Why same-sex "marriage" is a mortal threat to our civilization (foreign, tax)
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.
And they have. That legislation is call "civil marriage."
The point is that the practice is discriminatory. It needs to be changed. And since we are all so change-happy these days, why not make the changes go in a reasonable direction that anyone without an agenda should be perfectly happy with? Why not have a legal document solidifying legal rights shared between two or three or a hundred individuals who wish to pool their resources and/or rights? It needn't include any sexual/relationship overtones and it needn't enslave one person to another. The thirteenth amendment was added a long time ago. Let's take it at face value and get rid of an unjust institution that was started way back when men owned women.
The point is that the practice is discriminatory. It needs to be changed. And since we are all so change-happy these days, why not make the changes go in a reasonable direction that anyone without an agenda should be perfectly happy with? Why not have a legal document solidifying legal rights shared between two or three or a hundred individuals who wish to pool their resources and/or rights? It needn't include any sexual/relationship overtones and it needn't enslave one person to another. The thirteenth amendment was added a long time ago. Let's take it at face value and get rid of an unjust institution that was started way back when men owned women.
The discrimination is against those who are not married (whether they are gay or not frankly). The government uses these tax incentives as a form of social engineering in order to incentivize and encourage certain behavior on the part of the population. The fact that they do that in and of itself is unfair.
The fact that people have issues with gays marrying is also unfair. But the two are separate issues.
The point is that the practice is discriminatory. It needs to be changed. And since we are all so change-happy these days, why not make the changes go in a reasonable direction that anyone without an agenda should be perfectly happy with? Why not have a legal document solidifying legal rights shared between two or three or a hundred individuals who wish to pool their resources and/or rights? It needn't include any sexual/relationship overtones and it needn't enslave one person to another. The thirteenth amendment was added a long time ago. Let's take it at face value and get rid of an unjust institution that was started way back when men owned women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by npaladin2000
The discrimination is against those who are not married (whether they are gay or not frankly). The government uses these tax incentives as a form of social engineering in order to incentivize and encourage certain behavior on the part of the population. The fact that they do that in and of itself is unfair.
The fact that people have issues with gays marrying is also unfair. But the two are separate issues.
If we did away with civil marriage and its rights (or "perks"), what would you want done first:
deport all the foreign spouses of American citizens, or throw all the military wives (and a husband or two) out of base housing and bar them from shopping at base commissaries?
If we did away with civil marriage and its rights (or "perks"), what would you want done first:
deport all the foreign spouses of American citizens, or throw all the military wives (and a husband or two) out of base housing and bar them from shopping at base commissaries?
That's a pretty silly response to the criticism of the incentives the government attaches to marriage.
You did say what was quoted. You need to be corrected on one thing. It is HIV that is passed on from person to person. AIDS is acquired immune deficiency syndrome and is not passed on but a last stage of HIV. It does not matter how you say it, HIV is still a human disease spread by humans, not a gay disease. Straight people spread it to straight people.
I know the difference between the 2 it's irrelevant for the points I said.
Damn, I thought marriage ceremonies, about 95% of the time, were performed by some sort of clergy. And I was under the impression that we are no longer living in the middle ages.
Clergy are not a requirement for marriage. Never have been, unless you were Catholic in the 16th Century. Just because some people opt to have clergy because of their personal beliefs doesn't make it a religious institution.
Quote:
As I already stated, the state should not be involved. It's simply another form of state revenue generation.
That's all well and good, but the state has been involved for thousands of years. It's not going to change anytime soon.
Quote:
Yes it is. A dead body cannot have a preference, since it is dead. A necrophiliac is alive, not dead. A necrophiliac has or fantasizes sex with a dead person. They prefer the dead. Sounds like they are oriented to the dead to me.
And you would be wrong. Orientations and fetishes/paraphilias are psychologically different. And regardless, dead bodies can't consent and thus is nothing but a slippery slope fallacy.
Quote:
Here's a dictionary definition for you: Orientation - a predisposition in favor of something.
A necrophiliac has a predisposition in favor of having intercourse with a corpse, no?
We're discussing "Sexual Orientation" as defined by medical organizations. Sexual Orientation is defined as, "The predisposition to be emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to the opposite-sex, the same-sex, or both sexes."
Quote:
Then you need to improve your terminology and submit it to Merriam-Webster. You seem to be using the term "homophobic" as if it only meant a distaste for homosexuality.
Not really, I use homophobia where appropriate.
Quote:
Yes they are. And you are discriminating against them by discounting them. Your association with "pathology" is a phobic reaction. Wasn't it once assumed that homosexuality had some pathology associated with it? But then we came out of the dark ages on that one, right? It appears that you are still living in the dark ages. You need to be more accepting.
When scientists show that all paraphilias are recognized sexual orientations, let me know. Until then, it's irrelevant. And once again, the issue of consent makes being a necrophiliac a problem.
Quote:
And if you saw a man holding the hand of a love doll and dragging her down the street, tell me you would not have some negative thoughts running through your accepting brain.
Ah yes, because two men holding hands is comparable to a grown man carrying around a giant human replica sex toy.
Quote:
By your own definition, you do not. You stated that the word homophobic encompassed far more than distaste. I do not feel that homosexuality will lead to the downfall of anything. I said nothing about children. I said homosexuality simply turns me off. Do you have anything that sexually turns you off? Is that then a "phobia"? The word phobia has certain connotations and you damn well know it. You've simply come up with another hate word, just as you accepting, open-minded types always do.
Your expressing a level of disgust that doesn't seem normal, even for straight people. It's perfectly understanding that you personally have no interest being with the same-sex. However, when you start equating other people wishing to do so as comparable to sex toys and dead bodies, you've expressed an unhealthy aversion to homosexuality. Secure straight people aren't phased by gays. They may have no desire to be with the same-sex, but they don't feel the need to express their disgust all the time. Homophobes do.
What rights are you being denied, and how am I depriving you of them?
The gay army can never adequately answer this question, because doing so requires an entire abandonment of logic and common sense.
What kind of logic do you need to see that the 1049 beneifits and rights that you receive with a secular marriage license is being denied us by the action of DOMA. Those rights and benefits are not contingent on reproducing offspring, nor on having a religion. Primarily, marriage is secular to be considered legal A church wedding without the marriage license does not stand in court, nor does it recieve the federal benefits. This gay man is answering your question, wether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. But try and explain why those rights and benefits should only be granted to tax paying straight couples and not to tax paying gay couples. This is coming from common sense and logic, not using reproduction of offspring or religion as a requirement of marriage as a deciding factor, because it is not.
Actually, recent surveys find almost 4% of Americans admit to being gay. That doesn't include the enormous amount of closet cases, those who refuse to admit it, or bisexuals. And bisexuals are a grossly underestimated percentage of the population. A conservative estimate is that the LGBT community makes up 10% of the population (although I think bisexuals being honest would actually greatly increase that number).
For comparison, Jews make up about 1% of the population. Muslims less than 1%. Asians make up 4.9%. Blacks make up 12.6%. Atheists/Agnostics make up less than 2%.
Gays are not the smallest minority in the country, and yet they are currently the most mistreated (well, Atheists might argue that one).
Jews have more hate crimes per capita then any other group.
Why is it silly? Those are two of the rights of civil marriage.
No they're not, actually, they're immigration guidelines and subject to review rather than guarantees. Anyway, what I was speaking of in particular was the multitude of tax incentives.
Then again, your response is a conditioned one, society is trained to think that of course the government should incentivize marriage, and of course they deserve their fiscal reward for doing so, so they have a reason to marry. Which, when you think about it, is really REALLY stupid.
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.
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.
