Why I'm opposed to gay marriage

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT
 

I'm aware that the escapist has a large homosexual community. It seems that nearly every person on here is in support of gay marriage. Well, I'm not. Before you rip me to shreds, at least consider my point before ripping me to shreds. I have nothing against homosexual people or if they want to be together, but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages. Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes. Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed. Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages. Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes. Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system. But then, people in these new marriages would complain that they don't get the same tax breaks or benefits that men and women in true relationships get. But why should that have to happen in the first place? I say stop gay marriage before any of that occurs. Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes.

Because there is so much from stopping a man and woman doing the same thing now. And because its such a massive problem in the western world, right?

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

No, you are just fucking... (You can tell what I was going to say. I wont have to risk my account.)

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope. If we shouldn't say that marriage should be "limited" to just two people of the opposite sex, then why should we be able to say that it should be "limited" towards the idea of just two people? Why should one be ok, and not the other since it would be between consenting adults? I think that is the idea.

OP I agree with some of what you said, if homosexual couples don't already, I would just make something called [insert word other than marriage that homosexuals would approve of], which would give homosexual couple all of the same benefits(like tax breaks, spousal privileges,ect.) that heterosexual couples have, with the exception being adoption because that is a whole different issue.

Because men and women don't already marry for financial reasons? Shit, that's how I was conceived, I'm not going to knock someone for marrying someone of the same sex just because they aren't sexually attracted to that person.

All the other reasoning in that was just a complete mess, but the idea that the entire plot for "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" would occur a million times over if nationwide gay marriage was approved just had to be picked out.

Volf99:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope. If we shouldn't say that marriage should be "limited" to just two people of the opposite sex, then why should we be able to say that it should be "limited" towards the idea of just two people? Why should one be ok, and not the other since it would be between consenting adults? I think that is the idea.

OP I agree with some of what you said, if homosexual couples don't already, I would just make something called [insert word other than marriage that homosexuals would approve of], which would give homosexual couple all of the same benefits(like tax breaks, spousal privileges,ect.) that heterosexual couples have, with the exception being adoption because that is a whole different issue.

Well last time I checked, animals cannot really sign over a consent that is recognized by the federal government... So animal marriage will not happen, ever. While Polygamy, they are already trying to put themselves up in the light, and hitching a ride with gay marriage, so it wouldn't surprise me is that ever happened.

As for the sanctity of marriage, that went down the drain ever since there have been the 72 hour marriages, drunk marriages, or any number of excuses to get married, which has helped the divorce rate in the country reach around the 50% rate.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes.

Because there is so much from stopping a man and woman doing the same thing now. And because its such a massive problem in the western world, right?

Why shouldn't polygamous or animal marriages be allowed? If they all love each other, there should be no objection, right? Groups of hundreds of people can all love each other at once! Marry all of them to each other! Also, my dog definitely loves me! He licked my hand the other day! I should be able to marry him! We're all on equal levels with heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman here, are we not? We're all in love, and you can't prove otherwise! Exploiting the system? If the government thinks we're not truly and love and are only doing this for the benefits, they can go door to door to every single house in America and try to prove otherwise!

The same arguments for gay marriage are being applied here. All I'm saying is that the monster of "what is marriage?" is something that doesn't need to be brought up right now.

Complete monster? No, that'd take some "completeness" and all. Interesting points? Seen them before. Good points? Uh, no, not really. Marriage is not something I'd hold sacred anyway myself.

Black Arrow Officer:

The same arguments for gay marriage are being applied here. All I'm saying is that the monster of "what is marriage?" is something that doesn't need to be brought up right now.

Monster? It's a scarecrow at worst.

I was going to quote your post, but I see others have done just fine.

Your "argument" is full of holes.

Black Arrow Officer:
but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages.

So same-sex marriage is a ''joke'' now is it?

Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed. Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

Animal marriages would not be allowed. Ever heard of consent? And what's wrong with polygamy anyway? If all parties involved are cool with it I don't see the problem.

Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes.

If this is the case then people are probably doing this with opposite-sex marriages already.

Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

They may have some of the same rights but by even making a distinction you're implying it's not as good somehow. And if you think human rights are a waste then I can't help you. And they only have the same rights in a few places around the world. In some places simply being gay is punishable by death.

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

I don't think you're a monster but you're a very ignorant and bigoted individual and you're just spouting the same homophobic rhetoric that has been refuted a million times before.

Volf99:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope. If we shouldn't say that marriage should be "limited" to just two people of the opposite sex, then why should we be able to say that it should be "limited" towards the idea of just two people? Why should one be ok, and not the other since it would be between consenting adults? I think that is the idea.

OP I agree with some of what you said, if homosexual couples don't already, I would just make something called [insert word other than marriage that homosexuals would approve of], which would give homosexual couple all of the same benefits(like tax breaks, spousal privileges,ect.) that heterosexual couples have, with the exception being adoption because that is a whole different issue.

Black Arrow Officer:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes.

Because there is so much from stopping a man and woman doing the same thing now. And because its such a massive problem in the western world, right?

Why shouldn't polygamous or animal marriages be allowed? If they all love each other, there should be no objection, right? Groups of hundreds of people can all love each other at once! Marry all of them to each other! Also, my dog definitely loves me! He licked my hand the other day! I should be able to marry him! We're all on equal levels with heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman here, are we not? We're all in love, and you can't prove otherwise! Exploiting the system? If the government thinks we're not truly and love and are only doing this for the benefits, they can go door to door to every single house in America and try to prove otherwise!

The same arguments for gay marriage are being applied here. All I'm saying is that the monster of "what is marriage?" is something that doesn't need to be brought up right now.

Im gonna break this down for you two. Very slowly, and very clearly. Because either someone stuck false ideas in your head, or you both arent the sharpest knives in the draw.

A marriage is a bond between two people. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman marry each other, its still two human beings marrying. Animals are a different matter all together. You cannot compare a homosexual couple to a guy who fucks his dog. That you would even do such a thing speaks measures about both of you. You are ignorant and unsympathetic for doing that.

tendaji:

Volf99:

It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope. If we shouldn't say that marriage should be "limited" to just two people of the opposite sex, then why should we be able to say that it should be "limited" towards the idea of just two people? Why should one be ok, and not the other since it would be between consenting adults? I think that is the idea.

OP I agree with some of what you said, if homosexual couples don't already, I would just make something called [insert word other than marriage that homosexuals would approve of], which would give homosexual couple all of the same benefits(like tax breaks, spousal privileges,ect.) that heterosexual couples have, with the exception being adoption because that is a whole different issue.

Well last time I checked, animals cannot really sign over a consent that is recognized by the federal government... So animal marriage will not happen, ever. While Polygamy, they are already trying to put themselves up in the light, and hitching a ride with gay marriage, so it wouldn't surprise me is that ever happened.

Hence the reason why I didn't touch about the issue of bestiality, and I specifically typed "then why should [homosexual marriage] be ok, and not [Polygamy] since it would be between consenting adults".

tendaji:

As for the sanctity of marriage, that went down the drain ever since there have been the 72 hour marriages, drunk marriages, or any number of excuses to get married, which has helped the divorce rate in the country reach around the 50% rate.

In regards to your list of problems that marriages currently face, I would say all the more reason why homosexuality should not be considered part of marriage. The idea of marriage is struggling right now, so changing it more would only further contribute to the loss of sanctity. Although, that said(typed) I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

Marriage is nothing more than an antiquated legal contract, I'm not seeing a problem with homosexual marriage. Gay people have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us :)

Black Arrow Officer:
I'm aware that the escapist has a large homosexual community. It seems that nearly every person on here is in support of gay marriage. Well, I'm not. Before you rip me to shreds, at least consider my point before ripping me to shreds.

Fair enough.

Black Arrow Officer:

I have nothing against homosexual people or if they want to be together, but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages.

So you're demanding that the state outlaw that homosexuals can marry because you feel that homosexuals are such despicable people that they're incapable of managing being allowed to marry and that your feelings on an abstract concept within the boundaries of your own country are to be placed before the rights of millions of people?

Perfectly reasonable. It's not like straight people like Newt Gingrinch or other patriotic American heroes have ever had a non-serious marriage.

Black Arrow Officer:
Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed.

Oh yes, the horror. What happens between consenting adults will be less of the state's business to manage. The apocalypse would follow shortly.

Black Arrow Officer:

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

A) If consenting adults wish to be married that's none of the state's business beyond logging it.
B) Contrary to popular belief, homosexuals are the same species as heterosexuals. Removing the ban on gay marriage would not enable you to marry outside your species.

Black Arrow Officer:

Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes.

If we allow you to retain your freedom I feel that the value of scientology will be completely destroyed. I can imagine you might even skip on taxes. Derp.

What you can imagine does not have any bearing on the fact that a free society which recognizes the equality of its citizens should be discriminating against them based on harmless choices made with full consent of both partners. If you truly feel that this is wrong then there's places like Saudi Arabia and Iran wherein the guiding philosophy is not rooted in liberty and equality.

Black Arrow Officer:

Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system. But then, people in these new marriages would complain that they don't get the same tax breaks or benefits that men and women in true relationships get. But why should that have to happen in the first place? I say stop gay marriage before any of that occurs. Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

So essentially "Screw human rights, it takes effort to remove bans"

Black Arrow Officer:

So, am I a complete monster?

If the views expressed in your post are your sincere thoughts then you are a vile person and I felt disgusted reading your post.

Black Arrow Officer:

Or did I make some interesting points?

You're placing the value of abstract concepts interwoven in laws and taxation above the entire point of western civilization: That rights of the individual are above the comfort of the majority.

The view that the state should seek to impose the dominant religion and culture upon its subjects is a pre-democratic and later a fascist notion. We've been there, we've done that, it didn't work out.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha....

image

I really wish I gotten here earlier, because everything that needs to be said has been said. Are you a monster? No. Just very bigoted, and very, very, very...silly.

Hazy992:

I don't think you're a monster but you're a very ignorant and bigoted individual and you're just spouting the same homophobic rhetoric that has been refuted a million times before.

Off topic, this is a pet peeve of mine, judging solely from the OP, this person doesn't seem to be afraid of homosexuals, so they are no more homophobic then they are arachnophobia. If you mean to say that you think they don't like homosexuals then do so, but the OP doesn't seem to have a fear of homosexuals anymore than they do of spiders. I realize it's used to mean dislike, but when ever I have asked psychologist what it actually means, they have always told me that it means just that-a fear of homosexuals.

Black Arrow Officer:
I'm aware that the escapist has a large homosexual community. It seems that nearly every person on here is in support of gay marriage. Well, I'm not. Before you rip me to shreds, at least consider my point before ripping me to shreds. I have nothing against homosexual people or if they want to be together, but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages. Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes. Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed. Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages. Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes. Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system. But then, people in these new marriages would complain that they don't get the same tax breaks or benefits that men and women in true relationships get. But why should that have to happen in the first place? I say stop gay marriage before any of that occurs. Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

Alright.
1. If you got 10 committed relationships and 1 joke relationship, why do you want to ruin the marriages for those who really want to start a family? Those benefits are there mainly for provisions to make raising a child easier.

Also. "joke" marriages end in all sorts of headaches end up for people who do them. I doubt it would really increase them as there are penalties for divorce and also fraud.

Homosexuality is all about two consenting adults. Polygamy has some problems with women becoming objects. They are not a valid comparison.. And what the fuck with animal marriages? Animals can't consent. Also, it is natural and perfectly normal for two men or two women to love each other.

Marriage is already destroyed by all these straight couples marrying just because they accidentally had a baby or because they are pressured into it. Homosexual can't accidentally have a baby. Instead they want to enter marriage because they LOVE each other. Wouldn't that raise the value of marriage? That it is a product of love between two people?

Homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. Just because I love other men doesn't mean that I can't be entitled to the same benefits that I would get by marrying a woman. It really isn't fair to give to one group but not another.

There are already measures to prevent people from marrying to skip taxes. It is called tax fraud and is a real thing.

True relationships?!?!?!?! Ok. You just insulted me. Just because I love men doesn't make it any less real than any other relationship. It is a relationship based upon LOVE. How can it get any more true than that? Homosexuals love each other and can even raise children just like any other relationship.

Change is needed because a gay marriage is not equal to a straight marriage. In fact, having it banned causes more fraud as foreign gay men will marry women to be able to get into the country to be with their true partner. That really creates fake marriages more than anything.

Gay marriage is needed in order to stop bullying for kids who are gay. It is needed to bring in equality and acceptance because gay people are people too.

Volf99:
In regards to your list of problems that marriages currently face, I would say all the more reason why homosexuality should not be considered part of marriage. The idea of marriage is struggling right now, so changing it more would only further contribute to the loss of sanctity. Although, that said(typed) I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

Oh course. I mean, it's just like how all black people should naturally have separate buses and toilets from white people. I mean, the black people can call them their own, but they sure as hell aren't going to get an opportunity to enjoy the same things that whites enjoy, hell no!

Have we really devolved back to the earlier half of the 20th century already?

Volf99:

Hazy992:

I don't think you're a monster but you're a very ignorant and bigoted individual and you're just spouting the same homophobic rhetoric that has been refuted a million times before.

Off topic, this is a pet peeve of mine, judging solely from the OP, this person doesn't seem to be afraid of homosexuals, so they are no more homophobic then they are arachnophobia. If you mean to say that you think they don't like homosexuals then do so, but the OP doesn't seem to have a fear of homosexuals anymore than they do of spiders. I realize it's used to mean dislike, but when ever I have asked psychologist what it actually means, they have always told me that it means just that-a fear of homosexuals.

I hardly think it matters. If that's what everyone uses the word as then why does it matter? Now you're just nitpicking. And what does this add to the discussion about same-sex marriage exactly?

Black Arrow Officer:
Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

"Animal marriage"? Doubtful.

But, what's wrong with polygamy in the first place?

Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed.

And then, they'll also destroy the value of adultery and divorce too.

I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes. Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system.

Because, it's inconceivable for a man and a woman to do that now? Or, more realistically, to gain legal immigration status?

Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does.

[Citation needed]

OT: The only real reason to keep same sex couples from being able to get "married" is to appease the religious opposition.
As such, I'd say that "unions" as an alternative for both same-sex and polygamous relationships, provided they have the SAME legal rights as a "marriage" has.

" But, the word "Marriage" conveys a cultural institution, that "Union" doesn't. I want people to recognize my relationship the same they would a "Marriage". "

Whether or not your neighbor thinks you're in a loving, committed relationship with your same sex partner would have little to do with the title on a legal document. Either they accept your relationship and they already view you as being "married", or they think you're living in sin and no legal document will change their mind.

As a preface to this post, there are three ground rules for arguing about homosexuality that I try to follow.

1. If making the same argument about an ethnic group rather than a sexual group would lead to the argument making sense but being racist, then the argument is homophobic.
2. If the argument works equally well as an argument against straight marriage, then the argument is not a good argument against gay marriage specifically.
3. There must be good reason to suspect that the slippery slope is not merely a fallacy.

Black Arrow Officer:
I have nothing against homosexual people or if they want to be together, but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages. Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes.

