• 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
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed any discussion of religious beliefs when it comes to secular SSM is a complete waste of time. Religious opinion on the subject is completely irrelevant.
 
Quag said:
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.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, your gay is the other's bigot.
 
Quag said:
Agreed any discussion of religious beliefs when it comes to secular SSM is a complete waste of time. Religious opinion on the subject is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Now that is an interesting point. Actually it is a waste of time discussing it with the gay person as much as with the religious one. Both have, what they think is an existentially important view. So lets call it a day.

PS: I am neither religious nor gay. ;)
 
joG said:
Now that is an interesting point. Actually it is a waste of time discussing it with the gay person as much as with the religious one. Both have, what they think is an existentially important view. So lets call it a day.

PS: I am neither religious nor gay. ;)
Click to expand...

No it isn't as SSM affects gay people it has no bearing on religious people unless they also happen to be gay
I could care less if you were religious/gay/straight/atheist/extra-terrestrial.
 
Quag said:
No it isn't as SSM affects gay people it has no bearing on religious people unless they also happen to be gay
I could care less if you were religious/gay/straight/atheist/extra-terrestrial.
Click to expand...

That is the way you see it. They view it differently.

And when gays want to have tax money as the ssm guy want, it has bearing on everyone. That is quite trivial.
 
joG said:
Which is the same thing in normal language. But forget it.
Click to expand...

nope, not even close, not even in your fantasy world, nice try at trying to defend your lie but this also fails

sorry english, language and facts all disagree with you, your mistake
 
joG said:
That is the way you see it. They view it differently.

And when gays want to have tax money as the ssm guy want, it has bearing on everyone. That is quite trivial.
Click to expand...

The religious people would be viewing it wrong if they think SSM affects them, unless of course they happen to be gay.
As to the tax thing. Totally bogus if the govt pays you to get married I want my $$$$. Fact is they don't so it is a moot point.
If you are talking about tax benefits where married couples get to keep more of their own $$$ that is different and please explain how SSM should be treated differently than non SSM. If you have a problem with all marriage getting tax benefits that is fine but not how it works though it has nothing to do with SSM.
 
joG said:
That is the way you see it. They view it differently.

And when gays want to have tax money as the ssm guy want, it has bearing on everyone. That is quite trivial.
Click to expand...

So you think gays are getting married to rob the system? And by robbing I mean doing the EXACT same thing you are?
 
joG said:
That is the way you see it. They view it differently.
Click to expand...

And they're wrong.

joG said:
And when gays want to have tax money as the ssm guy want, it has bearing on everyone. That is quite trivial.
Click to expand...

"same as". Everyone gets it or no one gets it. You don't get to decide who does or doesn't get a tax break based on how you personally feel about them.
 
Quag said:
The religious people would be viewing it wrong if they think SSM affects them, unless of course they happen to be gay.
As to the tax thing. Totally bogus if the govt pays you to get married I want my $$$$. Fact is they don't so it is a moot point.
If you are talking about tax benefits where married couples get to keep more of their own $$$ that is different and please explain how SSM should be treated differently than non SSM. If you have a problem with all marriage getting tax benefits that is fine but not how it works though it has nothing to do with SSM.
Click to expand...

What don't they do? No spouse splitting in your part of the wilderness? No reduced cost of insurance for spouses?

Yes. I think you are right. If we want ssm, we get rid of all government benefits for marriages. Then it is fine by me.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you think gays are getting married to rob the system? And by robbing I mean doing the EXACT same thing you are?
Click to expand...

Most people don't marry to "rob the system", I should think.

What is "the EXACT same thing" I am doing?
 
joG said:
What don't they do? No spouse splitting in your part of the wilderness? No reduced cost of insurance for spouses?

Yes. I think you are right. If we want ssm, we get rid of all government benefits for marriages. Then it is fine by me.
Click to expand...

So no SSM marriage tax status is fine, with SSM it must all disappear?
 
joG said:
. I just do not think it sensible to change the meaning of a quite useful sociological term for no good reason.
Click to expand...

If you do not consider equality to be a good reason, there are plenty of regimes in the world that share your viewpoint.
 
joG said:
Most people don't marry to "rob the system", I should think.

