Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:00 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,438 posts, read 52,119,684 times
Reputation: 23954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
It matters if you want my tax dollars to subsidize them.


They may have other reason for wishing to be married, but the only one that matters to the rest of us is the children, which is the only reason to involve the government.
Who is this phantom "the rest of us," and how would your tax dollars be involved? I am a straight female taxpayer, and I'm not concerned with these things - so please don't speak for all of us, mkay? Furthermore, I hope you realize that gay people are more often in the higher tax brackets, have more disposable income, and overall have higher salaries and less government dependence compared to the straight community. So if anything, they should be telling us whether or not we can marry... I mean, since you think paying taxes gives you the right to dictate what other people do with their lives and all.

Quote:
There are already men and women who game the system, by getting married for ulterior motives that have to do with monetary gain, so i would assume just as many gays would do the same. I have no information on why gays want to be married, but i would assume the monetary perks are at the top of the list, especially if they do not intend to ever adopt children.

Among straights, marrying a woman who already has children is not popular, and I'd imagine that goes the same for all people, regardless of their sexual preferences. Having a baby with another person, with that child being a part of both of you is a stronger allure to getting married, then to adopt the child of another person.
None of the above is your business, nor is it relevant to the legalities of being a married couple... double standard much?

 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,088,402 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
We're arguing that same sex couples be allowed to marry each other - ya know of the same sex?

they're consenting adults, why can't they marry each other?
Because they are not members of the opposite gender - thus they cannot be called "married". Real simple - go look up the definition of marriage.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:04 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,343 posts, read 16,463,472 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
There will always be thieves, frauds and charlatans who will abuse the systems of government, we cannot condemn the entire institution of marriage, or burden the rest of married couples because of those few.

It's my opinion that you are consciously engaging in a fraud, if you are going to take advantage of the charity of others, on a pretense. I don't need your permission to see you as leaching off the rest of us. But even so, you may end up having a child anyway.

Please show me where children are an assumption of the marriage contract. You can show that right? That's the only way any logical human could see my marriage as a fraud.

I look forward to your evidence...
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,088,402 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinArmageddons View Post
...And homosexual couples can raise kids just as well as heterosexual couples.
No, they cannot.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,238,184 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Because they are not members of the opposite gender - thus they cannot be called "married". Real simple - go look up the definition of marriage.
So again, why can't same sex couples get married and why is it that this definition of marriage you're so fond of is only between a man and woman?

oh and do so without quoting the bible or any other religious source.

why must we segregate a group of people just because you and others like you think that 'same sex marriage is icky'?
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,088,402 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb View Post
What planet are you living on? As of 2008 40% of births were out of wedlock.
Do you consider this to be a good thing? I don't - I call it tragic.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,238,184 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
No, they cannot.
Say's who? I know several adults in the military who told me they were raised by either two men or two women and were model children growing up.

Speak for yourself.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:08 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,438 posts, read 52,119,684 times
Reputation: 23954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Because they are not members of the opposite gender - thus they cannot be called "married". Real simple - go look up the definition of marriage.
Already did that, and most current dictionaries include the definition "or between same-sex couples where it is legal." I'd post a link for you, but I'm on a cell phone and I'm sure you're capable of finding it yourself.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,088,402 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
oh and do so without quoting the bible or any other religious source.
Why should I allow you to dictate what source I use?
 
Old 05-15-2012, 04:10 PM
 
14,916 posts, read 13,138,128 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Among straights, marrying a woman who already has children is not popular, and I'd imagine that goes the same for all people, regardless of their sexual preferences. Having a baby with another person, with that child being a part of both of you is a stronger allure to getting married, then to adopt the child of another person.
Why would I want to make a child when there are so many children out there who need loving homes? I could care less if my child is "a part of me." Originating from my sperm doesn't make a child I raise any more part of me.

Maybe that's my homosexual parenting instincts talking. If you look at nature, "homosexual" members of many species (especially bird species) pair together and then take in and raise young (often orphaned young). For instance, 25% of male black swans live in life-long, monogamous male-male pairings. They take in orphaned chick and often steal eggs from nests they then hatch and raise. The chicks raised by the male-male pairings are twice as likely to survive to adulthood than those raised by male-female parings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top