• 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:
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...

Sociologists aren't shy about evolving terms, and they certainly tend to advocate for such changes when they perceive them to be useful (which this would be). Furthermore, sociologists have already long-since tackled the notion of gay marriage.

In other words, the sociologists have long since abandoned you.
 
joG said:
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." ;)
Click to expand...

People being offended is their problem, not society's. Some people are offended that women are equal to men or that black people are equal to white people or that gays are not being put into jail or a mental institution. That doesn't mean we should take their offense into serious consideration when considering laws. Their offense is their own and they have no right not to be offended.
 
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...

Reduced insurance cost is a private advantage because that has nothing to do with government. It wouldn't change even if they legally did anything to marriage. Some companies offer that reduced insurance cost to committed same sex couples right now, even in states where same sex marriage or any same sex unions are not allowed. It is not a government benefit. It is due to the fact that insurance companies have seen the same research about marriage that I have and did some of their own and understand that married people are much less likely to get into accidents or need to use whatever the insurance is because married people overall, are more responsible citizens than single people because they have someone else they have committed to think about besides themselves. (Now, obviously there are exceptions to this, it is an "in general" thing.)
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marriage, for the vast majority of people, is not about sex. If you think it is, your problem is in how you view marriage, of any kind.

Marriage (for most couples) is about commitment, and how that commitment to each other brings advantages to society being the reason for benefits seen to being married. Even the Army has studied this and determined things like married soldiers are much more likely to come to work on time, much less likely to get into trouble or take high risks (such as things that might get them hurt or killed), and they are generally overall better soldiers.
 
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...

Their sex life or sexual relationship is none of your business, just as the sex lives of any other married or even non-married couple is any of your business. There is only one potential outcome to sex between some men and women that is not their when sex is between two people of the same sex. However, no one is required to make that outcome a reality in their marriage legally anyway, so it makes no difference legally.
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, what do you mean "Give them money."? Do you mean, "Give them the exact same tax status as heterosexual couples"? Or do you mean something else. IF you mean something else, then I need further explanation. IF you mean you think that tax status should be determined by your personal opinion of other people, then forget it. Everyone gets the same breaks or no one does.

If you mean that neither of them should get special tax status, then I'm completely with you on that.
 
I would jump in and beat up joG a bit but he is already getting hammered... :lol:
 
Grendel said:
Okay, what do you mean "Give them money."? Do you mean, "Give them the exact same tax status as heterosexual couples"? Or do you mean something else. IF you mean something else, then I need further explanation. IF you mean you think that tax status should be determined by your personal opinion of other people, then forget it. Everyone gets the same breaks or no one does.

If you mean that neither of them should get special tax status, then I'm completely with you on that.
Click to expand...

I guess we have no real difference of opinion then.
 
roguenuke said:
Their sex life or sexual relationship is none of your business, just as the sex lives of any other married or even non-married couple is any of your business. There is only one potential outcome to sex between some men and women that is not their when sex is between two people of the same sex. However, no one is required to make that outcome a reality in their marriage legally anyway, so it makes no difference legally.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Their sex is nobody's business than theirs. Therefore I see no reason to pay for it.
 
joG said:
Agreed. Their sex is nobody's business than theirs. Therefore I see no reason to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Well you are not paying for it so why are you against SSM?
 
Quag said:
Well you are not paying for it so why are you against SSM?
Click to expand...

Every taxpayer and recipient of government service pays for it, when there are government benefits attached to gay married couples.
 
joG said:
Every taxpayer and recipient of government service pays for it, when there are government benefits attached to gay married couples.
Click to expand...

No a tax break is not you paying for it, it is someone keeping more of their own money. NOT the same thing. But if you want to go down that fallacy go ahead it will lead you to fail, but them I'm sure you are used to that by now.

BTW until you get your utopia (which will never ever happen) of no benefits for married couples you have no reason to deny SSM.
Another fail in a list of fail on your part.
 
Quag said:
No a tax break is not you paying for it, it is someone keeping more of their own money. NOT the same thing. But if you want to go down that fallacy go ahead it will lead you to fail, but them I'm sure you are used to that by now.

