| Author | Message | ||
     Davegess |
So you are in favor of gay marriage? | ||
| Sifo |
So you mean gay you don't want gay people to married for the tax break? I don't see how you are paying into that. If this is the case, you think it is ok for gay people to pay for your marriage? I hope someday I meet a gay couple, and when they get married I'm going to make shirts the say "paid for by Sifo" Tax breaks and any other government sponsored benefits. You clearly refuse to see the obvious though. There is no religious objection to the traditional marriage, now is there. That's why it passes Constitutionally with the government benefits. I'm not saying it's a good thing, it just is. Remove the benefits for ALL marriages and you can have all the gay marriages that you want. Is that really so difficult to understand. This lead to the obvious point though. It's not about wanting to be married. It's about getting more government benefits for yet another niche population group for political purposes. Thanks for playing. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Dave, to bad they failed to follow through the last couple of times they, GOP, got in based on small gov. They grew it and tried to push their social and moral grounds on the entire nation. And they still are pushing those things. (Not the say the DEMS aren't any better on the social and moral things.) At this rate, I don't think the GOP will gain anything in the next midterms. | ||
| Sifo |
So you are in favor of gay marriage? I appreciate the proposal, but I'm quite happy with my current wife. You can do what you wish, just don't ask me to pay for it. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
as long as there is a big letter "G" stamped on the certificate and it is always referred to as a "Gay" marriage, never just a marriage ...AND... You can never say your married,.. you can only say you "have a GAY marriage". "G" can also be replaced with "SS" (SS= Same-Sex) at couples discretion. All kidding aside, I really thought Civil Unions covered the same basic rights as a married couple but apparently they do not. Until they do,.. use my idea above. NEXT................  | ||
| Cataract2 |
There is no religious objection to the traditional marriage, now is there. That's why it passes Constitutionally Hm, seems to be mixing gov and religion. Doesn't it? Weren't we just discussing the separation of the two and how the Constitution prohibits such things? Ah, I get it. The GOP is confused with that. No wonder people are rejecting them. | ||
| Davegess |
So we should not allow divorce because it costs taxpayers who have religious objections to it money? We should stop subsidies to pig farmers for the same reason? The list is endless of things the taxpayer funds that are contrary to someone's religion or lack thereof. I personally think that none of my tax dollars should go to schools that teach "intelligent design". That is just religion. Your argument is specious. | ||
| Sifo |
Hm, seems to be mixing gov and religion. Doesn't it? In what way? I just pointed out there is NO religious objection to traditional marriage. It's the religious objection that causes problems whether it's a manger scene or tax dollars promoting gay marriage. Why is that such a difficult concept? So we should not allow divorce because it costs taxpayers who have religious objections to it money? We should stop subsidies to pig farmers for the same reason? The list is endless of things the taxpayer funds that are contrary to someone's religion or lack thereof. I personally think that none of my tax dollars should go to schools that teach "intelligent design". That is just religion. Your argument is specious. I don't follow on the divorce thing. The rest I would be pretty easily convinced of. (Message edited by SIFO on November 09, 2012) | ||
| Cataract2 |
There is no religious objection to the traditional marriage, now is there. That's why it passes Constitutionally In what way? I just pointed out there is NO religious objection to traditional marriage. It's the religious objection that causes problems whether it's a manger scene or tax dollars promoting gay marriage. Why is that such a difficult concept? You stated there is no religious objection and that is how it passes Constitutionally. Sure seems to be combining the two. As for divorce. Is that not handled through the courts? I do seem to recall that many religious sects do not believe in divorce. So they shouldn't have to support the divorce courts with their tax dollars, no? | ||
| Xb9er |
Couldn't have said it better myself. People don't get married for the sake of tax reasons, they do it because the couple (gay or heterosexual) love each other | ||
| Sifo |
Cataract2, How are you arriving at the conclusion that you are combining government and religion based on there being no religious objection to it? There's no religious objection to elections are there? Is that mixing religion and government? On the divorce issue, as is pointed out so often, the government is in charge of the civil part of marriage. That is they deal with legal aspects, as far as government has become invasive into the institution of marriage in the first place. How can you possibly, on one had advocate for for government being involved in the legalities of marriage, and on the other hand say they should stay out of dissolving that same legal contract. You're either in, or your out on this. People don't get married for the sake of tax reasons, they do it because the couple (gay or heterosexual) love each other Then it should be easy to back out all of the financial incentives. Surely you would support that to have gay marriage, wouldn't you? Problem solved. | ||
| Aesquire |
gays have been getting divorced for decades. People in conflict get & use lawyers. ( because dueling isn't legal here ) If Sifo's only bitch is that alternative marriage costs him money through the tax incentives ( that I fail to see ) then I have to say he's wrong on substance, but correct on attitude. I agree in that I'm all for it but don't feel the need to pay for it. ( alternative marriage ) I disagree in that his argument is too Obama-ish... It's a class envy tautology, and not rational thought. Frankly if a massive 3% of our population wants to file income taxes jointly, I don't see that as an issue. There is a tax break ( In some income combinations ) for married people... why? To promote stability in family life. An entire chain of results are supposed to follow from that, like lower crime, ( less girl friend beating, less juvie punks never taught right from wrong.... ) less disease, etc. etc. All based on a series of assumptions, that I mostly agree with. Those assumptions of societal stability and lower violence and crime must be assumed to be true, if you want ANYONE to get such a ( tiny ) tax break. The assumptions also are equally true no matter the genitalia involved. OTOH Don't forget that the whole Housing Crisis came from a similar set of assumptions. 'Hoods where people own are nicer than where people rent. So. Help people own. Better 'Hoods. Trouble is, the real answer was "people who work hard to own work hard to keep up their stuff", which was not the assumption made. Then the "flip this house" crowd crashed the whole thing years sooner than it naturally would have. Worse, no one seems to have caught on to the faulty logic chain that created the mess. But I digress. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
say Bill doesnt have a wife, nor a husband... the state should provide him one. Its not fair that some people have more marriage than others, or even multiple marriages when others have none. We feel matrimony is better when you spread it around abit. | ||
| Xb9er |
Sifo did you decline any tax cuts with your marriage? Why should gays? | ||
| Sifo |
If Sifo's only bitch is that alternative marriage costs him money through the tax incentives ( that I fail to see ) then I have to say he's wrong on substance, but correct on attitude. So I'm wrong on the substance. OK. There is a tax break ( In some income combinations ) for married people... why? But you point out my substance. One part of it at least. Sifo did you decline any tax cuts with your marriage? Why should gays? Short answers. No. They shouldn't. It's completely irrelevant to if the government can Constitutionally offer tax cuts to promote a lifestyle that other taxpayers find against their religious beliefs. Do you have any understanding of why complaints about manger scenes on public property have been upheld in the courts? If so, simply apply that same reasoning to this issue. | ||
| Cowboy |
I just hope I live to hear the screams of the liberal bastards when they come under sharia law that they seem to want. | ||
| Xb9er |
Wow sifo there you go again mixing religion into law. Maybe gay people don't want to help fund your marriage. Hey while your at it maybe you can repeal all minorities marriages. God never said he hates gay people. We all have a divine plan right? Discriminating against homosexuals is no different than discriminating against minorities | ||
| Sifo |