What is "the EXACT same thing" I am doing?
Click to expand...

If you're married, you're getting 'benefits', such as tax exemptions. Is that why you got married? Why would you be so spiteful to say that gays only get married for money?
 
Grendel said:
And they're wrong.



"same as". Everyone gets it or no one gets it. You don't get to decide who does or doesn't get a tax break based on how you personally feel about them.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. My family has been very open to gays since the beginning of the 20th century. I have very good friends who are gay. I do not want to participate. But they like it, I find it fine.

I do not think that others should pay them, however, for their sex. I do not think we should be giving traditional married couples tax and other breaks unless they are doing something valuable for society.

By the way. When you say "They are wrong", what you mean, I hope, is that you think they are wrong. Much like they think you to be wrong.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you're married, you're getting 'benefits', such as tax exemptions. Is that why you got married? Why would you be so spiteful to say that gays only get married for money?
Click to expand...

No, not really. We both pay to the hilt.

If I said gays want marriage status because of the money alone, I want to excuse myself. I do know of cases, where this is the case. But it would not be true of all much as it is not true of many hetero marriages.
 
Quag said:
So no SSM marriage tax status is fine, with SSM it must all disappear?
Click to expand...

I would have thought, it should have gone years ago. Where children are being brought up it is a different thing.
 
Gardener said:
If you do not consider equality to be a good reason, there are plenty of regimes in the world that share your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Try and think thing through clearly before you make embarrassing statements. You don't realize there is a difference between girls and boys and a potentially different outcome from gay sex?
 
joG said:
Try and think thing through clearly before you make embarrassing statements. You don't realize there is a difference between girls and boys and a potentially different outcome from gay sex?
Click to expand...

What does anybody's sex life have to do with you? Why do you want to put your nose into their business?
 
joG said:
Try and think thing through clearly before you make embarrassing statements. You don't realize there is a difference between girls and boys and a potentially different outcome from gay sex?
Click to expand...

How odd. I do not feel any embarrassment, whatsoever.

Of course, I am as secure in my intellectual capacity as I am in my sexuality, so I have no need to joust at windmills, but if you prefer to do so because of your own insecurity, be my guest.
 
joG said:
I would have thought, it should have gone years ago. Where children are being brought up it is a different thing.
Click to expand...

So you were against the provisions in the tax codes before people started talking about SSM?
Ok then until or if it changes what does that have to do with SSM, why should gays not be entitled to the same situation as straight couples?
 
Gardener said:
If you do not consider equality to be a good reason, there are plenty of regimes in the world that share your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

exactly

some people simply dont like equality and freedom though
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your biggest problem with bringing up reproductive function of marriage is the fact that reproduction is not only not a requirement of marriage in the US, but is in fact a hindrance to certain marriages in the US, such as those between some cousins in some states. Plus, marriage is not a requirement of reproduction either.

Most of what many think is a "tax advantage" within marriage simply isn't. It does help some people, but most married couples even out and make out the same whether married or single. And without those things that do bring advantages to some couples, other couples would be penalized by marriage. It is a give and take. But it would be stupid to treat married couples as each single because they do live a life different than two separate single people. They share much more than most single people do, in terms of things that are taxed or expenses that would go into finances, and ultimately get back to what is taxed.

And there is enough evidence to prove that marriage benefits society to justify what little advantage is gained in some people's taxes from marriage. There is in fact more advantage to marriage than there is having children, so if marriage benefits were lost, then so should child tax credits especially, and it is not at all likely those would go away.
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a concept, not a physical thing. Its meaning is going to change with time. It is just how it works.

No, it is not right to treat two married people, who share expenses and major purchases and mortgages and home ownership and take care of each other in bad times and many who raise children together, in a committed relationship, as if they are simply two single people. That would cause us way more problems with taxes overall.
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is for a good use to maintain the one legal institution of marriage, and simply opening up to same sex couples to enter into, since, legally they can without any problems. That good thing is in fact to save society money. Two institutions that function the exact same way, but under a different term will inherently cost more for no other reason but to maintain a traditional meaning to a word that doesn't need to be maintained. It is foolish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom