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 08-30-2013, 12:02 PM
 
79,839 posts, read 41,288,601 times
Reputation: 16946

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
That's one reason why labels like "conservative" and "liberal" should be banned from all conversations - they're meaningless words, used only to deceive, generally. They do nothing to make anyone's position clearer.
We can agree to agree on this position.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
17,227 posts, read 12,386,549 times
Reputation: 14208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Don't agree with same sex marriage? Then don't have a same-sex marriage.

How. Simple. Is. That?
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:14 PM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,101,138 times
Reputation: 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
Why should a homosexual couple's tax money go to support special benefits to heterosexual married couples?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:26 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,260,841 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
A woman down the street and her husband ALWAYS fight. ALWAYS. Outside they scream at each other. Inside they scream at each other, loud enough for the neighbors to hear. I disapprove of their marriage, can I file a complaint with the justice department?

There are people who disapprove of interracial marriages. Should their taxes be divied up and ONLY pay towards same race married couples?

Should religious people's tax dollars not go towards atheist coupes who weren't married in a church?

When the person performing any marriage asks the question "is there anyone who sees a reason these two should not be wed" should there be a list of people made who disagree and then those people's taxes will not go to support special benefits to the parties in that marriage?


At what point did we get to choose where our tax dollars go based on if we approve of how they are spent? If that's the case then the government owes me a whole lot of money that they spent on the war in Iraq.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:29 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,238,075 times
Reputation: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.
The problem I see with the frequent "where do you draw the line" argument is that there is no particular reason to draw that line at homosexual marriage. The where do you draw the line thing is just as good as any other subject for a philosophical discussion. But used as an argument in a debate, it's relatively worthless. Because using it as a reason to ban gay marriage begs the question of why heterosexual marriage is allowed either. If you're going to use a slippery slope type argument, what makes the argument only effective in drawing it at homosexual marriage? Why not ban all marriage? Or simply draw the line at banning all marriage except that between two unrelated adults? What makes homosexual marriage the proper spot to draw that line?

Quote:
Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
You will never get tolerance of your views from a liberal. Liberals aren't tolerant in any way whatsoever. They simply use the word "tolerance" as a synonym for liberalism. To be tolerant is to agree with everything that liberals agree with. Tolerant and liberal are synonyms and intolerant and conservative are synonyms. You can go crazy expecting the dictionary definition of tolerance from liberals and expecting them to actually live up to their own principles. It's just easier to realize that when a liberal says tolerance they don't mean what you and I mean by tolerance, they simply define tolerance as "agreement with my views". It's a real life example of Orwell's doublespeak - you call something exactly the opposite of what it is. The Ministry of Peace was responsible for armed conflict. The Ministry of Truth was responsible for disseminating propaganda. Liberal tolerance is the same idea. By terming their views as tolerance, they are therfore free to oppose everything they disagree with because by definition everything they disagree with becomes intolerance.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Gone
25,230 posts, read 16,130,076 times
Reputation: 5924
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!

3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?

Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
1) Only if they agree to get sterilized due to the genetic problems with having children.
2) Sure why not, no one elses business how many spouses one has.
3) No children cannot agree to contracts and that is what marriage is a Marriage Contract.
4) Same as with children, animals cannot agree to contracts.
Marriage for gay couples is between consenting adults, hince have nothing to do with animals or children and would be leagl contract that would also impact their benefits though many different government programs and laws, one major one being SS benefits.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Texas
44,253 posts, read 60,757,979 times
Reputation: 73780
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
1. What taxes?
2. The gay people are paying for YOU if these aforementioned taxes and special benefits exist.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Gone
25,230 posts, read 16,130,076 times
Reputation: 5924
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
Nope, by your reasoning people could withhold paying taxes for a whole wide range of things they disagree with spending money on such as the military, welfare, highway construction ......... Sorry that is not how it works here in the USA.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,211 posts, read 13,272,285 times
Reputation: 9840
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
The CBO found a net increase in tax revenue if SSM were legal in all 50 states. So how would people that don't support SSM be paying taxes to support SSM?

Quote:
On balance, legalization of same-sex marriages would have only a small impact
on federal tax revenues, CBO estimates. Revenues would be slightly higher: by
less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010 and by $500 million to
$700 million annually from 2011 through 2014. Those amounts represent less
than 0.1 percent of total federal revenues.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...exmarriage.pdf
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 01:47 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,260,841 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
The CBO found a net increase in tax revenue if SSM were legal in all 50 states. So how would people that don't support SSM be paying taxes to support SSM?


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...exmarriage.pdf
That is mean. Now he's gotta go try to find some other baseless argument. Or he could do what OP did and wait a day or two and then post his same "points."
Rate this post positively
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.

© 2005-2022, 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