Wait, what? Okay, two problems here.
1. This runs afoul of the second ground rule: men can already "joke marry" their female friends. Just apply for a marriage license, go through the waiting period, and ta-dah! Same issue as you would propose with gay marriage.
2. Runs afoul of the first ground rule as well: the argument makes just as much sense as an argument against interracial marriage, or in fact any expansion of the marriage pool!

On a more personal note, I find this kinda offensive. See if you can figure out why.

Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed. Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages. Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes. Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system. But then, people in these new marriages would complain that they don't get the same tax breaks or benefits that men and women in true relationships get. But why should that have to happen in the first place? I say stop gay marriage before any of that occurs.

Can you demonstrate why extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples will lead, necessarily, to anything else? Or better yet, explain why Polygamy is so wrong? Or even better, explain how having two people who love each other marry is in any way equivalent to someone marrying a creature that has no ability to consent, legally or otherwise?! Do you have any reason to believe that anything like this could occur? Do you have any idea how fucking offensive sentences like "eventually the value of marriage would be completely destroyed" are in such a context?

Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

So, because I am not a heterosexual, I have less rights than you? More specifically, I'd like you to address the case of Janice Langbehn:

In February 2007, Langbehn and Pond, along with three of their four adopted children, were in Miami, FL to depart on a cruise. Pond collapsed before the cruise departed and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital's (JMH) Ryder Trauma Center. When Langbehn and their children arrived, a JMH social worker told Langbehn she was in an "anti-gay city and state" and required a health care proxy to see Pond. Langbehn and their 3 young children were kept from Pond's side for eight hours. Pond slipped into a coma from a brain aneurysm and died without her partner of 18 years or her children by her side.

Members of gay couples, who are just as much in love with each other as straight couples, are denied green cards that straight people would've gotten, hospital visitation rights that straight people could've gotten, denied or excessively taxed on their cut of the last will and testament of their partner for legal grounds that a straight couple could've avoided, denied tax breaks that straight couples get, and screwed over by cohabitation laws (i.e. you can only have so many people in a house without it being a married family) to the point where they have to either leave the state, or put a child or two up for adoption.

"Many of the same benefits" my ass - in states where their marriage isn't legally recognized, they get NO benefits a straight couple would have. When we stop having disgusting stories like this, then we can start talking about how homosexuals have "many of the same benefits as regular marriage". Until then, stop acting like we're bitching about not getting a $200 tax rebate at the end of the year.

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

Monster? No. Simply ignorant, uninformed, and probably bigoted. Which is almost as bad. Also, you seem to be unwilling or unable to learn from the harsh mistress of time.

See, this isn't the first time we've had this kind of issue. This isn't the first time that a repressed minority has argued for equal rights in marriage. Do you remember when the last time was? I'll give you a hint.

image

My first rule wasn't chosen randomly. The parallels between gays and blacks are almost astonishing. That said, it's a bitter irony that it's often the black communities which are the most homophobic in today's day and age.

What am I reading?
You failed to include the part where you explain why letting people marry who they like is a bad thing.

Black Arrow Officer:
...but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages. Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes. Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed.

And that ridiculous hypothetical isn't possible now how exactly? Because males have no female friends? Because marriages aren't already often being formed for tax reasons, especially in childless marriages where both partners work fulltime jobs and are career-oriented?

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

Slippery slope argument and not even a good one. You might have a point in regards to polygamy, since there you'd have the question of having multiple consenting adults wanting to marry. I'm not sure how I stand on that, though as long as the issue of consent is dealt with, I don't think I'm principally opposed to it. But animal marriage? You do realize that you've just moved onto Santorum-levels of idiocy, right? For one thing, animals can't give consent. They cannot marry because they cannot make the decision. And before you stoop even lower, no, the same goes for children. They, too, are not capable of giving informed consent, so save the obligatory comparison to pedophilia.

Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes.

Again, how is that impossible currently? And is it a serious problem under the current system? Why in the world would you think gay marriage would suddenly make this problem either start existing or start massively growing?

Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system.

One option I'm in favour of is actually a massive overhaul. Remove all benefits from marriage apart from the ones directly tied to partner-interactions, such as hospital visitation, inheritance, giving consent for your partner under particular medical indications etc.. But remove all tax benefits and the like and subsidize children directly. The idea of subsidizing marriage through tax benefits was to help families raise children, but as more and more marriages remain childless and more and more children are raised outside of wedlock or by single parents, it becomes clear that these benefits need to be tied to the children directly rather than to the legal institution. There, problem solved. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can get married, can get the marriage-specific, non-tax associated benefits and children are subsidized directly.

But then, people in these new marriages would complain that they don't get the same tax breaks or benefits that men and women in true relationships get.

Your usage of the phrase "true relationships" makes your bigotry all the more apparant, but this doesn't even make sense from your point of view. Why would you think the new marriage laws would not apply to the marriages that currently benefit from particular regulations? Obviously, tax-benefits would affect all marriages from the year the new regulations are installed onwards. The only difference would be in the benefits marriages used to have previously, but you can't really retroactively ask people to pay back on the tax-benefits from years ago, nor should you.

But why should that have to happen in the first place? I say stop gay marriage before any of that occurs. Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

Yeah, because separate but equal is such a great concept that should be repeated. In 50 to 100 years, people will look back on opinions like these with the same disdain they currently do on the way blacks and interracial couples were treated in the last century.

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

Monster? No. But pretty damn bigoted in my book.

If you ban gay marriage, then what's next? There's only one step left: Banning straight marriage. Do you want that? No? Then you gotta have gay marriage, otherwise there's nothing stopping the politicians from outlawing straight marriage too.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Im gonna break this down for you two. Very slowly, and very clearly. Because either someone stuck false ideas in your head, or you both arent the sharpest knives in the draw.

A marriage is a bond between two people. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman marry each other, its still two human beings marrying. Animals are a different matter all together. You cannot compare a homosexual couple to a guy who fucks his dog. That you would even do such a thing speaks measures about both of you. You are ignorant and unsympathetic for doing that.

wow.... so even though I don't agree with you, I engage you in a polite manner and respectful response, you in turn respond to me by insulting my intelligence and making accusations about my feelings towards homosexuals. smh

I am not unsympathetic towards homosexuals. In fact, I have stated a way I feel that might make both people(those who are in favor of homosexual marriage and those who are against it) more or less as happy as possible. I have typed this more than once in this thread, but I feel like it's not getting proper attention, so perhaps now you will see this...

Volf99:
I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

Black Arrow Officer:
I don't see a reason why.

Civil rights, freedom and non-discrimination come to mind. You know, that stuff without which society soon falls apart into either anarchy or fascism, or an interesting combination of both.

Black Arrow Officer:
Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes.

Then why aren't men and women who don't know eachother, in places that still try to restrict marriages according to clerical ideas, not marrying eachother just for tax benefits?

If anything causes frivolous marriages it is religion and it's insisting on only sex within marriage. People always want to have sex, so they marry after knowing eachother mere months, and it almost invariably ends up in an ugly divorce. Heck, I live next to an idiot who's been a father since age 22. Their marriage lasted a mere two years. My unmarried relationship went on longer, and after that I also didn't want to because of going abroad for the military.

Black Arrow Officer:
Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed

What boundaries exactly? Be mindfull you don't confuse actual marriage with the empty religious ritual that bears the same name. The latter is of course irrelevant to the discussion.

Black Arrow Officer:
Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

Uhm, actually, there's more places that allow polygymy than there are that allow marriage without clerical restrictions. Those are ussually also terrible places to live in. Also talking about sects in the US of which polygyny and childrape in that context is pretty much just tolerated.

Black Arrow Officer:
Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system.

If that's so, then why has it been working effectively for years in several countries?

Volf99:
wow.... so even though I don't agree with you, I engage you in a polite manner and respectful response, you in turn respond to me by insulting my intelligence and making accusations about my feelings towards homosexuals. smh

Trying to deny people their rights based on religious ignorance is never polite, no matter in how many honeyed words the hatred is wrapped. Also your point echos the ideas of raging homophobes. Surely you too can see that produces an unhealthy asociation between your ideas and those open about being homophobes? Especially since homophobes make a point about trying to sound polite as possible because they've learned society these days doesn't take well to the 'Omg! Burn in hell!' rhetoric they'd rather preach. For example the pathetic excuse that they pretend to not be opposed to homosexuals, but don't like people who 'choose to practise homosexuality', as if that was a choice...

Neither do I get your slippery slope reasoning. Polygamy is inherently unequal, and even if that were to change, religious misogyny would need to disappear to avoid polygamy becoming just a front for abuse and exploitation.

No such problems exist with marriage, providing the relevant local law doesn't limit one spouse compared to the other.

Volf99:
In regards to your list of problems that marriages currently face, I would say all the more reason why homosexuality should not be considered part of marriage. The idea of marriage is struggling right now, so changing it more would only further contribute to the loss of sanctity. Although, that said(typed) I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

How meaningless is your own marriage if the idea of two men or two women that you don't even know or may never meet getting married to each other diminishes yours in some way? The idea of the sanctity of marriage only applies to the religious definition of marriage, but here's some breaking news for you; not everyone is religious.

Giving a same-sex union the same rights as a marriage but not actually calling it a marriage is just petty and needlessly cruel.

Volf99:
I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

Maybe that "only difference" is all it takes for people to call B.S. This isn't a case of people "wanting to have something of their own". It's about "being equal without differences and adjustments".

Volf99:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Im gonna break this down for you two. Very slowly, and very clearly. Because either someone stuck false ideas in your head, or you both arent the sharpest knives in the draw.

A marriage is a bond between two people. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman marry each other, its still two human beings marrying. Animals are a different matter all together. You cannot compare a homosexual couple to a guy who fucks his dog. That you would even do such a thing speaks measures about both of you. You are ignorant and unsympathetic for doing that.

wow.... so even though I don't agree with you, I engage you in a polite manner and respectful response, you in turn respond to me by insulting my intelligence and making accusations about my feelings towards homosexuals. smh

I am not unsympathetic towards homosexuals. In fact, I have stated a way I feel that might make both people(those who are in favor of homosexual marriage and those who are against it) more or less as happy as possible. I have typed this more than once in this thread, but I feel like it's not getting proper attention, so perhaps now you will see this...

Volf99:
I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

I couldnt care less about what you put in your post. You are still acting in a downright despicable manner. You dont deserve a polite and respectful response. You are just fucking wrong and acting like an ass. It doesnt matter how you present yourself, a racist and/or homophobic statement is still racist and/or homophobic. (For example.)

Heres an idea for you - when wondering why people reply in this manner even though you keep a "polite" tone, take a look at your core issue and just ask yourself if you could have gotten it wrong. And be honest about it.

I can fucking read. You dont have to post this shit 5 times, it doesnt change anything.

Amnestic:
If you ban gay marriage, then what's next? There's only one step left: Banning straight marriage. Do you want that? No? Then you gotta have gay marriage, otherwise there's nothing stopping the politicians from outlawing straight marriage too.

Oh man, why cant I come up with replies like these.

No sarcasm here, almost every time I read one of your posts, it makes me smile, because its well thought out. You are truly deserving of your title. Just wanted to put that out there.

Volf99:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Im gonna break this down for you two. Very slowly, and very clearly. Because either someone stuck false ideas in your head, or you both arent the sharpest knives in the draw.

