Still not calling it a right. But why do you need a financial benefit to get married? Or why do you deserve one for being married? What are you doing that the gay couple is not? Or what are they damaging that you are not?

traditional marriage

Whose traditional marriage? And why does any one group (or religion) get to decide on what qualifies?

[Eikon]

So if I really want these financial benefits I should just marry a random chick? How about this, if there is a gay male couple and a gay female couple they should just marry each other to gain the benefits and then continue living with their same-sex partners? How does that sit with your desire to enforce the sanctity of marriage?

It happens. I don't think it should happen, but I'm sure it does. It's extremely difficult to enforce.. how would you go about enforcing that? It's very similar to foreign nationals who marry American citizens for a green card. It's not correct according to the law, but it does happen. I don't think our government has the right to ask how much you love some one.. so if they got married for convenience.. so be it.

Also, why are these financial benefits awarded? What is the government trying to support encourage?

Since our nation was founded by Christians, they incorporated the Christian ideal that when one man and one woman marry they become "one flesh". The couple is now considered a single married entity. That new entity is then afforded some special benefits. If the tax benefits of marriage didn't exist prior to today, there is no way it would happen now. But the benefit of marriage was there from the start and remains because the majority of the population support it. Unfortunately, it speaks to our political system... If any elected official were to discuss taking away marriage benefits they would certainly not be re-elected.

Still not calling it a right. But why do you need a financial benefit to get married? Or why do you deserve one for being married? What are you doing that the gay couple is not? Or what are they damaging that you are not?

Good questions... On non-religious grounds, I have no defense on this topic.

Whose traditional marriage? And why does any one group (or religion) get to decide on what qualifies?

Again, our nation was founded on religious grounds and that religious perspective is still held by a majority of the population.
Try to moving to Iran and arguing against Islamic Law.


I can totally understand your perspective. In fact, I have a hard time defending the idea that married couples should get special benefits on non-religious grounds.

[WDRacing]

I'm prejudice

Could have just said that bro, no need to mix words

[Eikon]

See and I always thought that when you finally decided to come out of the closet, you'd be more direct.. instead of starting this silly thread to talk about the subject.

oh.. and I'm not prejudice.. I hate everyone equally.

[WDRacing]

HAHAHAHAHA...f***.

[AppleBonker]

Good questions... On non-religious grounds, I have no defense on this topic. [...] Try to moving to Iran and arguing against Islamic Law. [...] I have a hard time defending the idea that married couples should get special benefits on non-religious grounds.

I've quoted these for a reason. You make excellent points, and I wont argue religion with you. But the point about Iran doesn't really fit. We claim to offer separation of church and state, they certainly do not. Clearly this is not the case, and that is my main problem. I do not follow your religion, and therefore do not appreciate being governed by its laws. At the same time, I would fight equally hard for your right to practice said religion, even though I don't follow it. I'm not going to be one to tell you what you can or can't do. I would just appreciate the same consideration.

[Gabes13]

What if you had homosexual children?

[Eikon]

You're right.. Iran doesn't ever claim any separation of church and state, whereas the US does claim that.

Our nation certainly has some flaws, one of which is the idea that a country can be founded on Christian principles "under God" and yet offer complete separation of church and state. Those two ideal are pretty opposing views and certainly lead to many complex issues.

I too appreciate most the idea that a person can choose to believe whatever they want in our country. We live in a free country and people have a right to do as they please and be afforded every basic human right that our constitution lays out. I've never said that people don't have a right to be gay or don't have a right to live with the person they love. I'm just saying that there a few special benefits (not rights) that are afforded to traditional marriage that should be reserved for that institution.

At the same time, I would fight equally hard for your right to practice said religion, even though I don't follow it.

A truly excellent quote! I totally agree! Despite the flaws we find in our nation, the basic tenant of freedom of religion and our population's desire to defend that right is what makes America so great!

[Eikon]

What if you had homosexual children?

? Can you elaborate? Who are you responding to and in what context?

[WDRacing]

What if you had homosexual children?

You can beat a kid straight...just have to start early enough

[AppleBonker]

I'm just saying that there a few special benefits (not rights) that are afforded to traditional marriage that should be reserved for that institution.

Benefits for which you even said you cannot make a good argument (without a religious backing). That is my problem. These are benefits supported by possibly a handful of religions. I wonder if there would be more outrage over this if the financial benefits were only awarded to those married at a religious institution rather than a courthouse...

[AppleBonker]

What if you had homosexual children?

I kind of hate this question. I'm not religious, but I probably wouldn't pose it to a Christian individual. This is a very complex subject and would likely require them to pray a lot and ask for guidance.

What would you do if your child were killed by a drunk driver? Or a pedoph:le? It's quite difficult to predict how anyone would react in any of these scenarios. Until anyone has any of these things happen to them, whatever response they give is pretty meaningless.

[WDRacing]

Or remove any tax benefit at all. Aint like we're not already upside down with the fed budget. I think ending tax breaks for married people is a fine place to start cutting back. I mean, why do married people even get a friggin break? I'm married, have been twice ffs, and I can't think of any reason I should get a break where a single person doesn't.

[Gabes13]

What if you had homosexual children?

? Can you elaborate? Who are you responding to and in what context?

You my friend, but anyone here really. I am just curious to see how you would approach the situation, with religious affiliations or not. I left the question as gray as possible so you could apply it in any context you wished. Sexuality in itself is too broad to specifically construct a hypothetical frame work anyways. You have an opinion, and I respect that, but your opinion reflects action and that’s when it becomes an issue. So what if homosexuality was a little closer to home? Would your opinions change?

[Gabes13]

What if you had homosexual children?

I kind of hate this question.

I understand that, but this question was not directed to be revolved around the child themselves, but rather sexuality in general when it's placed on a personal level. and being homosexual is not the same as being hit by a drunk driver, becoming or being attacked by a pedoph:le. Those are accidents, and sexuality is not an accident.

[WDRacing]

It would be hard not thinking I was a failure if one of my kids was gay. But he'd still be my kid. He'd be a gay hockey player that loves guns and cars. Be pretty weird around Christmas time when I hammer the two with gay jokes. But you have to laugh about s*** like that I suppose.

[AppleBonker]

Sure, my analogy wasn't perfect. But the focus wasn't supposed to be on the issue, but rather how you'd react in a given situation. You can try to predict that for any situation you may encounter, but unless it happens you don't really know for sure.

[bigbadberry3]

WD- I like your idea. Level the playing field by removing any bonuses that straight couples receive. Hate'm all equally.

[Gabes13]

but unless it happens you don't really know for sure.

You’re right, and I agree with you 110%
So, what if I place it in a more simplistic manner.
Fact: You don’t believe homosexuals should have the same rights as married heterosexuals.
Fact: You have offspring.
Fact: One, or more, of those offspring are homosexual.
It doesn’t matter who, how, when or where they disclosed their sexuality, but rather that you have offspring that would want the same things you have. Would your opinions change? Even take sexuality out of the picture. You’re a ninja turtle. What if I said that ninja turtles shouldn’t have the same rights and benefits as ninja pandas?

[WDRacing]

Something I was thinking about for a sec, I bet gays would be more then willing to be exempt from any tax break if their marriage was legal. One battle at a time. Then again that would be compromise, something our Gov simply doesn't do.

[WDRacing]

You’re a ninja turtle. What if I said that ninja turtles shouldn’t have the same rights and benefits as ninja pandas?

Ninja Panda's are WAY more rare AND endangered. So they obviously get more tax breaks then the common ninja turtle.

[Eikon]

You my friend, but anyone here really. I am just curious to see how you would approach the situation, with religious affiliations or not. I left the question as gray as possible so you could apply it in any context you wished. Sexuality in itself is too broad to specifically construct a hypothetical frame work anyways. You have an opinion, and I respect that, but your opinion reflects action and that’s when it becomes an issue. So what if homosexuality was a little closer to home? Would your opinions change?

I don't see how this applies to my views on gay marriage benefits. By asking if I had a homosexual children, you seem to make the implication that I don't think people have the right to be homosexual. That isn't true at all. I've never said that people can't be gay. I've never said that gay people shouldn't have the very same rights that straight people have. My point is that in our nation, certain people have certain benefits accorded to them. One of those benefits is some tax relief given to married couples. I've already admitted that if I put aside my religious beliefs, I would have a difficult time defending the fact that the tax benefit exists. But, since it does, and the topic of discussion is whether or not those benefits should be extended to gay couples who call themselves "married", then I repeat my opinion that the benefits which carry financial implication should not extend people outside the traditional definition of marriage.

If I had homosexual kids... my opinion on marriage and the corresponding benefits would not change. I would love my homosexual kids just as much as a non-homosexual kid. I would fight to defend every one of the rights they deserve.

In case you missed it earlier in this thread, there is a difference between a "right" and a benefit. Free speech, free religion, due process and gun ownership are examples of "rights" and those rights should be the same for everyone. Tax credits, casino gaming licenses, preference in hiring or college admittance due to affirmative action, or the tax benefits in our tax code for married couples are examples of "benefits", and nowhere in our constitution does it claim that all people should be afforded all equal benefits.