Gay Marriage

There are also plenty of straight couples who get married who can't consummate a marriage. Should we also ban them from getting married. Should we set the bar at intercourse? If someone contracts a venereal disease or someone else turns into a paraplegic?

Consummation is not grounds for defining what a marriage is. Procreation isn't either. My wife never had children - she can't. Does that mean that she can't get married? Are we raising the bar so high to just exclude gays from getting married simply because they possess four testicles or 4 ovaries?

Marriage, to a state, gives a couple certain extra rights and benefits to a partner, and to a state, that is all it does. It shouldn't be in the business of defining what sex that partner is. At the point of marriage, the state ensures that both people (not toasters, not computers) are of sound mind and body and are willing to marry each other. That's their role. Ensure that the marriage is between two people of sound mind. Once the marriage is complete, the other person should benefit with the same tax breaks and rights that any spouse has. And I think that's what the LGB community has been pushing for. They don't give a rat's ass about polygamy because they are trying to achieve the benefits that heterosexual couples have had for a couple of hundred of years.

Homosexual marriage, to religion, is sin. And while I support gay "marriage" to the state, I DO NOT support the idea of gay marriage to be enforced in churches and other religious institutions. And frankly, many gays don't want that either.

America is not a Christian country (or at least some of its laws are anti-Christian), and if it wants to declare itself so just like other countries declare themselves as Muslim states, then I would just go ahead and start enforcing laws that promote Christianity, starting with abortion and gay marriage, and following everything else that the bible says. Go for it.

Quote: boymimbo

Ah, Bob! I missed that feistinous. What other gems do you got?

Wow, your opinion is as clear as mud. Got
any more gems of such clear muddiness?

Quote: boymimbo

Consummation is not grounds for defining what a marriage is. Procreation isn't either. My wife never had children - she can't. Does that mean that she can't get married? Are we raising the bar so high to just exclude gays from getting married simply because they possess four testicles or 4 ovaries?

If that is the way you want to word it then put it that way. I prefer to simply say it is was always intended to be for one man and one woman, anything else is biologically incorrect and NOT a marriage.

Quote:

Homosexual marriage, to religion, is sin. And while I support gay "marriage" to the state, I DO NOT support the idea of gay marriage to be enforced in churches and other religious institutions. And frankly, many gays don't want that either.

Don't kid yourself here, it is only a matter of time before gays sue churched for "refusing" to marry them. Everything they have done along the way shows this will happen. Given liberal intolerance when it happens it should come as no surprise to anyone, though most liberals will act like it does.

Quote: Evenbob

Wow, your opinion is as clear as mud. Got
any more gems of such clear muddiness?

That a boy!

I support the state definition of marriage between any two people of sound mind (for benefits, tax breaks, etc)

I support the church definition of marriage between one man and one woman (sin).

I support the separation of church and state. This allows my view to be compatible.

Quote: boymimbo

That a boy!

I support the state definition of marriage between any two people of sound mind (for benefits, tax breaks, etc)

So you support a womans' right to marry her daughter so they can save on taxes?

I simplified my statement for Bob, but I will say that the decision to marry a daughter is not one based on sound mind and the state would probably argue that a degree of coercion is going on.

And, at least in my country, you can claim ANY one dependent on your tax return as a full "dependant amount". For example, I claim my wife, but i can't claim my child. My ex-wife (a single mother) will claim my daughter. As well, in hospitals, etc, next of kin is on the list for automatic power of attorney, so the daughter has power within the hospital as well.

The point I am making, when it comes to government, is that they make choices to give incentives to certain relationships and household situations based on their goals. The US decides to heavily reward home ownership, for example, by giving a mortgage interest deduction and leaves renters out in the cold. if governments, etc, decides to do away with all of that and all other institutions didn't recognize marriage at all as a meaningful benefit, then there would be no need for marriage, except for love.

Quote: boymimbo

I simplified my statement for Bob, but I will say that the decision to marry a daughter is not one based on sound mind and the state would probably argue that a degree of coercion is going on.

Why is this? Say the mother is 50 and the daughter is 30, neither are looking for a man in their life. They just want to be married to save on taxes. What do you have against this if marriage is nobody else's business?

Quote:

And, at least in my country, you can claim ANY one dependent on your tax return as a full "dependant amount". For example, I claim my wife, but i can't claim my child. My ex-wife (a single mother) will claim my daughter. As well, in hospitals, etc, next of kin is on the list for automatic power of attorney, so the daughter has power within the hospital as well.

In the USA you can claim your spouse as a dependent and you will pay a lower tax rate to boot if said dependent does not work. So in this case the mother may only work part time and the daughter makes a good paycheck (or the other way around) so the daughter would get both the deduction for the dependent as well as the married rate vs the single rate, and all the other credits that phase out.

They could also own a house by Tenants by the Entireties (if allowed in that state) and when the mother dies no probate needed.

Come on, why are you against this if marriage is nothing but a government contract about hospital visits and property ownership? No sex need be involved by law as you earlier pointed out. What's the problem with a mother marrying her daughter?

Quote: Evenbob

I believe they prefer women because they
hate men. This comes from the fact that
most lesbians I've seen personally are
so repulsive that no man would want
them.

I have similar thoughts as well. We always hear the "I was born this way" argument, but I still think something else is at play here. For example, gays might have an argument if, say, the average lesbian was attracted to the same type of woman as the average (normal) man. Or if the average gay guy was attracted to the same type of guy as the average (normal) woman.

But this isn't the case at all. Gay guys are usually very feminine, while lesbians are usually very masculine. This alone should tell any sensible person that's there something majorly out of whack here.

I still believe that homosexuality is similar to things like pica or OCD. I don't "hate" people who suffer from any of these things, but I certainly don't fool myself into thinking that they are normal urges.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pica_(disorder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder

Quote: AZDuffman

Don't kid yourself here, it is only a matter of time before gays sue churched for "refusing" to marry them. Everything they have done along the way shows this will happen.

Ain't that the truth! That's one of the things that irritates me so much about the gay marriage crowd. Years ago, I was told, "Just give us civil unions...we'll be happy...and you can keep "marriage" for yourselves!"

Even though I also oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships, I am a very reasonable guy who doesn't want to cause any unnecessary problems, so I went along with their proposal and voted for civil unions. I thought that would be the end of it once and for all, but guess what happened as soon as these gays got their civil unions????????

That's exactly when their push for marriage began! Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!!

Quote: AZDuffman

So you support a womans' right to marry her daughter so they can save on taxes?

Once again, AZ makes a great point. This reminds me of the guy in Florida who ended up adopting his girlfriend so that he could protect his assets in a wrongful death lawsuit.

A wealthy Florida man has adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend as a daughter to protect his assets

Liberals always sanctimoniously preach that "marriage is all about love" and that "you should be able to marry whomever you want", yet they never consider the real-life consequences of such idiotic arguments.

The tax benefits to marriage are a part that are everyone's business, heterosexual or otherwise. As how taxes apply are a general interest and affect all of us.

I think it's a good question on how we apply such benefits to anyone who is married.

The daughter mother marriage, is interesting. But I view that in a similar context to someone like Jerry Lee Lewis marrying someone 13. The state does have a right to look into a relations where someone is very young, or where parent was the guardian of someone very young and could be said to influence and harm that person as they grew up.

Now if the daughter is 30 and there is no crime involved at this point while icky to me or many, it's less of a concern the older the person is. But that's for someone else to figure out. I would be concerned if the age limit wasn't very high.

But from a tax standpoint everyone has an interest how that is used with marriage.