Wow sifo there you go again mixing religion into law. Maybe gay people don't want to help fund your marriage. I'll just ignore the hate speech and address the facts you have wrong. First, I'm not sure you are understanding that Marriage currently has two intertwined definitions. There is the religious aspect recognized by a church. There is also the legal aspect recognized by the government. From a legal aspect they at different things. The marriage that has been promoted by the government is the legal variety. It was never and issue in the past because it didn't promote an activity that is offensive to taxpayer's religious beliefs. An example of this is the manger scene at Christmas time on public land. Atheists took offense and the court agreed that their religious beliefs are enough to prevent the government promoting such a thing. There is no religion that takes offense to a man marrying a woman, so there is no legal problem there. I hope you can understand it up to this point. When you now say that this legal definition of marriage includes man + man and woman + woman you change the whole equation. As I've said, there's no issue with making this legal. When tax dollars are used to encourage it, just like allowing a manger scene on public lands, you have a conflict with other peoples religious beliefs that are protected under the Constitution. If you have any comprehension of the law you should be able to follow those three paragraphs. Let me know where you get stuck and we can work on that detail. OK? | ||
| Whatever |
My religion opposes carnivorous activities. By your logic eating meat must be outlawed. I find that by your logic, ANY religious belief must dictate the law of ALL people. Pretty soon the entire public must have to abide by EVERY RELIGIOUS belief known to any US citizen, no matter how bizarre. | ||
| Sifo |
My religion opposes carnivorous activities. By your logic eating meat must be outlawed. Absolutely false. By my logic the government wouldn't be able to promote said carnivorous activities with tax payer dollars. Of course that's the Supreme Court's logic, that I just happen to agree with. Perhaps you should take that to court. Thanks for misstating the obvious though. | ||
| Moxnix |
Gee whilickers, this aging white heterosexual Christian male wants a government hand-out today. A big one. I want Santa Claus to gimme something for nothing. How many libs in agreement I should get some free sugar from Uncle Sugar? Maybe an Obama phone to start, Walmart gift card, and $5K a month so my rocking chair is more comfy. C'mon Uncle Sugar, I'll cast a blind eye to gay marriage, oh, let's make it $2K per month and a new Lazy Boy & flat screen. Where's my slice o' the pie? | ||
| Whatever |
You miss the point entirely. By your logic, the government must not fund anything that any one citizen opposes on religious grounds. Therefore absolutely nothing should be funded that ANY American individual opposes. Goodbye Department of Defense. Goodbye Department of Transportation. Goodbye tax exempt status for any religious organization that gets tax breaks. What you propose is nothing less than complete and total anarchy, since all of the above is against SOME INDIVIDUAL'S moral, philosophical or religious belief. Of course you will argue your religion should apply, but not mine. The year is 2012. Wake up and smell the coffee, or prepare to become more irrelevant. | ||
| Sifo |
Thanks for at least recognizing the argument. Defense of the country is a part of the Constitution. I think you're going to be on thin ice finding the Constitution unconstitutional. Is there really a religion that is against transportation? I'd like to hear about that one. The tax breaks for any religious organization. Spot on. What you propose is nothing less than complete and total anarchy, since all of the above is against SOME INDIVIDUAL'S moral, philosophical or religious belief. I think this may be where you are going astray. It's not about some individual's morals or philosophy. It's about established religions. I don't think the court is likely to recognize a religion such as The Church of the Immobile. Of course you will argue your religion should apply, but not mine. Odd that you would say that considering my example, that is very well know to anyone not living under a rock, has been decided in favor of the Atheists. Do I really come off sounding like an Atheist? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"Gee whilickers, this aging white heterosexual Christian male wants a government hand-out today." Nope whitey - get to work. The entire bait and steal charade depends on your nose to the grind stone. there are no entitlements for you. Unless you get drug addled, have a few ruglets, and of course commit a few crimes. or when you get older, you will qualify for what is left of the Medicare Social Security gossimar blanket | ||
| Davegess |
Tax dollars subsidize meat production and consumption. | ||
| Moxnix |
Really, now, my religion and its tenants and convictions is the only one singled out for persecution, ridicule, limitations, etc. | ||
| Sifo |
It's amazing that more that one of you have said that what I'm talking about would be chaos, or anarchy, or something else that sounds tragic. Consider though that none of these incentive were a part of the initial government. They are a result of 250 years of political promises, not to help the people, but to buy votes. Honestly, on a whole, is the country better off or worse off with all of the complicated schemes of providing pork to every conceivable niche of society? Who thinks that our founders would even recognize our set of laws as what they set forth as a limited government. I'm fully aware that the stance I've taken on this will NEVER come to be. As a country we are just too vested in the "what's in it for me" philosophy, never realizing that what we are begging for from the government today, was ours yesterday. I hope that in version 2.0 the new founders are as wise as our originals. Armed with the knowledge of the successes and failures of this system can lead to a new rising. "We have given you a democratic-republic... If you can keep it." | ||
| Kenm123t |
I see those that failed the Constitution 101 are out again. | ||
| Moxnix |
Actually, looking at practical economics in the US, anarchy is what we shall experience after this "over the cliff" experience being chatted up by the TV newsies. Sandy was coming, it was all over the news. Stock up, or bug out, or stay put and ride it out. It was a choice of options, some of which resulted on death. Looting, that's a bit of anarchy, ain't it? Anarchy comes automatically to some desperate people, skin color not withstanding. | ||
| Whatever |
No, you actually sound like you are ignorant of the separation of Church and State, since now you are proposing that the government should decide what religion is "valid" and what religion is "not valid". According to whatever proposed litmus test you decide the SCOTUS should deem handy to your argument. There are more religions out there besides yours. For example: Buddhism is a religion older than Christianity. One of the main tenets of Buddhism is not to harm any living thing (but I suppose they draw the line at plants, as opposed to some extreme "ecoreligions" that do not). CHINA does not recognize Buddhism as a LEGAL RELIGION or a "valid religion" to use your terms. Therefore, China has systematically, detained, tortured and killed Buddhists, especially in Nepal, regardless of whether said Buddhists are peaceful practicioners, who for all other Chinese government purposes, are model "citizens" OR they have actually tried to defend their religious establishments or personnel through armed resistance (since many Buddhists practice various forms of martial arts, I would consider those Buddhists to posses a deadly weapon- which with the proper training would be their bodies). So, since the precedent has been set, in China, mind you, to NOT recognize that Buddhism is a "valid relgion" in its country (including the invaded country of Nepal... which the Chinese now consider their country, but the recognized (Buddhist) government of Nepal in exile does not)... Buddhism is illegal. We have a government that determines what its individuals can and cannot do regarding practicing their beliefs. Great. I would call that communism, though... If you need an example closer to home, look at the boarding school movement where Native Americans were shipped off by the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) and beaten for speaking their Native Language, and or practicing any cultural beliefs deemed "Indian". (AND yes, this is an example that I have first hand knowledge of after working for Native American governments for four years that are Federally Recognized due to Treaties signed in the 1800's). What I am saying is this: RELIGION of any kind has no place as a basis to create individual laws in the United States. Period. It really doesn't matter how offended and persecuted you personally feel... and it does not matter how much mud slinging you can come up with... and apparetly by the recent election results... it does not matter how many millions and millions of dollars the religious right throws at the democratic process... If you really have a problem paying taxes that support the personal freedoms that should be protected by our government, then join the sovereign citizen movement and don't pay any taxes and when they come and take you away feel free to argue in court that your individual rights have been violated somehow. See how well that works for you. I will be eager to know what results you get. It is a bunk argument. Get a clue, or if you choose not to, just prepare to become more and more politically irrelavent. IF THERE IS ONE REASON WHY ROMNEY LOST... IT WAS HIS PICK OF PAUL RYAN... who, by the way, in my opinion, supports theocratic rule, like you seem to. I won't comment further. One, because when cornered, there are people on here that will resort to name calling. Two, because I have better things to do with my time. Three, we (by we, I mean white, middle aged Democratic women...) will continue to kick a## on these issues alone. Y'all have awoken the greatest public movement in the history of the United States (in my opinion, which may not be worth much...) (Message edited by Whatever on November 10, 2012) |
