Under federal law, homosexuals are the same as traitors and spies

[6SpeedTA95]

Thats a crappy law but studds didn't deserve benefits after his actions as a representative.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Will they please run on that? Then we would have an atleast one agenda item.



Having no problem with same sex couples myself I would ask why taxpayers should hand out pension benefits to same sex partners?

Spousal rights.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Kytro

So let me get this ... only lawmaker gay partners are denied?

Federal vs. State laws.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Federal vs. State laws.

I mean it does not affect everyone, just lawmakers?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I mean it does not affect everyone, just lawmakers?

The federal law only effects individuals that are ruled by it. The law says that marriage is left to the states, but it defines marriage from the federal government's standpoint. Federal lawmakers are governed by federal laws ... and so are traitors and spies.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Spousal rights.

Rights?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Why should they hand out pension benefits to partners of the opposite sex?

Very good question. I think this will soon be opened up in the Gay Rights debate? It is clear as a society that we have given special privilege (Not rights) to couples and especially couples who have children. We continue to expand these as we support pro-creation and the family unit as central to our society. This is not unique to our country or political system.

Now the Gay Rights movement has moved beyond mere tollerance or even acceptence. They want in on these tax breaks and associated benefits as a redefined couple or family unit. Funny thing is that the single people, including Gay singles, share the financial burden. They help pay for the schools. They must file as single tax payers. They get less in pay and benefits at work in order for our employer to cover the bottom line costs of all these "family" benefits. And now the Gays want in. Why else would they want to be married when marriage has been so reduced in value by society other than with those Right-Wing Christian homophobes? The picture is getting clearer by the day. And just like abortion it may be legal but people who vote can easily object to tax dollars spent on lifestyles they don't support.

Watch!

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Very good question. I think this will soon be opened up in the Gay Rights debate? It is clear as a society that we have given special privilege (Not rights) to couples and especially couples who have children. We continue to expand these as we support pro-creation and the family unit as central to our society. This is not unique to our country or political system.

Now the Gay Rights movement has moved beyond mere tollerance or even acceptence. They want in on these tax breaks and associated benefits as a redefined couple or family unit. Funny thing is that the single people, including Gay singles, share the financial burden. They help pay for the schools. They must file as single tax payers. They get less in pay and benefits at work in order for our employer to cover the bottom line costs of all these "family" benefits. And now the Gays want in. Why else would they want to be married when marriage has been so reduced in value by society other than with those Right-Wing Christian homophobes? The picture is getting clearer by the day. And just like abortion it may be legal but people who vote can easily object to tax dollars spent on lifestyles they don't support.

Watch!

Bleh this is all smoke and mirrors to hide old-school intolerance in modern times.. Whatever the justifications straights make for marriage, they're just as valid as justifications for gays. Taxes, social status, medical, or just ordinary sentimentality, take your pick.. Personally, I don't see why anyone should get a tax break just because they're married, nor do I see why gov't should be involved in it at all, but hey, whatever.

I find it hard to believe that society still takes that 1950s style family unit seriously. Employers want far too much of their employees' time for that to ever happen again, assuming it even existed in the first place. Social conservatives need to stop lamenting the past, watching Leave it to Beaver and Green Acres reruns.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Bleh this is all smoke and mirrors to hide old-school intolerance in modern times.. Whatever the justifications straights make for marriage, they're just as valid as justifications for gays. Taxes, social status, medical, or just ordinary sentimentality, take your pick.. Personally, I don't see why anyone should get a tax break just because they're married, nor do I see why gov't should be involved in it at all, but hey, whatever.

I find it hard to believe that society still takes that 1950s style family unit seriously. Employers want far too much of their employees' time for that to ever happen again, assuming it even existed in the first place. Social conservatives need to stop lamenting the past, watching Leave it to Beaver and Green Acres reruns.

It's like O'Riley is saying that that line of thought is "Secular Progressive" and "traditionalists" like him believe that we should keep things the same. The truth is, is that this is not a new idea either. In the 1950s it used to be extremely taboo to even be divorced. It used to be that if a woman was working that she had to be Single and without children. And alot of those notions have changed. The reality is, is that Life was never Leave it to Beaver. And even if you looked at the outside of the tract homes, and thought you saw this perfection of family, it was hardly actually that way. Moms popping Valium, Dads drinking scotch, there was just as much drug abuse and escapism as there is now.

Government has no business dictating what constitutes a family. Because even the most ideal family has a wealth of secrets.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Spousal rights.

not legal spouses (yes I know that opens up huge issues)

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Rights?

Ok, Spousal Priviledge.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Ok, Spousal Priviledge.

Not a legal spouse. If a bachelor died, his girlfriend wouldnt get the pension.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Now the Gay Rights movement has moved beyond mere tollerance or even acceptence. They want in on these tax breaks and associated benefits as a redefined couple or family unit. Funny thing is that the single people, including Gay singles, share the financial burden. They help pay for the schools. They must file as single tax payers. They get less in pay and benefits at work in order for our employer to cover the bottom line costs of all these "family" benefits. And now the Gays want in. Why else would they want to be married when marriage has been so reduced in value by society other than with those Right-Wing Christian homophobes? The picture is getting clearer by the day. And just like abortion it may be legal but people who vote can easily object to tax dollars spent on lifestyles they don't support.

Watch!

If they werent Gay and getting married it would be the same. The fact that they are gay doesnt have anything to do with it.

[motivez]

Now the Gay Rights movement has moved beyond mere tollerance or even acceptence. They want in on these tax breaks and associated benefits as a redefined couple or family unit.

Part of tolerance and acceptance is being treated like every other citizen. If two of them want to share their lives eachother, they should recieve the same benefits as every other two people.. it shouldn't be different simply because they both have the same sexual organs..

[burnt_circut]

Originally Posted by motivez

Part of tolerance and acceptance is being treated like every other citizen. If two of them want to share their lives eachother, they should recieve the same benefits as every other two people.. it shouldn't be different simply because they both have the same sexual organs..

I disgree, on the premise of tax breaks. Before anyone cries "homophobe", let me just say that I will likely not live to collect social security-- so can I collect it now? No, I can't. That's an obvious answer. Now let me explain why I disagree with gay marriage:

First, I do NOT CARE whether or not gay people are together, but I look at the "coincidental timing" of these protests, which happened the EXACT year that married couples regained their lower-tax-bracket level. The reason for this new and massive tax break? Well, it wasn't designed to make married couples feel good, it was designed to ease the burden of child-raising. Now, if you are going to ask if an impotent couple should receive the break... No, they shouldn't, and if some gay person want's to do mandatory sexual function tests on all couples; I say it is disgusting, but warranted. Marriage is BS to me, and gay people don't TYPICALLY follow any religion which embraces marriage (there are quite a few exceptions, I know) so this is the obvious reason exposed.

The fact of non-religion as a whole, and the coincidental timing with taxes indicates that these people simply want the tax breaks designed to encourage people to have children who will support our ENTIRE Country in the future. It is disgusting to me that the gay community wants these tax benefits, knowing that they will NEVER breed (yes, adpotion is possible, and another story completely).

I have no problems with people paying insurance and receiving that, but we need to look into exactly what the primary reasons are for people wanting to do this. I disagree with what has happened in this case, and I think we need to address gay marriage as a whole, with "acceptance" being the key goal, however I do NOT think that they deserve the tax breaks designed for "breeders", just as I do NOT deserve the government funding designed for "geezers". Equal acceptance doesnt apply in EITHER case, and I don't believe, at my core, that ANY two people are equal, and treating them as such we would have an entirely boring and unprogressive world.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by burnt_curcut

Well, it wasn't designed to make married couples feel good, it was designed to ease the burden of child-raising.

That's only one of many rights gained with marriage though. Even without the child tax credit there's thousands of rights someone gains when they're married, and a very small percentage of it can be gained even with power of attorney.

There's tons of things that are very mundane that simply wont happen due to someones sexual orientation, which is ridiculous. Things like hospital visitation rights, being able to put someone on certain healthcare plans, "dinner table issues" which the rights granted by the government were designed for.

Being against it because of a child-tax is a myopic view of the real issue, which is really equality.

It also raises the question of gay adoption.. while obviously people who are opposed to gay marriage will oppose gay adoption, there's thousands of children who need good (and well decorated!) homes which gay people could provide.

