Who thinks we need to get GOD out of Marriages?

[Flyermax2k3]

Crap... I never thought I would have to do this...
I'm going to have to side with Bush on this one :Q
Bush isn't manipulating the Constitution by stating his beliefs about marriage. So what if he wants to up the budget by a few billion to promote marriage?
That's got to be just about the weirdest thing I've ever said on ATOT.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Crap... I never thought I would have to do this...
I'm going to have to side with Bush on this one :Q
Bush isn't manipulating the Constitution by stating his beliefs about marriage. So what if he wants to up the budget by a few billion to promote marriage?
That's got to be just about the weirdest thing I've ever said on ATOT.

The main issue is that he wants to actually amend the constitution so that gays and lesbians cannot get married.

As if he'll be sitting at home some day, a gay/lesbian couple will get married, and through the collective consciousness of the world, he'll be somehow hurt by their happiness.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Nothing I said is absurd. You said that those against gay marriage are simply scared that gays will be more successful at marriage than themselves. A homosexual couple can't even have children, so it is irrational, not to mention absurd, to think that they could be more successful than straight couples. Not that having children is the only goal of marriage, but it is definitely one of the cornerstones. Everyone has the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but that doesn't mean that everything must be legal, either. At the same time, two men don't have to be married to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Daniel,
Would you say that "sterile" (male-female) couples should not be allowed to marry?

What about female-female couples that persue artificial ensemination?

More and more spin. Of course not... there is a difference between a medical disfunction and a complete impossible situation. Sterile couples are an anomonly, and without their disorder, they would be perfectly capable of having children. On the other hand, a homosexual couple can never have children naturally. Period. Of course, you already know this. You just like to make issue out of non-issues.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: charrison
We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

Another great idea. Tell me, if government wasn't involved with marriage, how would companies verify that their empoyees were married? Theyc ouldn't. Say goodbye to marriage benefits. Of course, this wouldn't bother me too much. They're benefits, not requirements.

 

[Vic]

Benefits is what the gay-marriage issue is all about. Which is why GW wants that constitutional amendment, as the expansion of benefits would cost the government and corporations billions upon billions. Yet more proof of the flaws of socialism.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Nothing I said is absurd. You said that those against gay marriage are simply scared that gays will be more successful at marriage than themselves. A homosexual couple can't even have children, so it is irrational, not to mention absurd, to think that they could be more successful than straight couples. Not that having children is the only goal of marriage, but it is definitely one of the cornerstones. Everyone has the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but that doesn't mean that everything must be legal, either. At the same time, two men don't have to be married to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Daniel,
Would you say that "sterile" (male-female) couples should not be allowed to marry?

What about female-female couples that persue artificial ensemination?

More and more spin. Of course not... there is a difference between a medical disfunction and a complete impossible situation. Sterile couples are an anomonly, and without their disorder, they would be perfectly capable of having children. On the other hand, a homosexual couple can never have children naturally. Period. Of course, you already know this. You just like to make issue out of non-issues.

No spin. What difference does an anomoly make? Having children naturally is something that many couples cannot do. Some don't want to, some persue artificial ensemination, some persue adoption --I personally took drugs that put my hormone levels all out of wack just to increase my sperm count.

The non-issue ist the one that religious biggots like yourself propose. Namely that the bioligical manifestation of your gender in relation to another's (conceptual ability to reproduce) should determine ones legal status in relationship to another.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dahunan
I may be wrong about the tax breaks.. but.. I guess most here agree that the US Constitution should be ammended to disallow gay marriages?

I don't know about "most" here, but I certainly don't support amending it. This is not an issue of Constitutional significance. As others suggest, I don't think the government has a legitimate interest in "marriage" at all. From a legal perspective, a union is a union. Let churches decide whether and when they label such unions as marriage.

The Republican controlled States are already implementing the Presidents plan. Georgia is passing a State Constitutional Law banning Gay couples along with othe States. This will make it easy for the President to get the U.S. Constitution ammended.

They better take that Queer Eye show off TV since Gays are illegal in the U.S. now. Also will be easier to round them all up and deport them out of here.

On a bright note, when we get rid of all the Gays there will be a lot more job openings at Walmarts too.

I think you're seriously gone off the deep end.. lol. What happened?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: charrison
We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

Another great idea. Tell me, if government wasn't involved with marriage, how would companies verify that their empoyees were married? Theyc ouldn't. Say goodbye to marriage benefits. Of course, this wouldn't bother me too much. They're benefits, not requirements.

You could have the government verify whether a couple were together as part of a civil union, which is the greatest extent to which the government should be involved in anyone's life.

 

[Ultima]

I personally don't care if gays enter into a "legal joining", but marriage is up to the churches. I don't think they should be allowed to adopt kids.

 

[Dman877]

Who cares if they have kids? There's plenty of orphans looking for a home and there's no doubt in my mind that a homosexual couple can care for a child every bit as well as a heterosexual couple and better then a single working mom.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Who cares if they have kids? There's plenty of orphans looking for a home and there's no doubt in my mind that a homosexual couple can care for a child every bit as well as a heterosexual couple and better then a single working mom.

Depends on how old the kids are. Having two dads or two moms is neither natural nor healthy for a young kid, any more than would be a single working mom adopting a kid would be (a kid needs a father, too), or a single working dad (a kid definately needs a mom) which I don't support either. If we're talking about say, a 12 year old or teenager on the other hand, then I don't think it matters (as much).

 

[heartsurgeon]

What tax breaks does one get for being married? You get breaks for dependents, but that is true regardless of marital status. The only exception is a single-income married couple reports the spouse as a dependent. Other than that, the last I knew a two-income married couple pays more than two single people with the same incomes. This is the "marriage penalty" they talk about.

I absolutely agree with Bowfinger (did i really say that?)
You get SQUAT when your married..if both people make money...your total tax burden increases because your combined incomes frequently results in a higher tax bracket being applied to the same aggregate income.

personally...i'm all infavor of Gay marriage!
i want'em to pay more taxes. I'm just like the liberals on this one, if i can get SOMEBODY else to pay more taxes, then i'm all for it.
the lawyers can make more money with "gay" divorces (you can bet there will be lots of those)

bring it on, let those suckers pay may more taxes if it makes them feel more "accepted"

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

What tax breaks does one get for being married? You get breaks for dependents, but that is true regardless of marital status. The only exception is a single-income married couple reports the spouse as a dependent. Other than that, the last I knew a two-income married couple pays more than two single people with the same incomes. This is the "marriage penalty" they talk about.

I absolutely agree with Bowfinger (did i really say that?)
You get SQUAT when your married..if both people make money...your total tax burden increases because your combined incomes frequently results in a higher tax bracket being applied to the same aggregate income.

personally...i'm all infavor of Gay marriage!
i want'em to pay more taxes. I'm just like the liberals on this one, if i can get SOMEBODY else to pay more taxes, then i'm all for it.
the lawyers can make more money with "gay" divorces (you can bet there will be lots of those)

bring it on, let those suckers pay may more taxes if it makes them feel more "accepted"

Don't forget, a gay couple has a higher likelihood of adopting a child than a straight couple for obvious reasons;(sure, plenty want their own, but they need a third person for that) another reason to give gay couples the full rights the rest of us are given.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

What tax breaks does one get for being married? You get breaks for dependents, but that is true regardless of marital status. The only exception is a single-income married couple reports the spouse as a dependent. Other than that, the last I knew a two-income married couple pays more than two single people with the same incomes. This is the "marriage penalty" they talk about.

I absolutely agree with Bowfinger (did i really say that?)
You get SQUAT when your married..if both people make money...your total tax burden increases because your combined incomes frequently results in a higher tax bracket being applied to the same aggregate income.

personally...i'm all infavor of Gay marriage!
i want'em to pay more taxes. I'm just like the liberals on this one, if i can get SOMEBODY else to pay more taxes, then i'm all for it.
the lawyers can make more money with "gay" divorces (you can bet there will be lots of those)

bring it on, let those suckers pay may more taxes if it makes them feel more "accepted"

Which is why my GF of more than 5 years and I are not married. As we both work and have respectable incomes and have decided not to have children, we would pay considerably more in taxes if we were married.

However, where we do pay is in benefits. For example, my GF went through some job turbulence this past year and, despite working for most of the year and still doing well, she was without medical benefits for quite a while up until recently. Because we aren't married, my benefits would not cover her, and she had to pay for COBRA at almost $300 per month.

Benefits, benefits, benefits, is what this gay marriage issue is all about. Health insurance, military pensions, social security, and so on. That's a lot more than the small additional they will pay in taxes.