A marriage is a bond between two people. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman marry each other, its still two human beings marrying. Animals are a different matter all together. You cannot compare a homosexual couple to a guy who fucks his dog. That you would even do such a thing speaks measures about both of you. You are ignorant and unsympathetic for doing that.

wow.... so even though I don't agree with you, I engage you in a polite manner and respectful response, you in turn respond to me by insulting my intelligence and making accusations about my feelings towards homosexuals. smh

I am not unsympathetic towards homosexuals. In fact, I have stated a way I feel that might make both people(those who are in favor of homosexual marriage and those who are against it) more or less as happy as possible. I have typed this more than once in this thread, but I feel like it's not getting proper attention, so perhaps now you will see this...

Volf99:
I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

...Why? Other than for political reasons, obviously... But if we ignore that, why shouldn't we redefine marriage? It used to be defined as something more closely resembling the trading of property (the woman) from one man (the father) to another (the husband)... Why not change it again? Why go through this same "separate but equal" thing? And if we do, how do we deal with things like, say, private institutions only dealing with married couples?

Was smiling to this point.

Black Arrow Officer:
Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes.

At this juncture I stopped smiling.

Black Arrow Officer:
Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed. Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

I don't even know what to say to you.

Every reason stated boils down to, everyone marrying for a joke and evading tax, WHICH HAPPENS ALL THE TIME ALREADY.

If people want to evade tax to that degree, they will do it already allowing gay marriage won't change it either way but increase numbers of legitimate marriages if anything.

Dude, i gotta ask. Did you read this to yourself before posting? You're not a monster, nor do you have anything interesting to say. You're just very, very, very, very, very silly.

Volf99:
I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

Oh you made your self quite clear. You support gays being together as long as they aren't treated the same as us "normal people". Yep I got that down right away. What are you afraid of? Earthquakes in case they call it marriage?

Rastelin:
Oh you made your self quite clear. You support gays being together as long as they aren't treated the same as us "normal people". Yep I got that down right away. What are you afraid of? Earthquakes in case they call it marriage?

Well, we did get a whole lot of earthquakes and brimstone here in Sweden when we made marriage gender-neutral, come to think of it. I just never really considered that there might've been a connection.

Elcarsh:

Volf99:
In regards to your list of problems that marriages currently face, I would say all the more reason why homosexuality should not be considered part of marriage. The idea of marriage is struggling right now, so changing it more would only further contribute to the loss of sanctity. Although, that said(typed) I feel that I should still make something clear. I am fully supportive of homosexual couples have the something they can call their own, which only homosexual couples could partake in and that would give them the same tax/spousal rights that heterosexual couples receive. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be called "Marriage", it would be called something else.

Oh course. I mean, it's just like how all black people should naturally have separate buses and toilets from white people. I mean, the black people can call them their own, but they sure as hell aren't going to get an opportunity to enjoy the same things that whites enjoy, hell no!

Have we really devolved back to the earlier half of the 20th century already?

NOTE: I apologize about not addressing this earlier, but I'm typing about this "issue" with the United States of America in mind and not any other country. What other countries do, is up to them

.....um...Did you not read what I typed, or did I not make myself clear?

I want both homosexuals and heterosexual couples to have the same tax/spousal rights, the only difference would be that for homosexuals it wouldn't be called marriage. Other than the name, there wouldn't be a difference. What you wrote about was having two groups of people, where one groups gets many more opportunities/rights than the other group. What I am typing about it where two groups would get the same opportunities/rights, with the exception being that heterosexual couples get to call their "thing" a marriage, while homosexual couples have to name their "thing" something else(anything else that they wanted, heck they could call it SUPER-marriage, mariage, or marria[j for all I care). The only reason I would give heterosexuals the title is because of the prior association of the word "marriage" with heterosexual couples.

Before you or anybody else responds, I would once again like to state that....
NOTE: I apologize about not addressing this earlier, but I'm typing about this "issue" with the United States of America in mind and not any other country. What other countries do, is up to them

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked