• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)


  • Total voters
    154
I just wanted to mention here that the definition of marriage is now up for grabs at ebay.

Better get your stealth bidding programs up to snuff, because this one is going down to the wire.

Thats a fake. I got it at wallmart. Here's the receipt

5639277711_aac21b0e02_z copy.jpg
 
1.)Thing is that equal rights require equal entities. Boys and girls are different.
2.) Why is marriage a right? I really do not see any reason for that.
3.) 1.200 rights etc?
4.) They all cost something. So we have to cut them all. Then I don't really care.
5.) But why should I pay for someones sexual dreams?
6.) Christian beliefs are relatively well defined. But maybe you can demonstrate some esoteric christian church that likes gay marriage? I would honestly like to read the link.
7.) Really? ;)

1.) wow really? so women and minorities should have equal rights by this completely failed logic. SOrry thats not how it works at all, i cant even believe you said that and thought thats true.
2.) your approval doesnt really matter, id say the 14 times it was declared a right by SCOTUS they must of felt this freedom was important.
3.) yes federally theres approx 1200 rights/protections
4.) this make no sense at all, cant cut them
5.) you factually are not, sexual dreams has nothign to do with a marriage contract.
6.) and yet millions of chrisitians are ok with equal rights for gays and many churches have chosen not to discriminate. But like i said meaningless to the debate. NOBODY said they have to "like it" nice failed strawman though.
7.) yes really there is factually nothing "low" about it because your premise was false.
 
1.) wow really? so women and minorities should have equal rights by this completely failed logic. SOrry thats not how it works at all, i cant even believe you said that and thought thats true.
2.) your approval doesnt really matter, id say the 14 times it was declared a right by SCOTUS they must of felt this freedom was important.
3.) yes federally theres approx 1200 rights/protections
4.) this make no sense at all, cant cut them
5.) you factually are not, sexual dreams has nothign to do with a marriage contract.
6.) and yet millions of chrisitians are ok with equal rights for gays and many churches have chosen not to discriminate. But like i said meaningless to the debate. NOBODY said they have to "like it" nice failed strawman though.
7.) yes really there is factually nothing "low" about it because your premise was false.

By the way, one head of a Christian church seems to have said priests performing gay marriages are committing ultimate sin. I imagine that is because gay marriage is Unchristian?
 
By the way, one head of a Christian church seems to have said priests performing gay marriages are committing ultimate sin. I imagine that is because gay marriage is Unchristian?

again what does this have to do with anything? oh thats right nothing since religion factually has nothgin to do with legal marriage.
 
Of course they don't own the meaning. But the word had a meaning, when the original laws were written. If the meaning is changed, the laws need to be adapted. That is fine.

As it is probably out dated to have taxes and subsidies granted to married couples in any event, maybe we should just have everyone stand on his own. One person, one tax, one social security etc.

Meanings of words change with time, particularly in the subtle way that this one is.

And right now, despite popular belief, there is, overall, very little tax advantage to being married. It all depends on the couple. Almost as many people pay more in taxes married than they would if they were single. This has been proven. All the married tax filing does is make it easier for everyone so that two people who own the some of the same stuff, such as land, a house/houses, and/or cars can file for this without figuring out who owns what percentage of that. The things like tax credits or other such tax parts are doubled because there are two people. It is merely doubled. In the past, it wasn't even doubled. Married people were getting gypped because they were being treated as one tax entity even if both people were working and earning money, which put them in a higher tax bracket simply because of their marriage. In fact, even now that can happen and harm couples due solely to each would be in a lower tax bracket without their marriage but their marriage puts them in such a higher bracket that they end up paying more from that higher bracket than they would from the lower ones combined. Other people it works out for them to benefit them.

The Congressional Budget Committee has already studied this and determined that the "benefit" of marriage to individuals is insignificant compared to many other things that give tax payers benefits.

Plus, marriage is a benefit to society, and that accounts easily for any benefits that are seen by married couples compared to single individuals. This too has evidence to back it up. And it has nothing to do with whether or not the couple has children. That is simply another way being married benefits society, by showing that two individuals in a committed relationship are raising those children. But there is also the benefit of more money being spent, the fact that married people are proven to be more stable overall than single people, there is someone there for an adult to turn to first before they need to rely on the government/society for help should they fall on hard times, and many more. We give tax advantages for things that benefit society, including making homes much more energy efficient, giving to charity, and going to college, among just a few.
 
By the way, one head of a Christian church seems to have said priests performing gay marriages are committing ultimate sin. I imagine that is because gay marriage is Unchristian?

Who cares? Many Muslim leaders believe that educating women is committing major sins against God. Their beliefs should be no more a part of our government than Christian beliefs.
 
Thing is that equal rights require equal entities. Boys and girls are different.
Why is marriage a right? I really do not see any reason for that.
1.200 rights etc? They all cost something. So we have to cut them all. Then I don't really care. But why should I pay for someones sexual dreams?
Christian beliefs are relatively well defined. But maybe you can demonstrate some esoteric christian church that likes gay marriage? I would honestly like to read the link.
Really? ;)

Legally, in everything that matters within legal marriage, men and women are treated the same. Spouses can be easily changed with each other within legal marriage or even personal marriages, since personal marriage is whatever each couple/group makes of it.

Marriage is a right because it is not the government's or society's place to tell people that they can't decide who they want to be with and who they want to be part of their family or who they want to make decisions for them or to get all the benefits of marriage just because of race or sex/gender.

Most benefits of marriage do not cost society anything, but do in fact benefit society a great deal. As long as there is any marriage, you are paying for something within that marriage. Heck, at this very moment you are helping to pay for my medical insurance and for my housing because of my legal marriage.

If Christian beliefs were so "well defined", there would not be over 41000 denominations of Christianity. And this is only those that have established distinct recognizable churches, different than other churches. It does not include varying individual Christian beliefs, where the person either doesn't go to any church or just goes to the church that most closely matches their own beliefs.
 
again what does this have to do with anything? oh thats right nothing since religion factually has nothgin to do with legal marriage.

Only that you had said that gay marriage was a Christian thing to do. I thought it only right to point out to you that one of the guys who defines these things is of different opinion than you. If you want to go on believing it, it is fine by me.
 
Meanings of words change with time, particularly in the subtle way that this one is.

And right now, despite popular belief, there is, overall, very little tax advantage to being married. It all depends on the couple. Almost as many people pay more in taxes married than they would if they were single. This has been proven. All the married tax filing does is make it easier for everyone so that two people who own the some of the same stuff, such as land, a house/houses, and/or cars can file for this without figuring out who owns what percentage of that. The things like tax credits or other such tax parts are doubled because there are two people. It is merely doubled. In the past, it wasn't even doubled. Married people were getting gypped because they were being treated as one tax entity even if both people were working and earning money, which put them in a higher tax bracket simply because of their marriage. In fact, even now that can happen and harm couples due solely to each would be in a lower tax bracket without their marriage but their marriage puts them in such a higher bracket that they end up paying more from that higher bracket than they would from the lower ones combined. Other people it works out for them to benefit them.

The Congressional Budget Committee has already studied this and determined that the "benefit" of marriage to individuals is insignificant compared to many other things that give tax payers benefits.

Plus, marriage is a benefit to society, and that accounts easily for any benefits that are seen by married couples compared to single individuals. This too has evidence to back it up. And it has nothing to do with whether or not the couple has children. That is simply another way being married benefits society, by showing that two individuals in a committed relationship are raising those children. But there is also the benefit of more money being spent, the fact that married people are proven to be more stable overall than single people, there is someone there for an adult to turn to first before they need to rely on the government/society for help should they fall on hard times, and many more. We give tax advantages for things that benefit society, including making homes much more energy efficient, giving to charity, and going to college, among just a few.

I think I understand the social functions of marriage and the tax implications okay and you are about right, but not quite.


For one thing the alteration of the word's meaning is quite significant. Alone the reproductive function of marriage would exemplify that. If reproduction is not possible it is not marriage. Also it would seem to me a substantial benefit to reduce taxes by Half. I can't do that for my cleaning man. I can only deduct him.

But do not get me wrong. I see no problem in civil contracts for living together. I just would not call it marriage. And I think that probably the subsidies for marriage are wrong to begin with. Tax money should only be used for thinks whose benefit to society can be quantified.
 
Who cares? Many Muslim leaders believe that educating women is committing major sins against God. Their beliefs should be no more a part of our government than Christian beliefs.

Fully d'accord. But that was not the point.
 
Only that you had said that gay marriage was a Christian thing to do. I thought it only right to point out to you that one of the guys who defines these things is of different opinion than you. If you want to go on believing it, it is fine by me.

And many church leaders disagree with that opinion. If you think all Christian churches are against SSM you would be factually wrong.
List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Legally, in everything that matters within legal marriage, men and women are treated the same. Spouses can be easily changed with each other within legal marriage or even personal marriages, since personal marriage is whatever each couple/group makes of it.

Marriage is a right because it is not the government's or society's place to tell people that they can't decide who they want to be with and who they want to be part of their family or who they want to make decisions for them or to get all the benefits of marriage just because of race or sex/gender.

Most benefits of marriage do not cost society anything, but do in fact benefit society a great deal. As long as there is any marriage, you are paying for something within that marriage. Heck, at this very moment you are helping to pay for my medical insurance and for my housing because of my legal marriage.

If Christian beliefs were so "well defined", there would not be over 41000 denominations of Christianity. And this is only those that have established distinct recognizable churches, different than other churches. It does not include varying individual Christian beliefs, where the person either doesn't go to any church or just goes to the church that most closely matches their own beliefs.

To tell you the truth, I really do not care, who lives together, if it does not cost society money. I just do not think it sensible to change the meaning of a quite useful sociological term for no good reason.
 
Oh, I did not mean to imply that all Christians have been as rigorous as the Lutherans, Orthodox Churches or Catholics in canonical ethics.

So basically you have no point.
 
To tell you the truth, I really do not care, who lives together, if it does not cost society money. I just do not think it sensible to change the meaning of a quite useful sociological term for no good reason.

I and many others do not think it sensible to deny others rights because some people get offended for no good reason
 
I just do not think it sensible to change the meaning of a quite useful sociological term for no good reason.

Words change meanings all the time. We don't write laws to stop people from changing what they mean when they use a word. For example, once upon a time, 'sensible' meant 'perceive' or 'feel', 'change' came from a latin word meaning 'to barter'. Should your sentence above be outlawed to preserve old meanings of words? Should we have laws -- possibly even Constitutional Amendments -- for ever word in the dictionary to make sure that the language doesn't change and evolve over time like it has been doing since man first began to speak?

Men used to be able to marry as many women as they could afford to buy from their fathers in dowry money, and the girl had no say in it once her father accepted the dowry payment for her. Since we're now limiting it to only one wife, and she's allowed to refuse, and her father can't sell her, should it be illegal to call it 'marriage', since that's not the same as the traditional arrangement?

Words change in meaning over time. That's just the way language is. English was once a proto-germanic language -- a dialect of the same runic language that became German and Dutch. Now it's a distinct language that barely resembles either of the above. That's just what happens over time, and you can't stop it.
 
1.)Only that you had said that gay marriage was a Christian thing to do. I thought it only right to point out to you that one of the guys who defines these things is of different opinion than you. If you want to go on believing it, it is fine by me.

actually i never said that please dont lie, it just makes your post more of a fail. What i said was "who" said its unchristian and what about the millions of Christians that are ok with equal rights for gays and as i christian myself im not riled up over it because that would be beyond stupid. Nice try at a reframe thought but it fails too.
 
actually i never said that please dont lie, it just makes your post more of a fail. What i said was "who" said its unchristian and what about the millions of Christians that are ok with equal rights for gays and as i christian myself im not riled up over it because that would be beyond stupid. Nice try at a reframe thought but it fails too.

Which is the same thing in normal language. But forget it.
 
I and many others do not think it sensible to deny others rights because some people get offended for no good reason

Sure. There is always a reason. But why offend people without a real reason. I do not understand why some here and "many others" want to be rude. But, as the man said: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ;)
 
If that is what you think. I am not here to teach you.

If Christian leaders do not agree even among themselves on SSM why would you bother to bring up what a specific Christian thinks? It is irrelevant.
 
Words change meanings all the time. We don't write laws to stop people from changing what they mean when they use a word.
....

Yes. I thought about that. In this case it is the law that is changing the meaning or trying to at least.
 
Sure. There is always a reason. But why offend people without a real reason. I do not understand why some here and "many others" want to be rude. But, as the man said: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ;)

Exactly why offend and deny rights to SS couples with no real reason? I do not understand how so many people can be against SSM and pretend that it is not because of their bigotry but instead because they just think that how they views the world should be how things should remain for all time.
Agreed about the fanatic bit so please stop acting like one.
 
If Christian leaders do not agree even among themselves on SSM why would you bother to bring up what a specific Christian thinks? It is irrelevant.

Actually, it would appear that the Christian denomination that sees it as described above is the largest church globally and including the others with similar codices we are speaking of a vast majority of Christianity. If you want to nitpick that is okay, though. But this is a silly discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom