gay marriage
gay marriage: yes? or no?
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
I'm not certain why tax cuts are given to married couples, but I've never heard anything connecting the tax cuts to having children. It's coming out of left field.I think married couples get tax cuts to show that it's not just two people dating, but a union that makes decisions together. It's a household wherein the two members share their wealth with one another.
The "tax break" isn't really a break but, a easier tax burden. Two people collectively earning 100K need more money than a single person who earns 100K by themselves. So the government takes less from them since they need more money than an individual. Ever notice how we single guys pay a fuck ton in taxes? Th government believes we don't need as much money to support ourselves.
@Zellgadus Basically, the question is answered by
"Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children." And a household with a single parent is? At least with a gay couple even though they may be missing a balanced set of role models at least they have two incomes in the household to attend to the child's needs. Gay men tend to be better educated and have higher paying jobs than their heterosexual counterparts.
I can't say anything about Lesbian couples but, whats the worse that could happen? They vote Democrate? Ha,Ha! Ba-zing.
0
g-money wrote...
@GourmetPrince: I respond with this: g-money wrote...
edit: And after reading other's comments which hold water, yes, I believe gays can marry in the sense of obtaining the legal status and receiving the legal benefits. It grates against my romantic ideals, but rationally and legally it makes sense. And the only real reason to marry someone is to receive the legal benefits that comes from marriage; people divorce all the time, and marriage since then has lost quite a bit of meaning.Apparently, you don't read, and you're making wrong arguments and at the same time labeling me with names that have no basis, trolling or not. What I got pissed off at was the fact that you can call someone gay or a woman when a) you don't know me, b) saying that I act a certain way makes me "gay" or "woman" when you're misinterpreting me, and most of all c) you're not only dissing me, you're also dissing real gays and women by making such a careless statement because you're basically saying that gays and women act a certain manner when in reality they don't. It's like you're saying Asians think they're smarter than anyone else, but we all know that that's totally wrong and totally racist at the same time. Your comment, "The way you're acting now, you're either a woman, or gay," carries that ignorance and racist connotation.
@Captain_Falcon: haha, that picture's cute.
Where did the Asian comment come from? And you say I carry the ignorance of a racist? Kill yo'self. You don't even know what racism is if you can associate me with someone like a skinhead. You need to stop getting on the defensive, and make an actual post regarding the topic. Throwing in the word "gay" about two times and using the rest of the post to insult me doesn't really count. And you referred to me as a troll? Is it my reputation? Hold on, I thought you were the perfect one who doesn't make assumptions about anyone. Think.
0
@GourmetPrince: lololololol. If you ever bothered to actually read my post or any of my posts, which I can tell you didn't, then there really isn't much to say; the facts stand out for themselves.
0
g-money wrote...
@GourmetPrince: lololololol. If you ever bothered to actually read my post or any of my posts, which I can tell you didn't, then there really isn't much to say; the facts stand out for themselves.ENOUGH. Stop talking about me and talk about gay marriage.
Gays should get the same economical benefits as straights when they are married.
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
Maybe things are different in Switzerland and the US, and this is all moot, but I can kind of understand getting tax cuts. It promotes families, even if the families don't include children, and families are good because there is the possibility that they will have a child and a couple being married instead of just shacking up for years is preferred, for whatever reason.Anyways, I did some very simple searching, and it seems that sometimes, married couples pay more in taxes. And it's not like getting married will make you not have to pay taxes or decrease the amount you pay by half or anything.
so it promotes families and the chance of them breeding...well, thats all i said with incentive really...
either way, just remember that they are 2 people, by the act of marriage they did not magically become a single entitity, they are still two people, each of them (hopefully) equally qualified to make a living by themselves (and taxed accordingly)
no, it doesnt, afaik (or at least here) its the way, that you add up both their incomes, part it by two and have each of them pay their respective taxes, which in a society where there are exponentially growing tax rates, is a neat thing to have either way.
as an example;
one person making 200k a year, pays more than 2 people making 100k a year
0
GourmetPrince wrote...
ENOUGH. Stop talking about me and talk about gay marriage. Gays should get the same economical benefits as straights when they are married.
The whole incentive behind marrying (the romantic ideal behind it has been diminished for quite some time) is that you do get financial benefits that comes with having the legal status of "married". More often than not, people get married because they like the ceremony, the dresses, and the whole shebang that comes with marriage. Other than that, ever since the advent of the "divorce", marriage has lost some meaning, as attested by the increasing rate of divorces.
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Gay men tend to be better educated and have higher paying jobs than their heterosexual counterparts.