Originally Posted by burnt_curcut

Marriage is BS to me, and gay people don't TYPICALLY follow any religion which embraces marriage (there are quite a few exceptions, I know) so this is the obvious reason exposed.

Marriage is a misnomer for what's really going on. There's two seperate things here.. there's marriage as it relates to a personal commitment between two people as seen by a church or spiritual institution of ones choosing

And then there's marriage as it's seen by the government, which is essentially a contract between two people which grants them all sorts of rights as it relates to both of them.

I'd also ask why the tax thing is even an issue really, I don't see a reason why people in a committed relationship shouldn't be able to benefit simply because their sex organs are both on the outside or both on the inside.

It certainly is about equality in terms of being able to recieve the same type of benefits as everyone else.. many of the same arguments were used against interracial marriage back when that was a big thing.

I think eventually it's going to wind up looking as ridiculous.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by burnt_circut

I disgree, on the premise of tax breaks. Before anyone cries "homophobe", let me just say that I will likely not live to collect social security-- so can I collect it now? No, I can't. That's an obvious answer. Now let me explain why I disagree with gay marriage:

First, I do NOT CARE whether or not gay people are together, but I look at the "coincidental timing" of these protests, which happened the EXACT year that married couples regained their lower-tax-bracket level. The reason for this new and massive tax break? Well, it wasn't designed to make married couples feel good, it was designed to ease the burden of child-raising. Now, if you are going to ask if an impotent couple should receive the break... No, they shouldn't, and if some gay person want's to do mandatory sexual function tests on all couples; I say it is disgusting, but warranted. Marriage is BS to me, and gay people don't TYPICALLY follow any religion which embraces marriage (there are quite a few exceptions, I know) so this is the obvious reason exposed.

The fact of non-religion as a whole, and the coincidental timing with taxes indicates that these people simply want the tax breaks designed to encourage people to have children who will support our ENTIRE Country in the future. It is disgusting to me that the gay community wants these tax benefits, knowing that they will NEVER breed (yes, adpotion is possible, and another story completely).

I have no problems with people paying insurance and receiving that, but we need to look into exactly what the primary reasons are for people wanting to do this. I disagree with what has happened in this case, and I think we need to address gay marriage as a whole, with "acceptance" being the key goal, however I do NOT think that they deserve the tax breaks designed for "breeders", just as I do NOT deserve the government funding designed for "geezers". Equal acceptance doesnt apply in EITHER case, and I don't believe, at my core, that ANY two people are equal, and treating them as such we would have an entirely boring and unprogressive world.

While all that sounds good, I dont think taxes are much of an issue for gays, it is other priviledge or rights under the law. I have heard very little chatter about taxes.

Based on your op you would deny legally binding unions based on that one objection. The whole marriage tax credit doesnt amount to much with out the kids to go along with it.

[burnt_circut]

Originally Posted by motivez

That's only one of many rights gained with marriage though. Even without the child tax credit

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Based on your op you would deny legally binding unions based on that one objection. The whole marriage tax credit doesnt amount to much with out the kids to go along with it.

Right, but you have to have a kid in order to receive the extra credit. This is what I was referring to: The Hidden Meaning Of Marriage Tax Repeal -- Phyllis Schlafly March 7, 2001 column.

Originally Posted by motivez

there's thousands of rights someone gains when they're married, and a very small percentage of it can be gained even with power of attorney.

There's tons of things that are very mundane that simply wont happen due to someones sexual orientation, which is ridiculous. Things like hospital visitation rights, being able to put someone on certain healthcare plans, "dinner table issues" which the rights granted by the government were designed for.

Being against it because of a child-tax is a myopic view of the real issue, which is really equality.

I agree. That's why I'm not against it, I'm only against it for the reasons granted in 2001 which kicked off the entire issue.

Originally Posted by motivez

It also raises the question of gay adoption.. while obviously people who are opposed to gay marriage will oppose gay adoption, there's thousands of children who need good (and well decorated!) homes which gay people could provide.

I agree on that in a general sense, but gay adoption is a different issue which is better suited for another category.

Originally Posted by motivez