Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-02 05:11:48)
nope. I think there should be no laws restricting people from doing what they want to do as long as it does not interfere with anyone else. I am all for 2 people of the same sex getting married, for whatever reason they choose, be they gay or straight.Spark wrote:
Lowing, quite simple question.
Do you think marriage between two adults of the same sex should be illegal or not?
There is an argument for that and I would support it. However, I find the majority of my tax breaks are in my dependents and my home ownership. Then my deductions that everyone else gets anyway.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then the govt should repeal all tax and other law related to marriage, divorce law, pensions, etc etc.
That way they wouldn't discriminate against non-marrieds.
That was easy.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 05:22:42)
Gays should not be allowed to marry the opposite sex if it's for the same fraudulent reasons a hetero would marry the same sex. Fraud is fraud.lowing wrote:
Because it does not allow straight people the same privilege as gays. Look at it this way, with this new law, gays can marry same sex, or opposite sex, for whatever reason they choose to without question. Straight people may not be able to without govt. interference. THAT is discriminatory.Kmar wrote:
How is that discriminating against straights if the intent is true?lowing wrote:
ok, so you think the laws are discriminatory against gays and only apply to them then? Then you must also assume the new laws will only allow gays to marry same sex while disallowing straight people the same right, then that must be also discriminatory.The idea of Marriage is to enter into a loving union. Otherwise what is the point? Taxbreaks? Surely we can find a better alternative than making two people who don't like each other live together for the rest of their lives. The fact that people suck at marriage isn't reason enough to disallow one group to try.. the right way.Reasons to get married are numerous, and please, heterosexuals have hardly demonstrated LOVE is a good reason to marry, not at 70% divorce rates or infidelity rates.
If the laws now are discriminatory without specifically naming any one group, then the new laws can be discriminatory as well.
You make a good point though. Many heteros say that they have to "protect the institution of marriage". As if they haven't screwed it up every way imaginable. They haven't earned any exclusivity rights on doing it for love.I don't see it that way. Taking an "everyone can marry everyone and it's not our job to recognize it at all" sounds less discriminatory to me. It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.We agree, it is not the govts. business to begin with and that is why I have this thread, this is not a fix for anything if the govt. is still going to have their hand in personal lives. If you think the govt. was discriminatory before, this law can be a continuation of that, only in the other direction.
In short the way to fix this, is for the govt. to take their hands out of personal lives all together, not impose yet another "law". Reasons for marriage do not matter, who the govt. allows to do what is what this thread is about., and this new law may not be a fix if it will continue legislating marriage.
That would be great, if the law is interpreted as anyone can marry anyone. Then again, if that is truly their position or intention, then why do you need a "law" in the first place. The constitution is set up to spell out specifically what the govt. can do. If it is not stated then it is not within the govts. powers.
Why should you get a tax break for any of that?lowing wrote:
There is an argument for that and I would support it. However, I find the majority of my tax breaks are in my dependents and my home ownership. Then my deductions that everyone else gets anyway.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then the govt should repeal all tax and other law related to marriage, divorce law, pensions, etc etc.
That way they wouldn't discriminate against non-marrieds.
That was easy.
I think you're missing the point of marriage.lowing wrote:
LOL, since when?Jaekus wrote:
No, don't weasel out of it. The WHY is the whole point of marriage.lowing wrote:
I agree with that, but as it is the govt. does have its nose in it, and as such, do you believe the current laws disallow same sex marriages between gays, or do the laws disallow same sex marriages for everyone? If you think the laws apply to everyone, then there is no discrimination.
You all are hung up on why would straights want to? and it does not matter why, it is not the govts. business short of immigration related crimes. So leave the question as to why out if for now, and go with the knowledge that there are a ton of reasons for marriage and love is but one of them.
I am not weaseling out of anything, you don't see me running from yours and other barrages of insults in this thread. Admit that the laws apply to everyone or claim they apply only to gays, which shall it be, we will take it from there.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-02 05:32:39)
For homeowners it is to encourage behavior. The housing market is normally a boon to the economy. But what the homeowner saves in writing off mortgage interest they end up paying in property taxes anyways.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why should you get a tax break for any of that?lowing wrote:
There is an argument for that and I would support it. However, I find the majority of my tax breaks are in my dependents and my home ownership. Then my deductions that everyone else gets anyway.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then the govt should repeal all tax and other law related to marriage, divorce law, pensions, etc etc.
That way they wouldn't discriminate against non-marrieds.
That was easy.
But now you are advocating allowing govt. the power to choose for us, and dictate who is allowed to marry and for what reasons. Who is the govt. to define to us what is a moral reason for marriage, and really, how in the world can they govern that without even further discrimination? I would rather that power not exist. It simply is not the govts. business.Kmar wrote:
Gays should not be allowed to marry the opposite sex if it's for the same fraudulent reasons a hetero would marry the same sex. Fraud is fraud.lowing wrote:
Because it does not allow straight people the same privilege as gays. Look at it this way, with this new law, gays can marry same sex, or opposite sex, for whatever reason they choose to without question. Straight people may not be able to without govt. interference. THAT is discriminatory.Kmar wrote:
How is that discriminating against straights if the intent is true?lowing wrote:
ok, so you think the laws are discriminatory against gays and only apply to them then? Then you must also assume the new laws will only allow gays to marry same sex while disallowing straight people the same right, then that must be also discriminatory.The idea of Marriage is to enter into a loving union. Otherwise what is the point? Taxbreaks? Surely we can find a better alternative than making two people who don't like each other live together for the rest of their lives. The fact that people suck at marriage isn't reason enough to disallow one group to try.. the right way.Reasons to get married are numerous, and please, heterosexuals have hardly demonstrated LOVE is a good reason to marry, not at 70% divorce rates or infidelity rates.
If the laws now are discriminatory without specifically naming any one group, then the new laws can be discriminatory as well.
You make a good point though. Many heteros say that they have to "protect the institution of marriage". As if they haven't screwed it up every way imaginable. They haven't earned any exclusivity rights on doing it for love.
I don't see it that way. Taking an "everyone can marry everyone and it's not our job to recognize it at all" sounds less discriminatory to me. It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.
In short the way to fix this, is for the govt. to take their hands out of personal lives all together, not impose yet another "law". Reasons for marriage do not matter, who the govt. allows to do what is what this thread is about., and this new law may not be a fix if it will continue legislating marriage.
That would be great, if the law is interpreted as anyone can marry anyone. Then again, if that is truly their position or intention, then why do you need a "law" in the first place. The constitution is set up to spell out specifically what the govt. can do. If it is not stated then it is not within the govts. powers.
The Government has already stepped in the muck with the marriage laws. Either repeal their position to recognize what is a marriage, or open it all up.
You don't need a law in the first place. I think I've made my feelings abundantly clear in that regard.
It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.
It encourages an increase in spending, which increases tax revenues.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why should you get a tax break for any of that?lowing wrote:
There is an argument for that and I would support it. However, I find the majority of my tax breaks are in my dependents and my home ownership. Then my deductions that everyone else gets anyway.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then the govt should repeal all tax and other law related to marriage, divorce law, pensions, etc etc.
That way they wouldn't discriminate against non-marrieds.
That was easy.
and I am looking at the bigger picture of govt. involvement in any of it, and possible further discrimination in the other direction.Jaekus wrote:
I think you're missing the point of marriage.lowing wrote:
LOL, since when?Jaekus wrote:
No, don't weasel out of it. The WHY is the whole point of marriage.
I am not weaseling out of anything, you don't see me running from yours and other barrages of insults in this thread. Admit that the laws apply to everyone or claim they apply only to gays, which shall it be, we will take it from there.
Previously gay people could not marry their partners. Now they can. Pretty cut and dried isn't it?
and isn't that an increase in spending? and isn't that an increase in tax revenues for property ownership? and isn't it an increase in spending on your household furnishings and lawn mowers and play grounds etc... Face it Dilbert, you spend a lot more OWNING a home than you do renting one.Dilbert_X wrote:
No it doesn't, it encourages people to lock up their money in a house.
Was there a law preventing you from owning a home?Dilbert_X wrote:
Which discriminates against people who don't have a mortgage.
I'd say thats a bigger issue than gays not marrying for love.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 05:53:29)
If the government does not allow a group of people to pick who they would like to marry according to their sexual persuasion they are already dictating. By defining and excluding they have put themselves in a discriminatory position. I don't think the government should define a moral marriage. But it's hard to believe they're not doing that right now. Most states explicitly ban same sex marriage. It's not a matter of adding a law in those states. It's a matter of repealing one.lowing wrote:
But now you are advocating allowing govt. the power to choose for us, and dictate who is allowed to marry and for what reasons. Who is the govt. to define to us what is a moral reason for marriage, and really, how in the world can they govern that without even further discrimination? I would rather that power not exist. It simply is not the govts. business.Kmar wrote:
Gays should not be allowed to marry the opposite sex if it's for the same fraudulent reasons a hetero would marry the same sex. Fraud is fraud.lowing wrote:
Because it does not allow straight people the same privilege as gays. Look at it this way, with this new law, gays can marry same sex, or opposite sex, for whatever reason they choose to without question. Straight people may not be able to without govt. interference. THAT is discriminatory.
In short the way to fix this, is for the govt. to take their hands out of personal lives all together, not impose yet another "law". Reasons for marriage do not matter, who the govt. allows to do what is what this thread is about., and this new law may not be a fix if it will continue legislating marriage.
That would be great, if the law is interpreted as anyone can marry anyone. Then again, if that is truly their position or intention, then why do you need a "law" in the first place. The constitution is set up to spell out specifically what the govt. can do. If it is not stated then it is not within the govts. powers.
The Government has already stepped in the muck with the marriage laws. Either repeal their position to recognize what is a marriage, or open it all up.
You don't need a law in the first place. I think I've made my feelings abundantly clear in that regard.
It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.
As for the the rest, I offer no argument.
The only other direction is heterosexual marriage. Last time I checked that's pretty well established and legal.lowing wrote:
and I am looking at the bigger picture of govt. involvement in any of it, and possible further discrimination in the other direction.Jaekus wrote:
I think you're missing the point of marriage.lowing wrote:
LOL, since when?
I am not weaseling out of anything, you don't see me running from yours and other barrages of insults in this thread. Admit that the laws apply to everyone or claim they apply only to gays, which shall it be, we will take it from there.
Previously gay people could not marry their partners. Now they can. Pretty cut and dried isn't it?
People who don't have mortgages aren't paying mortgage interest and property taxes. The idea is to lessen the burden of owning a home and give those non homeowners a chance to become homeowners.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which discriminates against people who don't have a mortgage.
I'd say thats a bigger issue than gays not marrying for love.
Most people begin to accumulate real wealth when they're not pissing their income away in rent. Housing is a major driving force in the economy. The entire economy is hurt when it takes a downturn.. it's felt by non-homeowners as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
No it doesn't, it encourages people to lock up their money in a house.
No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege. As I said the only way to ensure no govt. involvement in personal ives is to keep the govt. OUT of personal lives, not pass yet more legislation.Jaekus wrote:
The only other direction is heterosexual marriage. Last time I checked that's pretty well established and legal.lowing wrote:
and I am looking at the bigger picture of govt. involvement in any of it, and possible further discrimination in the other direction.Jaekus wrote:
I think you're missing the point of marriage.
Previously gay people could not marry their partners. Now they can. Pretty cut and dried isn't it?
Why not?lowing wrote:
No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege.
What?lowing wrote:
No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege. As I said the only way to ensure no govt. involvement in personal ives is to keep the govt. OUT of personal lives, not pass yet more legislation.Jaekus wrote:
The only other direction is heterosexual marriage. Last time I checked that's pretty well established and legal.lowing wrote:
and I am looking at the bigger picture of govt. involvement in any of it, and possible further discrimination in the other direction.
If it is claimed that the current laws are prejudiced, without specifying any one group, then the new laws can do the same thing. The bigger picture, and the thing I have ben trying to speak to, is govt. involvement in our lives and how increased legislation is an increase in our lives it is not a detraction from it. IF the govt. is interested in allowing gays to marry same sex, then the govt. needs to release us from ALL regulation regarding marriage, not add more.
Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage)[1] is legally and/or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ted_StatesSome proponents of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, such as Freedom to Marry and Garden State Equality, use the term marriage equality[39][40] to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights.
because as you claim the current laws discriminates without ACTUALLY saying it, the new laws have the potential of doing the exact same thing in the other direction. I say "MAY not have the same privilege" because although the intent is clear, the application of this new law has yet to be established.Kmar wrote:
Why not?lowing wrote:
No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege.
In most states the law does say it. They explicitly ban same sex marriage.lowing wrote:
because as you claim the current laws discriminates without ACTUALLY saying it, the new laws have the potential of doing the exact same thing in the other direction. I say "MAY not have the same privilege" because although the intent is clear, the application of this new law has yet to be established.Kmar wrote:
Why not?lowing wrote:
No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege.
round and round. Ok, although I understand the absurdity of straight same sex marriage, I still recognize it might be a govt. restriction by not allowing them to do so when you allow other groups the freedom to do so. If you absolutely refuse to recognize that, I can not say it in any other terms to further this discussion with you over it.Jaekus wrote:
What?lowing wrote:
No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege. As I said the only way to ensure no govt. involvement in personal ives is to keep the govt. OUT of personal lives, not pass yet more legislation.Jaekus wrote:
The only other direction is heterosexual marriage. Last time I checked that's pretty well established and legal.
If it is claimed that the current laws are prejudiced, without specifying any one group, then the new laws can do the same thing. The bigger picture, and the thing I have ben trying to speak to, is govt. involvement in our lives and how increased legislation is an increase in our lives it is not a detraction from it. IF the govt. is interested in allowing gays to marry same sex, then the govt. needs to release us from ALL regulation regarding marriage, not add more.
Once again, you're wrong.Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage)[1] is legally and/or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ted_StatesSome proponents of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, such as Freedom to Marry and Garden State Equality, use the term marriage equality[39][40] to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights.
I did link you to Wikipedia ages ago, but clearly you did not bother to read it. Tut tut.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 07:25:00)
IF, everyone can marry everyone. That has not yet been established.Kmar wrote:
In most states the law does say it. They explicitly ban same sex marriage.lowing wrote:
because as you claim the current laws discriminates without ACTUALLY saying it, the new laws have the potential of doing the exact same thing in the other direction. I say "MAY not have the same privilege" because although the intent is clear, the application of this new law has yet to be established.Kmar wrote:
Why not?
If everyone can marry everyone how is that "going in the opposite direction?".
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 07:25:59)
You're arguing an absurdity for starters, and secondly there's no evidence to support some so called "discrimination" for preventing two straight people of the same gender to marry. It says it quite clearly there that it is same-gender marriage and the term "gay marriage" is more a colloquialism, yet you refuse to admit you're wrong in arguing some hypothesis that is unlikely to ever eventuate.lowing wrote:
round and round. Ok, although I understand the absurdity of straight same sex marriage, I still recognize it might be a govt. restriction by not allowing them to do so when you allow other groups the freedom to do so. If you absolutely refuse to recognize that, I can not say it in any other terms to further this discussion with you over it.Jaekus wrote:
What?lowing wrote:
No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege. As I said the only way to ensure no govt. involvement in personal ives is to keep the govt. OUT of personal lives, not pass yet more legislation.
If it is claimed that the current laws are prejudiced, without specifying any one group, then the new laws can do the same thing. The bigger picture, and the thing I have ben trying to speak to, is govt. involvement in our lives and how increased legislation is an increase in our lives it is not a detraction from it. IF the govt. is interested in allowing gays to marry same sex, then the govt. needs to release us from ALL regulation regarding marriage, not add more.
Once again, you're wrong.Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage)[1] is legally and/or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ted_StatesSome proponents of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, such as Freedom to Marry and Garden State Equality, use the term marriage equality[39][40] to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights.
I did link you to Wikipedia ages ago, but clearly you did not bother to read it. Tut tut.
Stop worrying about WHY any straight people may want to marry same sex and focus on the wether or not they may not be allowed to unlike gay people.
