ryoder 1,590
Recommended Posts
Remove the tax benefit more married couples and gay marriage is on the table. I can't really see it happening any other way. There must be equal treatment under the law, but the government also really needs to pinch its pennies... not an easy fight.
davjohns 1
QuoteJust what exactly is the impact of allowing gay people to get married??? I would argue that if you are not gay (and therefore already enjoy all the rights/privileges that marriage affords), there is NO IMPACT on your life at all. Things married people take for granted include: inheritance, and medical decisions, and tax benefits, et cetera, et cetera.
So why would you care at all that gay people want the same rights as you??? More importantly, why would you deny them the same rights as you???
Here we go...
1. I'm not sure there are many benefits to being married. There are certainly none that can't be easily replicated. In my home state, the spouse automatically inherits, but dying without a will is not a good idea anyhow. So, prepare a will and that issue is gone. In my state, being the spouse doesn't give one the ability to make medical decisions; only a written medical directive does. It used to be a tax liability to get married. That was fixed, but there are still some liabilities. You are generally better off NOT being married in the US. The only 'benefit' to legal marriage that I know of is that one party can't leave the other party and take all the assets (generally). The down side to that is the two parties can not go their separate ways without government approval.
2. I think marriage is a 'right' like paying taxes is a 'right'. Not sure why you would fight for it. If you want to spend your life with someone, do it. Why do you need government's blessing?
3. Screw 'em. Let them be miserable like the rest of us.
4. I'm not even sure why the government is still involved in marriage. Let people come up with legally binding civil contracts defining what they want their marriage to be and how it will be handled if it dissolves. Get rid of divorce courts and save us tax money.
5. Some religious leaders are claiming marriage is a religious institution. OK. Some religions allows gay marriage. What are you going to do now?
6. Legalize gay marriage and you have to legalize plural marriage on the same grounds. More so. Plural marriage is biblical, ok with many religions, and has as long a history as humans. Hell, statistics tell us many marriages are already plural and one person just doesn't know it, yet.
7. What were we discussing? lol
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
Here is my point of view: I believe that people are scarred at people who are different from them and what they are used to.
The same can be seen here in SC. eg amount of intollerance shown between the religious nutheads vs the atheist nutheads.
People hold dear their way of life and giving some-one who is a bit different the same rights as the majority some people view that as a threat.
I also believe that people who hate gays 9/10 times are racists as well. They are afraid of things that they don't understand.
The same can be seen here in SC. eg amount of intollerance shown between the religious nutheads vs the atheist nutheads.
People hold dear their way of life and giving some-one who is a bit different the same rights as the majority some people view that as a threat.
I also believe that people who hate gays 9/10 times are racists as well. They are afraid of things that they don't understand.
davjohns 1
Ethnocentrism. They taught this in PSY 101 when i was in school. They don't seem to teach it anymore. Not sure why. I've seen it's footprints in human behavior my entire life. It seems to me if everyone were more aware of it, we could avoid it's pervasive influence.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
QuoteQuoteWhy do we need to draw a line?
It's usually at this point that some (you'll forgive me) rocket scientist responds, "So if people should be able to marry their dogs if they want to?", and then we're off to the races.
Why you have to drag greyhounds into this?
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
wmw999 2,589
Ethnocentrism is usually defined as "that's how we did it when I was growing up, and I turned out just fine."
Wendy P.
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)
QuoteGet rid of divorce courts and save us tax money.
This will never happen as long as we continue to allow our society to be dominated by vultures who get rich on others misery. The odds of drastically changing our tax system is more likely. Too many pigs at the trough.
I think we need government mandated price controls on lawyers.
davjohns 1
I remember it as, "Whatever group / color / religion / etc. I am a member of is the best". Now, I have to do some research on something I thought I already knew. Dang you, Wendy. lol
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
wmw999 2,589
Your version is more accurate from a sociological point of view, but mine is often how people see it. They think they're being fair-minded, but, well, everyone knows that they turned out OK.
Wendy P.
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)
Quote> There is all kinds of weird and perverse situations that adults will consent to.
Yes, there is! And a good thing, too.
Exactly!
Think of all the donkey shows we'd miss out on.
To ANDY908:
QuoteIt's usually at this point that some (you'll forgive me) rocket scientist responds, "So if people should be able to marry their dogs if they want to?", and then we're off to the races.
Is that ^ close enough for lawyer work?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Andy9o8 2
QuoteYour version is more accurate from a sociological point of view, but mine is often how people see it. They think they're being fair-minded, but, well, everyone knows that they turned out OK. Wendy P.
I think Dave's is a a more accurate definition of the sub-set called ethnocentricism. Yours is a more general description of someone stubbornly resisting (and thus rationalizing) thinking out of their particular box. For example, I think your definition would also encompass someone rationalizing a particular form or scheme of raising or discpilining children: "They did it to me and I turned out alright." (usually in response to someone criticizing their method as being outdated or detrimental.)
kallend 2,150
Why do I care?
I don't care.
I don't care.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteGet rid of divorce courts and save us tax money.
This will never happen as long as we continue to allow our society to be dominated by vultures who get rich on others misery. .
What does the Walton family have to do with gay marriage? XD
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rehmwa 2
Quote4. I'm not even sure why the government is still involved in marriage. Let people come up with legally binding civil contracts defining what they want their marriage to be and how it will be handled if it dissolves. Get rid of divorce courts and save us tax money.
this
this is a nation of individuals, why are married people treated differently than singles? that's the bigger issue instead of just another demographic wanting the same preferential treatment as another
let individuals (privately and contractually) pair up any way they can contract - none of my business once we get tax dollars out of the equation
one thing I do find funny is how people on both sides of the social issue try to make this an emotional argument (love, sex, respect, etc etc etc). This is strictly about 'government' marriage - that's strictly about legal benefits - it's a contract and nothing more and nothing less. Everything else is private and none of the government's business and can be done on a personal level. It's silly for the gov to even be involved at all for any kind of marriage.
...
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
rehmwa 2
QuoteNo, it was guaran-damn-teed to end up in SC.
Nataly's outrage and naiveness on this is cute as a button.
...
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
davjohns 1
I think it's naivety; not naiveness (grammar Nazi). Did you say it's as cute as her bottom? I don't think I heard you correctly. lol
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
LyraM45 0
QuoteQuoteWhy do we need to draw a line?
It's usually at this point that some (you'll forgive me) rocket scientist responds, "So if people should be able to marry their dogs if they want to?", and then we're off to the races.
But that is not two consenting adults. Same when they bring up the "oh, well I guess people can marry a child now." That also is not two consenting adults.
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do we need to draw a line?
It's usually at this point that some (you'll forgive me) rocket scientist responds, "So if people should be able to marry their dogs if they want to?", and then we're off to the races.
But that is not two consenting adults. Same when they bring up the "oh, well I guess people can marry a child now." That also is not two consenting adults.
Agreed. I was just pointing out how the conversation typically goes over the top, at which point it pretty much stops being productive.
champu 1
Quote...at which point it pretty much stops being productive.
What would it have been producing prior to that point?
Andy9o8 2
QuoteI think it's naivety; not naiveness (grammar Nazi).
I think it's naivete' , not naivety (spelling Nazi).
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> Why do you need government's blessing?
Because the government withholds certain rights from couples unless they are married. Imagine, for example, not being allowed to be with your wife as she lie dying in a hospital because you weren't immediate family. Or imagine that you die and your money, your house etc goes to your cousin three times removed because the government doesn't recognize your wife as your partner, or your children as your heirs.
If your point is "get rid of all those laws" then fine, but that presents some practical problems.
Because the government withholds certain rights from couples unless they are married. Imagine, for example, not being allowed to be with your wife as she lie dying in a hospital because you weren't immediate family. Or imagine that you die and your money, your house etc goes to your cousin three times removed because the government doesn't recognize your wife as your partner, or your children as your heirs.
If your point is "get rid of all those laws" then fine, but that presents some practical problems.
It's funny that Tom Arnold was in that. One night I saw him on a talk show and the topic came up. He suddenly got very serious:
"Make no mistake; I'm all for gay marriage...if we have to get married, then they have to get married; They've been getting a free ride way too long!"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites