Why is same-sex marriage wrong?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Perhaps because they are generally more intelligent

That is quite an assertion. One that can be neither proven nor disproved. But I still wonder how you arrived at such a conclusion.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[d123 1]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps because they are generally more intelligent

That is quite an assertion. One that can be neither proven nor disproved. But I still wonder how you arrived at such a conclusion.

An individual for which its own sexual orientation is more important than anything else (it tends to stay on his mind a lot) has less attention for anything else. I guess it depends how you want to define inteligent. These days everyone is called inteligent.

For me this is someone very very inteligent
White Rabbit
From time to time nature creates amazing specimens. Rare people. I come from a corner of the world where people like the ones presented in that movie are valued. They crave for the plesure of understanding, of finding a different way to think a problem. I was never one of them because I'm stupid.

But now times are changing.... other things are more important. I still miss the old times. From time to time I was understanding something and felt what they felt. Anyway I'm off to longboard. The concrete calls.

Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, in my eyes, referring to an action that I find disgusting as being marriage is an insult to the lifestyle and committment to raising a family that those ancestors of mine had.
In brief, find another word. "Marriage" is already taken.

The word "marriage" is legally used by people such as myself who have no intention of raising a family. I have also been divorced and re-married, and some people have been married many times. And there are probably many opposite-sex married couples who have lifestyles that you or someone else may find disgusting. Yes, the word "marriage" is already used, but not necessarily by people who have the same reverence for the word that you have.

I never said it should only be used by couples raising a family.

So if people who don't want to raise a family aren't insulting the commitment to raising a family, it must be about the lifestyle: now... just what do you think marriage was generally like in times gone by? Without the rose tinted glasses, please.


(And it's interesting that you talk about 'your' ancestors. Who do you think the ancestors of gay people were?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, in my eyes, referring to an action that I find disgusting as being marriage is an insult to the lifestyle and committment to raising a family that those ancestors of mine had.
In brief, find another word. "Marriage" is already taken.

The word "marriage" is legally used by people such as myself who have no intention of raising a family. I have also been divorced and re-married, and some people have been married many times. And there are probably many opposite-sex married couples who have lifestyles that you or someone else may find disgusting. Yes, the word "marriage" is already used, but not necessarily by people who have the same reverence for the word that you have.

I never said it should only be used by couples raising a family.

So if people who don't want to raise a family aren't insulting the commitment to raising a family, it must be about the lifestyle: now... just what do you think marriage was generally like in times gone by? Without the rose tinted glasses, please.


(And it's interesting that you talk about 'your' ancestors. Who do you think the ancestors of gay people were?)

See, Wendy, why I was hesitant to respond to your thread? People notice somebody doesn't agree with them...even in the slightest little way...and they feel they have to change their mind.
Sorry, jakee, but you're questions are going to go unanswered. I answered Wendy's questions. I feel no need or desire to have to defend my position to you. Besides, if you had read my posts you would see your questions are redundant in that the answers were given before the question was even asked.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

See, Wendy, why I was hesitant to respond to your thread? People notice somebody doesn't agree with them...even in the slightest little way...and they feel they have to change their mind.

So you think you have the right to put your opinion out in a public forum and not have it challenged? In this thread you've challenged Shropshire's reasoning when he wasn't talking to you, you've challenged BillVon's reasoning when he wasn't talking to you... why should yours be immune?

Since you're not usually so precious about your opinions I've got to wonder if you know you can't rationally back this one up.

Quote

Besides, if you had read my posts you would see your questions are redundant in that the answers were given before the question was even asked.

They're not and they weren't. You've given an incomplete response (which is what I replied to) but you certainly haven't answered.

If you don't want to respond then don't, but pretending you already have is beneath you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Oh, are going to cry now? I didn't challenge anyone who didn't challenge me first either directly or indirectly.
Giving Wendy my opinion, which she requested, was NOT an open invitation for people to demand I defend that opinion.
Grow up.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Oh, are going to cry now? I didn't challenge anyone who didn't challenge me first either directly or indirectly.

And this, from a (somewhat) feminine perspective, is exactly what makes same-sex marriages a great thing.

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Oh, are going to cry now?

Dude, you already are.

Quote

I didn't challenge anyone who didn't challenge me first either directly or indirectly.

Neither Bill nor Shrop challenged you directly. So what is indirect: having an opinion that clashes with yours? Well guess what, your opinion clashes with mine, so your comments (as if any justification for replying were needed on a public discussion forum) are fair game.

Quote

Giving Wendy my opinion, which she requested, was NOT an open invitation for people to demand I defend that opinion.
Grow up.

Guess what - this is not your playground and you don't make the rules. If you don't like that, why don't you just take your ball and go home instead of sitting here bitching about being picked on?

Again, since you're not normally this inconsistent and precious you must really know you're on thin ice.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,122]

Except that if we never find out people's reasons for things, the only way we have left to discuss is by shouting louder than they.

I'm not sure that's an improvement. And the louder one shouts, particularly at emotional feelings, the more set in those feelings the party becomes. And I'm not sure that's an improvement, either.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Marriage is a business. Existing businesses rarely welcome competition. Think about some of the benefits marriage confers:

Survivor benefits.
Lower insurance rates.
Automatic Inheritenace rights.
Preferential estate-tax treatment.
Workplace health and pension coverage.
Reduced income taxes.

[Guest]

Quote

Reduced income taxes.

Sorry, gotta differ with you on that one: the so-called "Marriage Tax". Married filing jointly costs more than if two people file separately.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 2,400]

>Sorry, gotta differ with you on that one: the so-called "Marriage Tax".
> Married filing jointly costs more than if two people file separately.

From a forbes.com article:

"The married couple also gets some relief on both federal and Social Security taxes, thanks to the slightly lower tax rates associated with joint filing. They pay out a combined 29% of their salaries, compared with the 35% the single person pays."

[champu 1]

Quote

>Sorry, gotta differ with you on that one: the so-called "Marriage Tax".
> Married filing jointly costs more than if two people file separately.

From a forbes.com article:

"The married couple also gets some relief on both federal and Social Security taxes, thanks to the slightly lower tax rates associated with joint filing. They pay out a combined 29% of their salaries, compared with the 35% the single person pays."

You're both correct (or both wrong if you intended your answers to be general.)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

You're both correct (or both wrong if you intended your answers to be general.)

You sir are correct. The penalty tends to affect lower income couples while the benefit tends to be seen by those with higher incomes.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Fine, I'll respond so you'll quit pouting.

Quote

now... just what do you think marriage was generally like in times gone by?

One man, one woman sharing a houshold usually for mutual benefit and usually (but not always) to raise a family. Often it was a matter of ownership, almost near slavery.

Quote

Who do you think the ancestors of gay people were?

Hmmm....probably some straight couples in there somewhere. But it doesn't matter in the least since i never mentioned how i felt about gay people ancestors or how they felt about mine. I only mentiuoned how Ifelt about myancestors. Everybody is free to view their ancestors any way they wish.

You wrote, "In this thread you've challenged Shropshire's reasoning when he wasn't talking to you". Well, he posted this little ditty..."And they can call it a Marriage if they won't - some may think that word is 'taken' but it's not, it's just a word and language is ever evolving.
If it gets up other peoples noses - Fuck em. It's non of their damned business."

Unless you live on Mars you can see that remark was aimed at my earlier post.

I responded to Bill's post to point out a fact, not to give an opinion or to degrade his.

"They're not and they weren't. You've given an incomplete response (which is what I replied to) but you certainly haven't answered."

Yes, they are. If you had read my posts, especially the very first one, you would have enough of an understanding to answer your own questions.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Throttlebender 0]

I can't believe you just said, "Live and let live."

Yours are some of the most bigoted and intolerant posts I've read on these forums. You must have been joking right?

Life expands or contracts in proportion to one's courage. ~Anais Nin

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

One man, one woman sharing a houshold usually for mutual benefit and usually (but not always) to raise a family. Often it was a matter of ownership, almost near slavery.

And how do you think it's actually possible for that to be insulted?

Quote

Hmmm....probably some straight couples in there somewhere. But it doesn't matter in the least since i never mentioned how I felt about gay people ancestors or how they felt about mine. I only mentioned how I felt about myancestors. Everybody is free to view their ancestors any way they wish.

Since you appear determined to miss the point, I'll spell it out for you: How far back do you think you have to go before some of your ancestors are some of their ancestors? Hint, it's really, really not that far.

Quote

Yes, they are. If you had read my posts, especially the very first one, you would have enough of an understanding to answer your own questions.

Then how is it that you've provided answers in this post that are unlike anything you've previously written in this thread?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

>One man, one woman sharing a houshold usually for mutual benefit and
> usually (but not always) to raise a family. Often it was a matter of
>ownership, almost near slavery.

Wow. Sounds like you actually support _changing_ that traditional definition of marriage.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

You're both correct (or both wrong if you intended your answers to be general.)

You sir are correct. The penalty tends to affect lower income couples while the benefit tends to be seen by those with higher incomes.

You sir, are incorrect.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The penalty tends to affect lower income couples while the benefit tends to be seen by those with higher incomes.

You sir, are incorrect.

Stop that - people don't their uninformed biases and assumptions to be derailed by fact. It makes them uncomfortable.



(silly graphs, you mean that if the government can find a way to combine some incomes to show the total is higher, then they'll scheme up some way to take even more of it? my oh my!!)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Quote

Stop that - people don't want their uninformed biases and assumptions to be derailed by fact. It makes them uncomfortable.

(silly graphs, you mean that if the government can find a way to combine some incomes to show the total is higher, then they'll scheme up some way to take even more of it? my oh my!!)

Well, not quite. What you can see from the plot is that the government encourages couples with highly disparate incomes to get married and discourages couples on equal economic footing from getting married. It also says that until the couple earns over 137K, getting married and filing jointly can only help you.

The plot actually understates the marriage penalty for higher gross incomes do to the roll-off of deductions and tax credits. The AMT probably screws over upper-middle / lower-upper class couples too, but I have no desire to look into it.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

And how do you think it's actually possible for that to be insulted?

I don't.
My ideas of marriage are from what I observed between my parents, grandaparents, great-grandparents. Anything further back than that I haven't a clue as to what their marriage was like. My ideals are based on my observations, not suppositions.

Quote

Since you appear determined to miss the point, I'll spell it out for you: How far back do you think you have to go before some of your ancestors are some of their ancestors? Hint, it's really, really not that far.

If that is what you wanted to know then you should have asked. You asked what I thought their ancestors were like, not if I had any in common.
Depending upon who is being compared to whom, you may find common ancestors just a few generations back or you may have to go back thousands. My ancestory is English and Hungarian. If you try to find a common ancestor with a gay African you will have trouble.

***Then how is it that you've provided answers in this post that are unlike anything you've previously written in this thread?"

Because some people, you included, pretty much know what the answer is going to be before even asking certain questions. I have no doubt you knew what my response was going to be but you weren't going to be happy until you saw it in writing. If you had read my first post in this thread you wouldn't need to even ask since it was people like you that prompted a good portion of that post.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>One man, one woman sharing a houshold usually for mutual benefit and
> usually (but not always) to raise a family. Often it was a matter of
>ownership, almost near slavery.

Wow. Sounds like you actually support _changing_ that traditional definition of marriage.

Nope. Read my response to jakee above and you'll know why.
You know, Bill, the more shit people give me about not wanting gay unions to be called marriages, the more I am inclined to just turn against all gay rights. People, like any animal, tend to turn on those who attack them, even for nit picky shit like the meaning of a word.
It's funny that my being bothered a little bit bothers you and jakee so much. I never knew my opinion meant so much to you two.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,400]

>Nope. Read my response to jakee above and you'll know why.

So you do NOT support changing the traditional definition of marriage you posted? You want to preserve it as a "matter of ownership, almost near slavery?" Somehow I doubt you really mean that, and are just arguing to argue. (Which is fine; that's what SC is for, to keep such crap out of the main forums.)

[labrys 0]

Quote

You know, Bill, the more shit people give me about not wanting gay unions to be called marriages, the more I am inclined to just turn against all gay rights.

Holy shit.. I think the planet just tilted 5 or 6 degrees. Did you feel that? Please reconsider your feelings about gay rights... help us... you're our only hope.

Owned by Remi #?