BTW until you get your utopia (which will never ever happen) of no benefits for married couples you have no reason to deny SSM.
Another fail in a list of fail on your part.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are wrong and should take some economics classes.
 
joG said:
I am afraid you are wrong and should take some economics classes.
Click to expand...

No you are wrong, but nice comeback without any points to defend yourself. Couse you don't have any so why would I expect you to even try
 
joG said:
Agreed. Their sex is nobody's business than theirs. Therefore I see no reason to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Their sexual activities have nothing to do with their marriage. Marriage is about a contract, a personal familial making contract. Legal family ties between two unrelated adults are made most strongly via the marriage contract. You are in no way paying for their marriage and you can't prove that you are.
 
joG said:
Every taxpayer and recipient of government service pays for it, when there are government benefits attached to gay married couples.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If this is true, then every taxpayer and recipient of government service also pays for everyone else's lives and contracts and government related services/protections of other types as well, so it therefore would equal out and null any government benefit given via marriage. Your logic fails because you cannot show how they would be receiving more government compensation for their relationship than any other type of couple or government contracted/recognized relationship would, including business relationships or blood relationships, particularly recognition of offspring.
 
Quag said:
No you are wrong, but nice comeback without any points to defend yourself. Couse you don't have any so why would I expect you to even try
Click to expand...

What do you want disproved? That if the amount of money in the hands of government is reduced, while the spending stays the same or increases it affects every taxpayer and benefit recipient? As I said, go back to school.
 
roguenuke said:
Their sexual activities have nothing to do with their marriage. Marriage is about a contract, a personal familial making contract. Legal family ties between two unrelated adults are made most strongly via the marriage contract. You are in no way paying for their marriage and you can't prove that you are.
Click to expand...

If there are no tax and benefits attached to marriage you would be right. If all government support of all married couples is stopped, then that changes the argument. But that is unfortunately not the case.
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. If this is true, then every taxpayer and recipient of government service also pays for everyone else's lives and contracts and government related services/protections of other types as well, so it therefore would equal out and null any government benefit given via marriage. Your logic fails because you cannot show how they would be receiving more government compensation for their relationship than any other type of couple or government contracted/recognized relationship would, including business relationships or blood relationships, particularly recognition of offspring.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to another member here, that is not true. I know that most people do not think easily in economic terms. But this is rather straight forward in first incidence. The The easiest way you might think about it would be to think about where the money comes from, when the sum of taxes falls, while spending stays or increases. This is what happens, when a group receives a tax break and new government benefits.
 
joG said:
What do you want disproved? That if the amount of money in the hands of government is reduced, while the spending stays the same or increases it affects every taxpayer and benefit recipient? As I said, go back to school.
Click to expand...

If you pay less in taxes you are not getting money from others. Obviously you come from the school of thought that thinks all money belongs to the govt. That is just plain wrong. Go take an economics course.
 
Quag said:
If you pay less in taxes you are not getting money from others. Obviously you come from the school of thought that thinks all money belongs to the govt. That is just plain wrong. Go take an economics course.
Click to expand...

If spending stays the same? Of course you are. Just think about it. Where does the cash come from to maintain payments? Debt? Unborn children? You name it. From the taxpayer and all those, that would have got more benefits had the money been in the kitty.
 
joG said:
If spending stays the same? Of course you are. Just think about it. Where does the cash come from to maintain payments? Debt? Unborn children? You name it. From the taxpayer and all those, that would have got more benefits had the money been in the kitty.
Click to expand...

Ok MAO, so you are a communist. hate to tell you this but communist economic theories have been pretty much proven to be false.
 
Quag said:
Ok MAO, so you are a communist. hate to tell you this but communist economic theories have been pretty much proven to be false.
Click to expand...

Actually, you could not be further from the truth.
 
joG said:
Actually, you could not be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Right you think all money belongs to the govt, that makes you a communist.
Either that or perhaps all your crap about giving money to married couples is really just a way to try and hide your prejudice against homosexuals.
 
Quag said:
Right you think all money belongs to the govt, that makes you a communist.
Either that or perhaps all your crap about giving money to married couples is really just a way to try and hide your prejudice against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I do not really think I said that. As a matter of fact, that is so off the wall that I can hardly believe you said it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom