Prop 8 overturned

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I don't understand why marriage has to affect taxes and income proportion. It is a social choice that people make and shouldn't have fiscal repercussions. I'm not opposed to marriage, I'm opposed to the fiscal benefits and deductions that are involved with marriage. The fact is that extending rights to marriage will lead to more bureaucratic paper-pushing that eventually leads to higher tax rates that the public as a whole has to pay.

Socially speaking, it doesn't matter to me if homosexuals or heterosexuals marry. Divorce rates are high among heterosexual marriages, indicating that the status quo isn't that great among married couples in the United States. It's honestly not my business who other people want to marry or want to have romantic relationships with in the future.

Fiscally speaking, I don't want to pay more taxes. I already have to deal with the ramifications for sham heterosexual marriages that result in bust 50% of the time. The only reason why I pay it is because that is the established status quo. If gay marriage is legalized, then that will become the status quo that I have to tolerate. Until it is passed, then I can discuss it because it is still a viable issue that hasn't affected my deducible tax income.

That money goes to various other organizations that I deem more fitting a "moral crusade" than to go towards the concept of supporting a human choice to marry (i.e. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation). I'm still going to try to donate when I have cash left-over. Yet the ramifications of living in a fairly large state, means that the financial repercussions of homosexual marriage may hit my wallet harder than I may like.

When it comes down to it, I don't believe in "marriage" as an absolutely necessary relationship that people must have in order to exist as a couple and I don't understand why I'm forced to financially support the personal decision made between two individuals who do believe the aforementioned statement. I understand the "Rosseau response" for the Social Contract in which taxes are intended to benefit the general public which incorporates me as an individual. But to be honest, I don't understand why I have to pay for your personal choice whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. Relationships are a social decisions that people decide on an individual basis to pursue a romantic partner. Relationships should remain that way and should not have fiscal ramifications.

 

[Pluvia]

Ever heard the saying "Only 2 things are certain in life; Death and Taxes"?

It seems that's just a general qualm about having to pay taxes for marriage altogether and not why gays specifically shouldn't be allowed to get married. Because someone doesn't want to pay taxes doesn't mean that it's ok to refuse people the right to be happy. It's almost a selfish view.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I stated that I understand that there are taxes that are necessary to be paid such as national defense, parks & recreation, and funding for schools. This falls under the social contract where we surrender minor rights in order to achieve greater rights that we enjoy as a collective public.

My prior text is not a "general" qualm. It specifically keys in on marriage and the fact that adding in gay marriage to the status quo will inevitably raise taxes in some shape or form to fund added social security benefits and other federal subsidies. I'm fine with paying taxes. I just don't believe that I, nor the American public should be taxed more of our hard earned money in order to support homosexual marriage, an issue of choice when there are plenty of people who have found themselves to be victims of consequence: natural disasters, oil spills, and children born with mental disabilities who should be receiving social and fiscal attention rather than same-sex married couples.

Does homosexual marriage merit consideration over funding oil repair damages and other matters of interest? I personally believe that families who have kids born with Cystic Fibrosis and other fatal birth defects need more financial support than homosexual families. When it comes down to my personal budget, I don't have an unending check book. Therefore I guess I am selfish, simply because I sympathize more with dysfunctionals over homosexuals and I know that involuntarily being forced to support the latter will hurt the income for the former.

If I'm selfish, then does that make homosexuals the martyrs in this situation? I thought they are the ones who are getting added fiscal benefits while everyone is paying for their provision. I think people are happy when they have more money in their wallets. But that could just be me.

I assume that you telling me there are two things to life was to just tell me to "deal with it." If I can't help but to die and to pay taxes, then why shouldn't I have some concerns over something that I have to pay on an annual basis? Isn't my happiness more important to me than their happiness? Isn't it right to be selfish and capitalistic and self-concerned with my personal funds? I don't see homosexual advocate groups helping the needy or cleaning up oil spills. Perhaps I'm just uninformed of such collective homosexual activist groups. But I personally never heard of such an organizational group making contributions to the rest of humanity. And if there is such a group, then I apologize for not recognizing them.

 

[Pluvia]

I never said it was a general qualm about having to pay taxes, I said it was a general qualm about having to pay taxes for marriage altogether but not why gays specifically shouldn't be allowed to get married.

This argument is just about marriage taxes. The thing is that married couples will be paying their taxes too, and you also have the ability to get married to receive the same benefits as them. What I'm asking is why is it right to exclude gays from having the same opportunity as you?

And I'm sure that disability benefits are far higher than that of marriage benefits. The argument contradicts itself there, you say that if gay people get some of the marriage benefits it will hurt disability taxes but the whole point in raising taxes in the first place would be to stop that sort of thing from happening.