0
g-money wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Gay men tend to be better educated and have higher paying jobs than their heterosexual counterparts.I'm not exactly sure where it's from. I just remember reading a while back that I read on a per-capita bases gays tend to have more university degrees. I'll look for the article but, it's been a while so no promises. Though a study by Clive Bromhall touches the subject "A male homosexual is six times as likely to gain a college education and 16 times as likely to have a PhD as males in general." The study is all about "archtypes" of men and why some men are gay
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article3025009.ece
0
Lol, gay men are 16 times higher to get a PHD... that's a pretty high probability. I skimmed the article in the link, and I laughed at the "redundant males" part. Life'd be boring without us guys. But I turned my attention to the middle of article where it mentioned that boys grown up around girls tend to become gay, and if a boy grows up with his sister, it prevents incest, etc. Makes me think that mankind's methods of childrearing can cause children to swing either side... which is a scary thought.
0
discordia your argument does not hold water.
Gay and lesbian couples can have children through adoption and invtiro fetilization.
Now as for a logistics debate on how common it is for het couples to have children vs gays, that really doesnt hold water either. By that reasoning you should cut tax breaks to people that have certain genes that would make them prone to being infertile or sterile or what have you. Sterile and infertile het people get the same rights so gay couples should too.
Ultimately the problem is that marriage is a religious ceremony that comes with legal benefits. That is so fucking backwards it makes no sense. People feel their sense of ownership over their religion is being challenged when really I dont think it's so much the marriage as it is the fact that gays have different rights legally. For a nation that prides itself on equality and rights, the way gays are being treated is the same way blacks were treated 50 years ago.
Gay and lesbian couples can have children through adoption and invtiro fetilization.
Now as for a logistics debate on how common it is for het couples to have children vs gays, that really doesnt hold water either. By that reasoning you should cut tax breaks to people that have certain genes that would make them prone to being infertile or sterile or what have you. Sterile and infertile het people get the same rights so gay couples should too.
Ultimately the problem is that marriage is a religious ceremony that comes with legal benefits. That is so fucking backwards it makes no sense. People feel their sense of ownership over their religion is being challenged when really I dont think it's so much the marriage as it is the fact that gays have different rights legally. For a nation that prides itself on equality and rights, the way gays are being treated is the same way blacks were treated 50 years ago.
0
yes, but the taxcut is not a right, its a privilege. and i said before that childless married couples should not profit from taxcuts, so where exactly did my reasoning go wrong?
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The only ways gays will ever have an effect on straight people is through shows like queer eye for the straight guy or things like drive-by redecorating.I nearly choked on my apple laughing at this.
I mean, shit... Drive-by redecorating.
But yeah, who cares. It's like any other marriage.
0
discordia wrote...
yes, but the taxcut is not a right, its a privilege. and i said before that childless married couples should not profit from taxcuts, so where exactly did my reasoning go wrong?You dont seem to have read my post. My point is, regardless of esoteric statistics about whether or not hetero couples are more likely to have kids then homosexual couples, there is still this distinction in the law that specifically discriminates against one group.
Regardless of your feelings on the matter, it doesnt make the current state of affairs any more just.
As a planet we are not hurting for population. Why do you think we have birth control and places like china have limits on how many kids you can have and forced abortions?
I've established that gay couples can have kids before. Do you dispute this?
You have yet to prove that homosexual couples are less likely to have kids than hetero couples as well. Do you dispute this?
So if homosexual couples were just as likely to have kids as hetero couples, why shouldn't they be given the same legal rights?
How is that any different from saying "we shouldn't allow black people to drink from the white water fountain, because they're probably not thirsty anyway"?
Or a better example would be: Say statistically it was proven that certain race or height or weight of couples didn't typically have children. Should their tax breaks be removed?
0
dokidoki wrote...
discordia wrote...
yes, but the taxcut is not a right, its a privilege. and i said before that childless married couples should not profit from taxcuts, so where exactly did my reasoning go wrong?You dont seem to have read my post. My point is, regardless of esoteric statistics about whether or not hetero couples are more likely to have kids then homosexual couples, there is still this distinction in the law that specifically discriminates against one group.
Regardless of your feelings on the matter, it doesnt make the current state of affairs any more just.
As a planet we are not hurting for population. Why do you think we have birth control and places like china have limits on how many kids you can have and forced abortions?
I've established that gay couples can have kids before. Do you dispute this?
You have yet to prove that homosexual couples are less likely to have kids than hetero couples as well. Do you dispute this?
So if homosexual couples were just as likely to have kids as hetero couples, why shouldn't they be given the same legal rights?
How is that any different from saying "we shouldn't allow black people to drink from the white water fountain, because they're probably not thirsty anyway"?
Or a better example would be: Say statistically it was proven that certain race or height or weight of couples didn't typically have children. Should their tax breaks be removed?
If that was so, then there'd be a downgrade on morals, heck maybe the following day you'd see homos everywhere, not a pleasant now is it?
There must be something to intervene, something to break the chain of homos, someone in his/her right mind would find homosexuality very disturbing. Where the fuckin' hell are the morals nowadays :?
0
TK201 wrote...
If that was so, then there'd be a downgrade on morals, heck maybe the following day you'd see homos everywhere, not a pleasant now is it?There must be something to intervene, something to break the chain of homos, someone in his/her right mind would find homosexuality very disturbing. Where the fuckin' hell are the morals nowadays :?
What.The.Fuck.
0
well, they cant have kids in the normal sense of the word, but if you mean that they can adopt them or even find a sperm donor, respectively some girl willing to rent out her womb...
they dont breed. at least not among themselves, having to rely on outwards ressources is not exactly breed. either way, let me revise my statement.
childless couples shouldnt get tax cuts.
and now that i was reading the rest of the other posts...
i lold
they dont breed. at least not among themselves, having to rely on outwards ressources is not exactly breed. either way, let me revise my statement.
childless couples shouldnt get tax cuts.
and now that i was reading the rest of the other posts...
i lold
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
TK201 wrote...
If that was so, then there'd be a downgrade on morals, heck maybe the following day you'd see homos everywhere, not a pleasant now is it?There must be something to intervene, something to break the chain of homos, someone in his/her right mind would find homosexuality very disturbing. Where the fuckin' hell are the morals nowadays :?
What.The.Fuck.
Well a little morals ain't that bad right? Anyways it's just sick seeing gays get married to each other and holding hands together, for me, I don't know for others who have higher tolerance. My parents were strict with morals, so I kinda sticked with it :oops:
Their relationship might not be all that bad; at least don't publicize it, especially to young ones who might accidentally view it then start having homosexual relationships thinking that its the norm. A little constraint would do.
dokidoki wrote...
For a nation that prides itself on equality and rights, the way gays are being treated is the same way blacks were treated 50 years ago.That's the U.S. right? Yeah, if that's the Country's Ideals, then it should be right for homos to have the same rights as that of straights. But in other country's that tolerate homosexual marriages, but does not have the same ideals as the U.S. taxcut privileges could/should not be given to such relationships, as per my train of thought says.
0
TK201 wrote...
ShaggyJebus wrote...
TK201 wrote...
If that was so, then there'd be a downgrade on morals, heck maybe the following day you'd see homos everywhere, not a pleasant now is it?There must be something to intervene, something to break the chain of homos, someone in his/her right mind would find homosexuality very disturbing. Where the fuckin' hell are the morals nowadays :?
What.The.Fuck.
Well a little morals ain't that bad right? Anyways it's just sick seeing gays get married to each other and holding hands together, for me, I don't know for others who have higher tolerance. My parents were strict with morals, so I kinda sticked with it :oops:
Their relationship might not be all that bad; at least don't publicize it, especially to young ones who might accidentally view it then start having homosexual relationships thinking that its the norm. A little constraint would do.
dokidoki wrote...
For a nation that prides itself on equality and rights, the way gays are being treated is the same way blacks were treated 50 years ago.That's the U.S. right? Yeah, if that's the Country's Ideals, then it should be right for homos to have the same rights as that of straights. But in other country's that tolerate homosexual marriages, but does not have the same ideals as the U.S. taxcut privileges could/should not be given to such relationships, as per my train of thought says.
You seriously think that homosexuals are just being immoral? You don't think they might just have a natural inclination towards the same sex, that they might have been born to like the same sex? Even if things happened in their childhood to "make" them gay, they're still not that responsible for it. Do you think gay people wake up in the morning and say to themselves, "Well, I love breaking the rules. Time to have some buttsex"?
Also, there's no way that young children could see gay couples and believe that homosexuality is "the norm," by which I believe you mean that kids will think that homosexuality is what is supposed to happen, versus heterosexuality. There are plenty of heterosexual couples to ensure that such a thing could never happen, because for every gay couple a child saw, there would be at least ten straight couples that the child would see. (Note: Ten is a very low number in that situation, I'm sure.)
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
Also, there's no way that young children could see gay couples and believe that homosexuality is "the norm," by which I believe you mean that kids will think that homosexuality is what is supposed to happen, versus heterosexuality. There are plenty of heterosexual couples to ensure that such a thing could never happen, because for every gay couple a child saw, there would be at least ten straight couples that the child would see. (Note: Ten is a very low number in that situation, I'm sure.)
I see your point, And pretty much understand it, I guess I can't argue much more about this, coz' there are lots of points that should make one tolerate them a little more. But I'll still stand on what I believe.
