| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
Finally, someone with a national voice agrees with me. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/27/when-it- comes-to-marriage-government-should-divorce-itself / I've been saying this for years. | ||
| Oldog |
Part of the "GAY Marriage " thing had to do with taxes. Now leave OUR GUN rights alone, and stay out of OUR bed rooms. | ||
| Schwiiing |
Quite refreshing. Couldn't have said it better myself. | ||
| Aesquire |
The libertarian side of me agrees, the slightly more rational "gotta have some rules this side of anarchy, but not too many" side sees some issues. Emotionally, it looks to me like a "I'm going to take my marbles" attitude, a bit. I support Civil Unions to legalize, for all the "usual" purposes folk who want to live together. The Purpose of marriage, and a Civil union, is to raise children, and preserve property. NOT to procreate. That we will be doing with artificial wombs and cloning soon enough. ( the cloning part may already be happening, and we NEED legal controls on that. I suggest a Clone be legally the elder brother/sister and the inheritor. That would reduce the "clone for parts" problem before it happens. ) Many of the objections to "gay marriage" that are not religious based, seem to be an unwillingness to share the tax & job benefit with others. That may sound harsh, but it seems that way. Yes, if a Civil Union between Joe and John, or Jean and Jane, grant the same tax and benefit status and costs as between John and Jane, the price of those thing will increase. TANSTAAFL. The proposal in the article takes it away from everyone. THAT, to me, seems like sour grapes and foolish. The rest of it, the truth that if you let Jane and Jean marry, that Jean, John, and Jane may too, is accurate. Monogamous marriage is a recent thing. Concubines and sister wives are common in many cultures. As a women's Libber, I support Jean being able to have a Hareem as much as John. Yes that skews the sex ratio available for marriage, a bit, but so does homosexuality. In selfish rational terms, I, a male, should support gay men, since it leaves more gals for me, and dislike gay women, which leave less. I don't feel that way, but I, perhaps, should. In the end "none of your damn business" should be the proper attitude, and I propose that all non-traditional "unions" have a prenup. Traditional ones already have a large history in common and civil law, and we have to have rules that do what a marriage is SUPPOSED to do. Protect the Children. Preserve the Property Rights. All else is custom. | ||
| Brumbear |
I think the gov should stay out of it as well.I personally will laugh at any gay couple who think they are married imo that can not happen, but that is also my right to do that. Problem Solved | ||
| 01x1buell |
there you go brum.. well put  | ||
| Stirz007 |
You guyz better get with the program, comrade. The government should be able to decide everything so your simple minds don't have to - cuz you're just going to be WRONG! | ||
| Blake |
I don't have an ardent objection until the govt forces me/us to accept or treat homosexual partnerships as if they are marriages, for instance forcing employers who provide family medical insurance to cover their employees homosexual partners, or mandating social security spousal death benefits for homosexuals, etc. I'll fight for their right to sodomize each other in private, but I won't pay to support it! | ||
| Xb9er |
well if us straight folks dont want to pay for gay marriage maybe gay people shouldnt pay for our marriage. Make homosexuals tax exempt. Its only fair | ||
| Blake |
I disagree strongly with Ablow. What he is contending is that the nation has no interest in helping to support marriage and family. It surely does, and for a number of rock solid reasons. If the nation has an interest in promoting security, then it absolutely has an interest in supporting marriage and family. Families with a mother and father are by far the optimum means for raising successful generation of Americans. 70% of felons come from other than families with a mother and father. If the nation has an interest in providing for health and happiness then it has an interest in supporting marriage and family. Take a guess which children are healthier and happier versus which commit the majority of teen suicide? If the nation has an interest in education, then it surely has an interest in supporting marriage and family. Care to guess which children achieve the higher graduation rates and college degrees versus which drop out more? Redefining the meaning of marriage is nothing but a selfish act by those who can't simply live their lives as they see fit, but must force others to support and affirm their behavior as though it were just as favorable and beneficial to society as that of a traditional family. It's a selfish lie. Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female. With its exceptionally unique traits and procreative potential, and its standing for successfully raising up future generations of successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? Because homosexuals get their feeling hurt on account of they are different??? | ||
| M1combat |
"I don't have an ardent objection until the govt forces me/us to accept or treat homosexual partnerships as if they are marriages, for instance forcing employers who provide family medical insurance to cover their employees homosexual partners, or mandating social security spousal death benefits for homosexuals, etc. I'll fight for their right to sodomize each other in private, but I won't pay to support it!" They pay taxes for roads you use etc... More than you do even... since they don't have marriage tax breaks. So you're OK with it until the government forces you to accept their marriage just like they accept yours? Do some serious thinking Blake. If you have (I've always known you to be a thinker) then tell me why you feel the way you do. | ||
| Xb9er |
Blake, with sources other than fox news, can you provide us with the statistics you posted? I would like to check them out and investigate the evidence behind the evidence. Not bashing just trying to gets some more knowledge about this issue. | ||
| Blake |
Look it up for yourself or remain mislead by liars. If you truly crave knowledge, you can find it. Google works. Is what I shared really surprising? Think. Don, You've been mislead, and you've spouted the same false premise the deceivers have worked so hard to brainwash us all into believing. Read my last post above. It's all true. I could go on about the devastating prevalence of drug abuse, deadly disease, and suicide among homosexuals. You're mistaken on the income tax as well. A married couple with taxable income of $100K pays just a bit more income tax ($17,054) compared to two single folks with taxable incomes of $50K each ($8,524 + $8,524 = $17,048) Why not honor marriage and support it as outlined in my post above? ... Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female. With its exceptionally unique traits and vital procreative potential, and its standing for most successfully raising up future generations of the most successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? Anyone? (Message edited by Blake on March 28, 2013) | ||
| Xb9er |
Procreation is irrelevant to male/female marriages when the couple are in their 50's or older. Once again not bashing just trying to make a good conclusion for myself | ||
| Blake |
Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female. With its exceptionally unique traits and vital procreative potential, and its standing for most successfully raising up future generations of the most successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? | ||
| Kenm123t |
No matter what the pervs want no amount of forced gov approval will remove the perversion from their life style. Why do they want marriage ? just to subvert the church. I have no issue with perverts having equal treatment under the tax code. But forcing me to accept their sick life style as an Christian value won't happen. We are not homo phobic we are just homo annoyed. If they keep up this in you face harassment they may find out its safer in the closet. My world doesn't revolve around helping perverts deal with their emotional issues | ||
| Thumper1203 |
We are not homo phobic we are just homo annoyed. If they keep up this in you face harassment they may find out its safer in the closet agreed.. couldn't have said it better | ||
| Pwnzor |
I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't agree with government interference in our lives. I think any two people should be able to share benefits, if the secondary person is wholly supported by the primary person financially. Example: Let's say I'm single and supporting my widowed mother. I should be able to put her on my insurance. Likewise, if a lifelong friend has his life wiped out by circumstances beyond his control, and I take him into my home, and I am claiming NOBODY ELSE, I should be able to add that person to my insurance. NOT two or three or four. ONE other person ONLY... UNLESS those people are a heterosexual spouse and offspring. NO TAX BREAKS OR PENALTIES FOR MARRIAGE OR PARTNERSHIP OF ANY KIND. I don't care what animals do in the forest, and I don't care if people sodomize each other. Keep it out of my face, and I won't shoot you. Deal? | ||
| J2blue |
The obvious: no one, in government or otherwise, has denied anyone the right to marry... if they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is. Civil rights my a$$. If a person claims to be homosexual, even born that way, doesn't mean they can't marry someone of the opposite sex. If marriage is too uncomfortable to them they can just not get married. Problem solved. How many non-homosexuals who live with friends or family members in a material partnership are there? Marriage has nothing to do with their circumstance, but are they not just as deserving as a marriage partnership, or a homosexual partnership, to the same benefits of government? I do agree that government of a nation has an intrinsic interest is supporting marriage, but only the real deal, not the pretend sham of same-sex marriage. But our founding fathers missed the opportunity to make that clear in the Constitution. I don't blame them, they couldn't have possibly foreseen the lunacy and debased nature of a post industrial America. But since they didn't it is a political impossibility now, so the only consistent way to handle it is to obey the separation of church and state to the letter and not respect marriage of any kind as a special case deserving of special treatment. If that smacks of sour grapes, it is. Very sour grapes, and angry grapes. I don't want to live in such a debased society, but I'm stuck where I am for now. Tolerance is one thing, but I'm not a door mat, and what a devolving segment of society has done(and still attempting) is repugnant and offensive. | ||
| Hootowl |
My questions are: Why do I have to have permission from the government to get married? Why is it constitutional, under the equal protection clause, to tax different people at different rates based on marital status, or anything else for that matter? Why is it constitutional to give people with children tax credits at the expense of those without? I understand the argument that it is in the best interest of the nation to encourage the birth of children, I just don't agree with it. We've got plenty of people. It is also irrelevant. The government can’t violate the constitution simply because it thinks it is in the common interest to do so. Yeah, I know that it does that routinely, but that does not make it right. Peel back the layers: Hospital visitation, tax issues, inheritance, medical benefits, etc. These are all issues that should be addressed individually, not clumped together under the perceived benefit of marriage. Fix the authoritarian attitude of the hospitals, and the patient visitation issue goes away. Flatten the tax code and the tax issue goes away. Make a will and the inheritance issue goes away, assuming the tax issue has already been addressed. Pay per person covered on the medical plan, and the medical benefit issue goes away. People do not need encouragement to get married, and they do not need encouragement to have children. The government should get their big fat fingers out of my life. If there is no tax payer assisted benefit to being married, no one has to pay for anyone else's lifestyle choices. Problem solved. | ||
| Raceautobody |
Marriage is a religious rite (rite of passage). Not a government right. Simple. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
I love this thread, so entertaining. Blake - I do not doubt your statistics, but I don't think it likely has more to it than "well they weren't raised by a mother and father together" or something to that effect. It might have more to do with the fact that there was a great deal of separation in the house - ie: if dad left or was never around, mom is working two jobs to try to support the kid, so shes never there. Or vise versa for the dad, hes never there cause he's a single parent trying to earn enough to give his child a decent life. Point two with that - divorce is freaking rough. I know my parents split when I was 14 and I was devastated. I lost many nights of sleep, that semester my grades dropped severely, just couldn't think right. Im lucky, my father didn't work two jobs and he was very caring during all of that, so I wasn't turning to another source for a father figure etc. I am also lucky in the fact that my mother just left, no real custody battle or fighting over me, she felt she would have a better life with another man in another state - ive not seen her since, that was 16 years ago. I know other people with kids, or were children themselves when their parents divorced, and know about how sometimes parents fight so much, and sometimes it happens in front of the kid, or the kid knows of it. So now this kid is exposed to all of this aggression in their home, the people they are being raised by are yelling at each other - I can only assume that'd jack someone up emotionally, potentially pushing them to something else - maybe gang activity for brotherhood, drugs to escape this world for a bit, or doing wild things to try to get attention. I don't know. My point is that just because 70% of felons do not come from a home with a mother and father does NOT conclude that the outcome would be the same in a FF or MM household. There are societies around the world (I actually just researched one a few weeks ago for Anthropology class) that do not include the father in the raising of the child. Instead the child is raised by the mother, her mother, and her brothers and sisters. This society has little crime, but thats in part due to how the child is raised and the social pressure around them not to do bad things. In my opinion, THAT is what is wrong with our country. Its not gay marriage or whatever, its the fact that so many have lost their values and morals, they quit caring. Parents are not allowed to punish their children anymore (don't try to fool me, sending a kid to their room for the night is not punishment), so kids see no consequences of their actions while they're growing up. They run wild and do stupid things, then they do it one too many times and get arrested. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
" If a person claims to be homosexual, even born that way, doesn't mean they can't marry someone of the opposite sex" what really? wouldn't that soil the sacredness of marriage - being married under false pretense? And how much have divorce rates been skewed because of these actions? Example: I worked with this guy years ago, hes a corporate guy at Journeys shoe stores. Just a normal dude, no lisp, no flamboyance....just a guy. He talked about his ex-wife once, their kid(s?...cant recall), and their life together. Said she was an amazing woman etc etc...but it didn't work. I asked about it, he said that he'd never really wanted to get married but felt pressure to conform to societies norms, even though he didn't have that full physical and emotional connection to this woman. He was/is a gay man. He eventually had to face that and tell his wife and they got divorced. They still talk and get along great, but he was a gay man in a straight marriage...just wasn't going to work. Reason I bring this up - certain people speak/preach about how serious marriage is and how sacred it is, but here in this quote above, some expect homosexuals to marry heterosexuals, and this leads to many divorces per year. Doesn't that weaken the sanctity of marriage? | ||
| Crackhead |
Wait... What give the Government the right to define marriage? What section of the Constitution? It would be interesting is the SCOUS rules that the government has no legal authority in Marriage. | ||
| Hootowl |
I've read a few articles today that point in that direction. The author's opinions are based on the questions SCOTUS are asking. | ||
| J2blue |
Mr Owens, you prove the point that they do have a choice. Any marriage is tough, and starting with and indulging ones odd proclivities that conflict with having a workable marriage don't help. He simply didn't want to live up to the commitment he made. Having homosexual desires isn't the only distraction for people involved in a marriage. But over the last 50 years people just quit giving a damn about the sacred part of the commitment. Your friend who once was married to a woman could have worked it out, the success doesn't depend on his sense of personal fulfillment. Who has that going for them anyway? Remember that marrying someone you actually chose is a very recent tradition in nearly all societies. No, today we make too many demands on all of our relationships to bring us personal fulfillment and "happiness". And we blame everyone around us, and how we were born, for not being happy. To answer the question "wouldn't that soil the sacredness of marriage"? No, it wouldn't. Had he chose to make the personal sacrifice in favor of marriage it would actually prove the sacredness. When he said he just wasn't into it and walked is when he declared it not sacred, that is when he devalued the institution. No one told him he had to get married, period. If he knew he was homosexual, or at least not confident that he could overcome that character flaw and be a decent, if imperfect husband, he should have never married. If he didn't know that about himself then he sure wasn't born that way. Some where along the line, he, like so many identifying homosexuals, made a choice to indulge the impulse/fantasy, and explore that aspect of life. It is a lifestyle choice at that point. Just like picking up a cigarette and getting hooked on nicotine. Or buying prostitutes. Or gambling a paycheck away. The list of ways people get side tracked in life is long. Marriage is a life long bond between a man and a woman, primarily to sustain the species by procreating. It isn't for everyone. Some people never marry even though they want to, it just doesn't work out that they find a mate. That happens in nature with other animals. The product of a fruitful marriage lasts for many generations. Societies depend on marriages of a male and female to procreate and nurture the future workers and leaders. Society doesn't need a same sex marriage to care for foster kids. That's biology and culture. A pair of males, or a pair of females, simply don't bring anything to the community table that they couldn't bring individually. Same sex couples can pretend all they want, but nothing will change the outcome. That may surprise some people in a post modern society, but it hasn't for thousands of years among most people anywhere. Act shocked if you like, feel surprised at how cruel reality really is. Each person is free to explore their salvation and destruction. I don't judge a human being for who they are or claim to be, but I judge their actions to the extent they are known. I won't support someone's smoking habit because it will kill them. I judge that behavior they have. And I sure won't let them influence my behavior to pick up a cigarette and become hooked again. That would lead to my destruction. Likewise, I will not support, nor "celebrate", a person's choice to engage in destructive sexual behavior. But that doesn't mean I'm forcing them not to do that, either. | ||
| Buellkowski |
If you haven't already, read the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia and you'll understand better where this is headed. In short, you can't criminalize an otherwise legal act just because you don't care for the size, shape, hue, smell, aura, parentage, and other non-criminal proclivities of the actors. To this day, mixed-race couples still get the stink-eye from some folks in this country, so you "get-your-gay-out-of-my-face" types will certainly have some company in your misery over the "decline of marriage." | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
" If he knew he was homosexual, or at least not confident that he could overcome that character flaw " homosexuality is a character flaw? | ||
| Crackhead |
J2Blue, One thing skewing your facts about marriage commitment is the increase in the number of marriages making to the point where divorce would happen. A lot of women died in child birth and a lot of men died performing manual labor or dieing in war. With those things combined, the percent of "traditional" families thru history is smaller then the rose glasses lead people to believe. I am defining traditional family as man, woman, and at least 1 child that is biologically related. If you research your family tree you will find all sorts of weird families. One example in my tree is, 1 husband was married serially to 3 sister all 3 died in child birth and then he married a 4th unrelated wife. I believe the baby boom generation was the first generation to have a large number of traditional families. | ||
| Aesquire |
The "1 man, 1 woman" deal is actually fairly recent in human history. I'm not knocking monogamous het marriage, I think it's great! It's just not sacred in any way other than religious. And not all that many religions. "Natural" has as much meaning as "organic" in food. Actually in food it means grown in shit, which is how "natural life" without technology is, unless you heed the wisdom of the Old ones who tell you to dig your outhouse downstream of the well. What is needed is Civil Unions to protect your "right" to visit your loved ones, in situations where it is limited to family. To protect your right AND responsibilities in child rearing, and the custody after the New Normal temporary marriage. If that option was available, many people wouldn't bother with a wedding. Until their parent(s) made them! ( and I have a funny story about eloping ... ) Most people who get married in this country get divorced. I'll agree that's a major breakdown in society. The legal & occasional tax advantages of married life are there to promote stability and reduce promiscuity and disease. Right? Procreation isn't the point. Raising the children is the point. Don't need to even have sex to raise children, and there are lots of extras around, since people are stupid ( sometimes just for a tiny slice of time, and that's all it takes ) and have children without being ready to have them. Procreation may be a religious reason, just as the Roman Church forbids artificial birth control. For the simple reason that if you allow it and another group does not, you get out numbered. Being out numbered by a rival power can destroy you by the size of their army, or vote. So you may not agree with the Roman Church's attitude, but it's logical and rational. ( that's not the reason they GIVE, but that's the reason ) So, why is it my friend Jean can't have a Hareem? |