 

[Luigitoilet]

While intentionally ignoring opinions that aren't slandered or extremely prejudiced in this thread and systematically aiming for stupid comments in order to collectively denigrate and mock as a group. Don't worry, I know how the internet works.

dude, you're on a Super Smash Bros forum.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Same-sex couples can have romantic relationships among themselves. When they make the choice to marry, then it involves some degree of personal repercussion in my level and a personal consideration as to whether or not I believe that their cause is worthy on a fiscal level. Gays can marry, as long as it doesn't affect me. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Everyone is gung-ho about equality until there are dollar signs attached. I believe that people should fight in what they believe in. Same-sex couples should fight for equal rights, and I deserve the right to consider whether the costs merit the appropriate benefits.

I wasn't talking about disability taxes. I was talking about this C.F. group that I usually donate every time I work my shift at the hospital. Raising taxes would lower personal income which would prevent me from choosing which groups or organizations I feel need funding. My family is involved with Habitat for Humanity and I tend to be drawn more towards Red Cross and medical research organizations. Again I'm not donating an arm and a leg. But it is significant enough that I would hold back every now and then due to the fact that lately premiums and other rates have been going up fairly consistently where I live. With a tax hike, forget it.

 

[Spelt]

Just for anyone wondering, when you bring up a slippery slope argument, you basically sound like this:

Banning meta knight will just lead to snake being banned. and then we'll go down the roster until we hit ganondorf. and then tournaments will consist of people talking to each other about who their character they pick is and what they would do in those situations and what moves they use and then they'll do a couple games of thumb wars to decide who the winner is. but after awhile people will realize thumb wars are broken too and ban those.

 

[Zajice]

The thing is though, I wouldn't care if gay marriage were banned anyway, since ultimately, I don't need a document telling me I'm in a binding monogamous relationship.

But inb4 people say that's not the point and it's the fact that gays were prohibited from doing it and that shows inequality yaddayadda.

This is basically my view on the subject.

 

[Ballistics]

No way gotta make it legit in the court of law haven't you seen brokeback mountain? Heath Ledger gets no access to any of Jake Gyllenhall's estate.

 

[Xsyven]

You are ignorant. You do not deserve to breathe the same air as other carbon life forms do. I hope you die young and as unhappy as you wish other humans to be.

For y'all newbies, I'm totally gay btw.

 

[TigerWoods]

I'm still jealous of your hair...

 

[Pink Reaper]

For y'all newbies, I'm totally gay btw.

 

[cookieM0Nster]

I can't believe they didn't let this bill pass. It's what the majority wants and it's only the right thing to do to ban an atrocity.

youre ****ing kidding right,

The majority also wanted interracial marriages to be banned as well.
The majority were more than willing to eradicate Native Americans.

Newsflash kid, the majority is not always right.

completely correct

I'd rather have it banned in the whole country, it's not even funny or natural.

It saddens me that it's becoming legal in more and more countries (not saying it wasn't already legal at the point of this overturning) and I don't really understand why they feel they have to do that. I understand religious differences but this is totally unexceptable imo. especially since comics and tv shows are starting to shove it down our throats too.

I'm glad none of my friends are *** because they wouldn't be friends for much longer if they were . . . . .

As for P8 conflicting with an already existing statement, I'm going to remain more-or-less silent on how I feel about the 14th Amendment basically being twisted to endorse homosexuality, but from the rest of the post it should be pretty easy to determine my standing.

we are living beings, we all deserve equal rights

Please tell me you're joking.

my thoughts exactly.

Ya know, my favorite part of this thread is that UberMario thinks that gay marriage should be banned nationally because its neither "funny or natural"

ps. over 400 animals have homosexual relations. Reguardless, what is natural is none of the laws concern. Killing is natural, male dominance is natural, none of these concern the law. The law is only interested in protecting rights of the individual, and in keeping functioning government and finance systems.

QFT

Don't feed the trolls.

People will believe whatever others want them to believe. That's what happens when your force fed information as a child.

lol @ "funny and natural"

not necessarily.

as a little kid, i wanted to be rich.
now, i wish i were less privileged.
as a little kid, i wanted to be Repubilcan because my mom was.
now I agree with Democratic views.
as a kid i used to hate music, especially rap. i liked rock and pop because thats what my parents liked.
now I love Hip Hop, not only as a beautiful form of music but also as a culture.
as a kid i was taught to fight fire with fire (or when someone his, you hit back)
now, i realize that peace, love and understanding are better than using force.

what happened? I thought for myself.
People change.

Oh wow, someone actually agreed with me. Yeah, I wasn't actually being serious... Got two gay uncles and a lesbian aunt, so kinda hard to be hatin' on em. My aunt got married this year

oh. Good lmao.
congrats to her!

Everyone is gung-ho about equality until there are dollar signs attached. I believe that people should fight in what they believe in.

I on the other hand would love to chip in. Hard work results in experience and appreciation, which are much more valuable than money.

No way gotta make it legit in the court of law haven't you seen brokeback mountain? Heath Ledger gets no access to any of Jake Gyllenhall's estate.

nah nah nah cowboy buttsex. sodomyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[Shadic]

This is basically my view on the subject.

"With the exception of all the legal benefits and tax advantages of marriage, there's really no advantage of marriage - It's supposed to be about love amirite?"

 

[Teran]

If you have a problem with the majority or a law, you either stfu and live with it or take up arms and fight them.

Hey, it's how you guys got independence, and you celebrate it every year!

Now see a bunch of homos in tight PVC uniforms carrying M4 Carbines would be pretty hilarious, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Shadic]

If you have a problem with the majority or a law, you either stfu and live with it or take up arms and fight them.

Or prove that it's against the rule of law, which is what is being done, and should be done in a civilized society.

 

[Zajice]

Imagining an army of queers is lulzy...

At least the uniforms would be fashionable.

"With the exception of all the legal benefits and tax advantages of marriage, there's really no advantage of marriage - It's supposed to be about love amirite?"

Actually, I pretty much have the same views as Acrostic when it comes to marriage in general.


My position is more:
"I support gay marriage but wouldn't be absolutely broken up if it got banned since I don't find marriage to be very important and it shouldn't entitle what it currently does anyway."

But it currently isn't banned, so it's definitely the more preferable outcome. And I at least have the option if I ever feel tying the knot with another guy to be necessary.

Should probably mention I'm bisexual (even though it's with female preference) so my stance makes more sense.


Also

Just for anyone wondering, when you bring up a slippery slope argument, you basically sound like this:

Banning meta knight will just lead to snake being banned. and then we'll go down the roster until we hit ganondorf. and then tournaments will consist of people talking to each other about who their character they pick is and what they would do in those situations and what moves they use and then they'll do a couple games of thumb wars to decide who the winner is. but after awhile people will realize thumb wars are broken too and ban those.

This.

Slippery slope arguments are dumb in almost every situation. Pretty good comparison imo.

 

[Crimson King]

I decided if the supreme court rules gay marriage unconstitutional, they are no longer valid, and I am moving. The new appeal may be the one that takes it there, so I want to be on record when I leave.

Also, California will rule today if gay marriages will be legal during the appeal.

 

[Zajice]

Ruling gay marriage to be unconstitutional would be ridiculous and I'm 99.9% positive it won't happen. I know the government can, and has, made stupid decisions in the past, but I don't believe they'd go so far as to declare gay marriage something as outrageous as "unconstitutional."

But if that .1% comes true, I will have lost all of what is left of my faith in this country and the people who govern it.

 

[TigerWoods]

I've already lost my faith in the current government of this country... but I do believe in change. I've witnessed a lot hope for the acceptance of gays in the younger generations.

I believe true change happens when parents stop indoctrinating their children with foolish thoughts...



By the way... I've lived in several countries around the world... and I can attest to the fact that no matter where you go... there are a hell of a lot of problems. Each area's problems are unique... yet so strikingly similar....

 

[GreenKirby]

Ruling gay marriage to be unconstitutional would be ridiculous and I'm 99.9% positive it won't happen. I know the government can, and has, made stupid decisions in the past, but I don't believe they'd go so far as to declare gay marriage something as outrageous as "unconstitutional."

But if that .1% comes true, I will have lost all of what is left of my faith in this country and the people who govern it.

This is the same government who said corporations had rights to donate unlimited amounts of money to politicians.

 

[Shadic]

My position is more:
"I support gay marriage but wouldn't be absolutely broken up if it got banned since I don't find marriage to be very important and it shouldn't entitle what it currently does anyway."

The problem is that it does. Marriage is a government institution and there's a definite problem with locking out same sex couples out of it.

 

[Teran]

Or prove that it's against the rule of law, which is what is being done, and should be done in a civilized society.

Civility breeds weakness.

 

[Shadic]

And yet progress. We've advanced more as a society in the last 500 years than we had probably since before our inception.

Speaking of progress, the temporary stay against Gay Marriage will be lifted the 18th. Congrats California!

 

[Zajice]

This is the same government who said corporations had rights to donate unlimited amounts of money to politicians.

America da bess.

 

[El Nino]

I expected more talk on legalities and possibly judicial precedence if this gets challenged in the Supreme Court. Perhaps I was setting my hopes too high. Oh well.

You're on a video game forum.

But still, last week someone pissed over the opinion section of some newspaper with some dryly rational view of legality as it applies to the marriage debate. Total number of comments they got replying specifically to that piece: 1. Everyone else was too busy getting turned on by the more emotionally charged letters and op-eds.

What I got from that: sex sells political discussions.

Public education ftw.

The thing is though, I wouldn't care if gay marriage were banned anyway, since ultimately, I don't need a document telling me I'm in a binding monogamous relationship.

But inb4 people say that's not the point and it's the fact that gays were prohibited from doing it and that shows inequality yaddayadda.

Well, okay then: that's not the point, you heathen.

The point is that marrriage is about money. And the people who say that money don't matter are usually the ones that already have it.

This is a bigger concern for older people than it is for young. Because while it sucks to have no moneys when you're young, it sucks even harder when you're old.

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=44478

Edit: The stay on the ruling has been lifted. Same-sex marriages can begin starting on Aug. 18th.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/12/california.same.sex.ruling/?hpt=T1

It's Armageddon, everyone. Run for your lives before you catch the ghey.

 

[1048576]

I stated that I understand that there are taxes that are necessary to be paid such as national defense, parks & recreation, and funding for schools. This falls under the social contract where we surrender minor rights in order to achieve greater rights that we enjoy as a collective public.

My prior text is not a "general" qualm. It specifically keys in on marriage and the fact that adding in gay marriage to the status quo will inevitably raise taxes in some shape or form to fund added social security benefits and other federal subsidies. I'm fine with paying taxes. I just don't believe that I, nor the American public should be taxed more of our hard earned money in order to support homosexual marriage, an issue of choice when there are plenty of people who have found themselves to be victims of consequence: natural disasters, oil spills, and children born with mental disabilities who should be receiving social and fiscal attention rather than same-sex married couples.

Does homosexual marriage merit consideration over funding oil repair damages and other matters of interest? I personally believe that families who have kids born with Cystic Fibrosis and other fatal birth defects need more financial support than homosexual families. When it comes down to my personal budget, I don't have an unending check book. Therefore I guess I am selfish, simply because I sympathize more with dysfunctionals over homosexuals and I know that involuntarily being forced to support the latter will hurt the income for the former.

If I'm selfish, then does that make homosexuals the martyrs in this situation? I thought they are the ones who are getting added fiscal benefits while everyone is paying for their provision. I think people are happy when they have more money in their wallets. But that could just be me.

I assume that you telling me there are two things to life was to just tell me to "deal with it." If I can't help but to die and to pay taxes, then why shouldn't I have some concerns over something that I have to pay on an annual basis? Isn't my happiness more important to me than their happiness? Isn't it right to be selfish and capitalistic and self-concerned with my personal funds? I don't see homosexual advocate groups helping the needy or cleaning up oil spills. Perhaps I'm just uninformed of such collective homosexual activist groups. But I personally never heard of such an organizational group making contributions to the rest of humanity. And if there is such a group, then I apologize for not recognizing them.

And how do you think we feel about subsidizing your purchases of markers and cardboard to make misspelled signs?

I'm fine with abolishing marriage altogether, but forcing the minority to work harder to pay for the standard of living the majority has become accustomed to...it doesn't sit well with me.

Discrimination isn't always bad. For example, we wouldn't let someone with an IQ of 50 into Harvard. Blind people can't be pilots. Black people should wear lighter clothing when riding bicycles on the sidewalk at night. But there has to be a rational basis for this discrimination. Gay marriage would ultimately... cause absolutely no harm whatsoever.

When arguing for discrimination without reason, you're not going to win the moral or the economic argument.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

But still, last week someone pissed over the opinion section of some newspaper with some dryly rational view of legality as it applies to the marriage debate. Total number of comments they got replying specifically to that piece: 1. Everyone else was too busy getting turned on by the more emotionally charged letters and op-eds.

What I got from that: sex sells political discussions.

Public education ftw.



Well, okay then: that's not the point, you heathen.

The point is that marrriage is about money. And the people who say that money don't matter are usually the ones that already have it.

This is a bigger concern for older people than it is for young. Because while it sucks to have no moneys when you're young, it sucks even harder when you're old.

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=44478

Edit: The stay on the ruling has been lifted. Same-sex marriages can begin starting on Aug. 18th.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/12/california.same.sex.ruling/?hpt=T1

It's Armageddon, everyone. Run for your lives before you catch the ghey.

I don't understand why marriage has to affect taxes and income proportion. It is a social choice that people make and shouldn't have fiscal repercussions. I'm not opposed to marriage, I'm opposed to the fiscal benefits and deductions that are involved with marriage. The fact is that extending rights to marriage will lead to more bureaucratic paper-pushing that eventually leads to higher tax rates that the public as a whole has to pay.

Socially speaking, it doesn't matter to me if homosexuals or heterosexuals marry. Divorce rates are high among heterosexual marriages, indicating that the status quo isn't that great among married couples in the United States. It's honestly not my business who other people want to marry or want to have romantic relationships with in the future.

Fiscally speaking, I don't want to pay more taxes. I already have to deal with the ramifications for sham heterosexual marriages that result in bust 50% of the time. The only reason why I pay it is because that is the established status quo. If gay marriage is legalized, then that will become the status quo that I have to tolerate. Until it is passed, then I can discuss it because it is still a viable issue that hasn't affected my deducible tax income.

That money goes to various other organizations that I deem more fitting a "moral crusade" than to go towards the concept of supporting a human choice to marry (i.e. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation). I'm still going to try to donate when I have cash left-over. Yet the ramifications of living in a fairly large state, means that the financial repercussions of homosexual marriage may hit my wallet harder than I may like.

When it comes down to it, I don't believe in "marriage" as an absolutely necessary relationship that people must have in order to exist as a couple and I don't understand why I'm forced to financially support the personal decision made between two individuals who do believe the aforementioned statement. I understand the "Rosseau response" for the Social Contract in which taxes are intended to benefit the general public which incorporates me as an individual. But to be honest, I don't understand why I have to pay for your personal choice whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. Relationships are a social decisions that people decide on an individual basis to pursue a romantic partner. Relationships should remain that way and should not have fiscal ramifications.

I stated that I understand that there are taxes that are necessary to be paid such as national defense, parks & recreation, and funding for schools. This falls under the social contract where we surrender minor rights in order to achieve greater rights that we enjoy as a collective public.

My prior text is not a "general" qualm. It specifically keys in on marriage and the fact that adding in gay marriage to the status quo will inevitably raise taxes in some shape or form to fund added social security benefits and other federal subsidies. I'm fine with paying taxes. I just don't believe that I, nor the American public should be taxed more of our hard earned money in order to support homosexual marriage, an issue of choice when there are plenty of people who have found themselves to be victims of consequence: natural disasters, oil spills, and children born with mental disabilities who should be receiving social and fiscal attention rather than same-sex married couples.

Does homosexual marriage merit consideration over funding oil repair damages and other matters of interest? I personally believe that families who have kids born with Cystic Fibrosis and other fatal birth defects need more financial support than homosexual families. When it comes down to my personal budget, I don't have an unending check book. Therefore I guess I am selfish, simply because I sympathize more with dysfunctionals over homosexuals and I know that involuntarily being forced to support the latter will hurt the income for the former.

If I'm selfish, then does that make homosexuals the martyrs in this situation? I thought they are the ones who are getting added fiscal benefits while everyone is paying for their provision. I think people are happy when they have more money in their wallets. But that could just be me.

I assume that you telling me there are two things to life was to just tell me to "deal with it." If I can't help but to die and to pay taxes, then why shouldn't I have some concerns over something that I have to pay on an annual basis? Isn't my happiness more important to me than their happiness? Isn't it right to be selfish and capitalistic and self-concerned with my personal funds? I don't see homosexual advocate groups helping the needy or cleaning up oil spills. Perhaps I'm just uninformed of such collective homosexual activist groups. But I personally never heard of such an organizational group making contributions to the rest of humanity. And if there is such a group, then I apologize for not recognizing them.

And how do you think we feel about subsidizing your purchases of markers and cardboard to make misspelled signs?

I'm fine with abolishing marriage altogether, but forcing the minority to work harder to pay for the standard of living the majority has become accustomed to...it doesn't sit well with me.

Discrimination isn't always bad. For example, we wouldn't let someone with an IQ of 50 into Harvard. Blind people can't be pilots. Black people should wear lighter clothing when riding bicycles on the sidewalk at night. But there has to be a rational basis for this discrimination. Gay marriage would ultimately... cause absolutely no harm whatsoever.

When arguing for discrimination without reason, you're not going to win the moral or the economic argument.

He y guys,

You're on a video game forum.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

And how do you think we feel about subsidizing your purchases of markers and cardboard to make misspelled signs?

I think that you need to think outside of making things black and white. Just because I don't want to subsidize same-sex marriage doesn't mean that I'm the one picketing for Adam and Eve over Adam and Steve. I'm looking out for my self-interest just like any other human being. If you feel that same-sex marriage is something worth fighting for, then I'm not taking that away from you in any way or form because you're doing what you believe is right and promoting your own self-interest. To me, it's just not important enough for me to donate anything to you guys: advocates and same-sex couples. I haven't personally heard anything about gay activist groups helping out homeless shelters or aiding in cleaning the oil spill. The last article of news was the gay parade which is great. You guys should feel proud for what you believe in, I just don't want to finance it.

I'm fine with abolishing marriage altogether, but forcing the minority to work harder to pay for the standard of living the majority has become accustomed to...it doesn't sit well with me.

I never said that marriage had to be abolished. I said that fiscal traps and bonuses should be removed from the social element of marriage. Individuals sometimes have to pay a higher tax rate because their income is fiscally equal and are thus penalized due to the lack of discrepancy. There are traps within marriage taxes just like there are benefits. I don't understand the argument you are making regarding having to "work harder" to pay for a certain "standard of living." You didn't really elaborate on who is the "majority" and the "minority" unless you are referring to a heterosexual majority vs. a homosexual minority. In this instance, getting rid of fiscal incentives from marriage would equalize both parties.

But there has to be a rational basis for this discrimination. Gay marriage would ultimately... cause absolutely no harm whatsoever. When arguing for discrimination without reason, you're not going to win the moral or the economic argument.

Personally speaking, there is no discrimination. I feel that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals as long as I don't have to pay for it. This is because I believe that there are more pressing issues of financial concern (i.e. the oil spill) that are more deserving of tax dollars than funding gay marriage.

Just because I don't consent to having the same interests doesn't mean that I'm irrational, amoral, or fiscally irresponsible. I just don't agree with you when it comes to what you believe is rational, moral, and where our fiscal responsibilities properly belong when it comes to financial provisions.

I simply am concerned about my own self-interest, just like same-sex advocates are concerned about getting what they want out of this world. They don't care about my interests nor have shown noticeable concern for that of those in third-world countries or those who have been struck by tragedy, therefore I don't really understand why I should show a great amount of concern to sacrifice anything I currently have to support their cause.

It is in your self-interest to get gay marriage passed because you believe that this would fulfill "equality" and end another hurdle of discrimination therefore fulfilling your ideal standards of how this country should be run. I can accept that and the fact still remains that we simply have conflicting points of self-interest until we change our mind.

 

[El Nino]

I don't want to subsidize same-sex marriage

Are you willing to subsidize heterosexual marriage? Or is it just the default and you're willing to roll with it as long as more people don't jump onto the ship?

The number of marriages that occur in a society is likely to fluctuate over time for various reasons. It is too much of an assumption to think that we are in a static system in which same-sex marriage is the only variable.

Taxes vary depending on who is drafting the state budget. If the party in charge has an interest in keeping taxes low, and if same-sex marriage is a causing taxes to be high, and if they were unable to take away marriage rights due to the law, then they would reduce funding in another area to keep taxes low. Whether or not that happens depends on who is in office at the time.

Furthermore, helping families gain some degree of financial security could potentially decrease the risk of those same people falling onto welfare or other forms of government assistance, which also drain tax dollars.

it's just not important enough for me to donate anything to you guys

But it's important enough for you to argue about it here. I guess we all have a lot of free time (and no lives), self-included.

there is no discrimination.

There wouldn't be if you were simply advocating the removal of the tax break from both heterosexual and homosexual unions, in which case, there wouldn't be much of a point to standing against same-sex marriage by itself; you could either support it or have no stance, while advocating that the government-based financial privileges be stripped from all marriages once same-sex marriage is legalized.

I haven't personally heard anything about gay activist groups helping out homeless shelters or aiding in cleaning the oil spill.

That's because they're gay activists, not homeless advocates. But that doesn't mean that one person can't be both. It's not like gay activists shut down after the rallies and don't do anything else. And it isn't as if it's the only thing that's going on in a person's life. But someone who is a gay activist isn't going to be waving the pride flag while they're doing their homeless advocacy work. When they're doing their homeless advocacy work, you and I would only know them as a homeless advocate.

"Gay" isn't just a political lobby group. It's people. "Gay" could mean someone who is homeless. "Gay" could also mean a person with cystic fibrosis. "Gay" could also mean people affected by the oil spill, and it could also mean people volunteering during the cleanup operations. They're not waving the flag while they're doing their other work, but legislation that addresses their sexual orientation still applies to them.

 

[1048576]

I think that you need to think outside of making things black and white. Just because I don't want to subsidize same-sex marriage doesn't mean that I'm the one picketing for Adam and Eve over Adam and Steve. I'm looking out for my self-interest just like any other human being. If you feel that same-sex marriage is something worth fighting for, then I'm not taking that away from you in any way or form because you're doing what you believe is right and promoting your own self-interest. To me, it's just not important enough for me to donate anything to you guys: advocates and same-sex couples. I haven't personally heard anything about gay activist groups helping out homeless shelters or aiding in cleaning the oil spill. The last article of news was the gay parade which is great. You guys should feel proud for what you believe in, I just don't want to finance it.

You're right. I could have used much less snark. My point remains valid though. Gay people are forced to pay higher taxes than straight people because gay people can't reduce their taxes by getting married. You're basically taking away a chunk of our money (me and my partner) just because we're gay. This money is being spent 90% on straight people. Thus, we have to work harder/be smarter/be luckier to maintain the same standard of living as you. There's no rational basis for this discrimination. We like money too.

I never said that marriage had to be abolished. I said that fiscal traps and bonuses should be removed from the social element of marriage. Individuals sometimes have to pay a higher tax rate because their income is fiscally equal and are thus penalized due to the lack of discrepancy. There are traps within marriage taxes just like there are benefits. I don't understand the argument you are making regarding having to "work harder" to pay for a certain "standard of living." You didn't really elaborate on who is the "majority" and the "minority" unless you are referring to a heterosexual majority vs. a homosexual minority. In this instance, getting rid of fiscal incentives from marriage would equalize both parties.

We basically agree. Marriage should either be all or no govt. involvement.

If you would have higher taxes from getting married, you can always not get married, so don't act like a ban on gay marriage is some sort of favor for me.

Personally speaking, there is no discrimination. I feel that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals as long as I don't have to pay for it. This is because I believe that there are more pressing issues of financial concern (i.e. the oil spill) that are more deserving of tax dollars than funding gay marriage.

Why shouldn't you have to pay for us while we have to pay for you?

Just because I don't consent to having the same interests doesn't mean that I'm irrational, amoral, or fiscally irresponsible.

Discriminating without a rational basis is immoral, at least to any moral philosophies I've encountered. If you have a rational basis, I'd like to hear it, because the proponents of prop 8 couldn't find one, and I bet they were trying **** hard

I just don't agree with you when it comes to what you believe is rational, moral, and where our fiscal responsibilities properly belong when it comes to financial provisions.

I simply am concerned about my own self-interest, just like same-sex advocates are concerned about getting what they want out of this world. They don't care about my interests nor have shown noticeable concern for that of those in third-world countries or those who have been struck by tragedy, therefore I don't really understand why I should show a great amount of concern to sacrifice anything I currently have to support their cause.

So if I understand you correctly, you'd be for enslaving whichever gender you don't belong to, since your moral compass is derived from self-interest. Get off smashboards, Ayn Rand.

It is in your self-interest to get gay marriage passed because you believe that this would fulfill "equality" and end another hurdle of discrimination therefore fulfilling your ideal standards of how this country should be run. I can accept that and the fact still remains that we simply have conflicting points of self-interest until we change our mind.

Yeah, I suspect it's a little more of a big deal for me than it is for you.

10chars .

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The number of marriages that occur in a society is likely to fluctuate over time for various reasons. It is too much of an assumption to think that we are in a static system in which same-sex marriage is the only variable.

This is true, but adding more variables doesn't simplify the equation. Increasing government bureaucracy will circle back to funding from taxpayer money. Cutting down on variables would reduce the amount of government paper handlers and at best result in some form of deduction, at worst politicians will keep taxes as the status quo.

Taxes vary depending on who is drafting the state budget. If the party in charge has an interest in keeping taxes low, and if same-sex marriage is a causing taxes to be high, and if they were unable to take away marriage rights due to the law, then they would reduce funding in another area to keep taxes low.

Circumvention itself could be circumvented if there was nothing to consider in the first place. Fiscally speaking, I don't understand why I should choose a circumvented raise scenario over simply denying having to pay any raise at all.

Furthermore, helping families gain some degree of financial security could potentially decrease the risk of those same people falling onto welfare or other forms of government assistance, which also drain tax dollars.

Excuse me, but I don't understand how this fits in at all with the conversation unless I am meant to assume that same-sex couples primarily are on the cusp of welfare or are already impoverished. Families that are on the lower-end of the income cusp are actually disadvantaged when it comes to marriage tax and therefore have will have greater fiscal difficulty staying above the line for welfare.

But it's important enough for you to argue about it here. I guess we all have a lot of free time (and no lives), self-included.

I think it's great that you have a lot of free time and believe that you don't have a life. I would greatly appreciate it if you kept your personal inferences to yourself as you are mistaking my life for your own.

There wouldn't be if you were simply advocating the removal of the tax break from both heterosexual and homosexual unions, in which case, there wouldn't be much of a point to standing against same-sex marriage by itself; you could either support it or have no stance, while advocating that the government-based financial privileges be stripped from all marriages once same-sex marriage is legalized.

Idealistically it would be nice to have financial privileges stripped from all marriages, however same-sex couples aren't advocating for the separation of money and marriage. I'm only opposing the framework that has been given to me. As proposing a new frame would initiate an entirely new debate that isn't relevant to current discussion.

That's because they're gay activists, not homeless advocates. But that doesn't mean that one person can't be both. It's not like gay activists shut down after the rallies and don't do anything else. And it isn't as if it's the only thing that's going on in a person's life. But someone who is a gay activist isn't going to be waving the pride flag while they're doing their homeless advocacy work. When they're doing their homeless advocacy work, you and I would only know them as a homeless advocate.

They could also be a serial killer when they finish their LGBT duties or a ninja assassin. Who knows what horrible deeds they could be doing in their spare time? You have a point though. It's not like religious activists such as the Kentucky Baptist Convention helped aid flood victims in Pike County in July. They're only religious activists who spend their time opposing gay marriage, not disaster relief activists. When I'm not "wasting my life away" on the internet, I'm really a ninja assassin hospital volunteer. When you see me cleaning up bile from the floor, you probably just assume that I'm that ninja assassin hospital volunteer-guy but surprise, I'm so much more.

"Gay" isn't just a political lobby group. It's people. "Gay" could mean someone who is homeless. "Gay" could also mean a person with cystic fibrosis. "Gay" could also mean people affected by the oil spill, and it could also mean people volunteering during the cleanup operations. They're not waving the flag while they're doing their other work, but legislation that addresses their sexual orientation still applies to them.

Oh wow. Mind is blown. Here I am this whole time thinking they were a race of mutated humans born with a gay gene and lacking a proper equilibrium of hormones from their birth as babies resulting in them growing into Homosexuales Horrobales. A species that required sexual provisions every third hour to fulfill their lack of Catamite C which is of absolute necessity to compensate for the mutated gene in their bodies that codes for continual amounts of cyanide. The Catamite C acts as an inhibitor blocking the potential effects of cyanide derivatives allowing them to continue on with their homosexual lifestyle. But now I know better. Anyone can be gay from Tiger Woods to Gary Coleman to Jesse Jackson. The world has indeed burst into a myriad of colors for me after reading this post. Absolutely enlightened.

 

[Pluvia]

Lots of people don't like paying taxes for things. Like useless nukes for example. But you have to.

That's life.

 

[1048576]

See here's the breakdown

Tax breaks for none > tax breaks for all > tax breaks for some

Right now we're in some, and while we'd both rather be in none, all is better than some.

While you may not see a gay kentucky baptist church, you also won't see a gay westboro baptist church, so meh. Religious folks outnumber the gays, so you're going to get more religious groups. I'm not going to waste my time looking up charitable organizations with gay people so I can have anecdotal evidence to fling into this argument.

 

[El Nino]

Increasing government bureaucracy will circle back to funding from taxpayer money.

That's what we now have in states with civil unions; it requires more bureaucracy to maintain parallel institutions, one for heterosexual marriage and one for domestic partnerships or civil unions. Expanding the definition of "spouse" is less costly in terms of bureaucracy.

Circumvention itself could be circumvented if there was nothing to consider in the first place. Fiscally speaking, I don't understand why I should choose a circumvented raise scenario over simply denying having to pay any raise at all.

I meant it like this (speaking hypothetically): "I oppose the use of racial or ethnic discrimination in handing out government welfare; however, I support the overall reduction of welfare services."

As opposed to: "Welfare is only offered to group A, while group B is excluded; I want welfare services reduced so I deny services to group B under law, but not to group A."

Excuse me, but I don't understand how this fits in at all with the conversation unless I am meant to assume that same-sex couples primarily are on the cusp of welfare or are already impoverished.

It is an issue for same-sex couples more towards their older years than it is for them in their younger years. At that stage, they are looking at retirement, social security, wills, sharing of assets, and end of life decisions. Civil unions don't qualify a person for spousal benefits under social security. Marriage is an option that can offer legal and financial security. There may be situations where it is not beneficial, but that is a personal choice, one that is offered to heterosexual couples and not to same-sex couples.

 

[HaiWayne]

Proposition 8 actually has not been overturned. The decision was stayed (meaning, it was blocked), pending an appeal to the 9th circuit court. I do wish it will be appealed, and ultimately at the supreme court as well.

I don't understand why marriage has to affect taxes and income proportion. It is a social choice that people make and shouldn't have fiscal repercussions. I'm not opposed to marriage, I'm opposed to the fiscal benefits and deductions that are involved with marriage. The fact is that extending rights to marriage will lead to more bureaucratic paper-pushing that eventually leads to higher tax rates that the public as a whole has to pay.

I can think of two reasons. Married couples are likely to have kids, which the government has an interest in protecting financially. Another reason is that if one spouse dies, the other spouse's source of income is suddenly cut in half.

There are literally over a thousand rights and benefits that comes with marriage, check them out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

 

[Pluvia]

It will go to the supreme court and be overturned. It's inevitable.