Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[boboroad 0]

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants.

[Cristy 4]

It just amazes me that this thread has gone on and on and no one seems to realize that missing from the debate are same sex couples. Wy? hmmm maybe because the law does not allow them equal protection in terms of sponsoring their partners?

I wonder how stronly this forum would be to openly uphold anti-marriage equality laws if some of the people on this board were gay.

That is another sad thing.

[meauxna 15]

What do people seriously think will happen if Gay Marriage is legalised?

Just curious...

Divorced men will get their unemployed buddies to move in with them, pretend to be gay, claim them as dependants on their tax returns and use them to decrease their alimony and child support payments.

Since when do married people get to claim their spouse as a dependant?

If the divorced man is willing to go through a legal commitment with his unemployed buddy for the pitiful tax break, by all means, go for it. Don't try to tell me there will be a tsunami of those kinds of cases.

You get to decrease child supoprt if you get remarried?

I can't believe the weak arguments 'against' in this thread. Really.

[Cristy 4]

What do people seriously think will happen if Gay Marriage is legalised?

Just curious...

Divorced men will get their unemployed buddies to move in with them, pretend to be gay, claim them as dependants on their tax returns and use them to decrease their alimony and child support payments.

Since when do married people get to claim their spouse as a dependant?

If the divorced man is willing to go through a legal commitment with his unemployed buddy for the pitiful tax break, by all means, go for it. Don't try to tell me there will be a tsunami of those kinds of cases.

You get to decrease child supoprt if you get remarried?

I can't believe the weak arguments 'against' in this thread. Really.

If that were the case we need to ban second marriages when there are children from the first.

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

Ok, here's another try.

The homosexual lifestyle has no appeal for me. I have no interest in engaging in it. That doesn't mean that the human beings who are homosexual should not have the same rights and privledges that I have.

If I were to restrict behavior only to that which I condoned, there'd be a lot of people who are upset. I don't enjoy NASCAR. I honestly don't see the thrill. That doesn't mean I think the people who do shouldn't be allowed to drive, just as an example.

I don't golf. I don't want to golf. I am against restricting the rights of golfers, however. They're people, just like you and me. I don't read romance novels, don't generally listen to rap or country, and I'm not fond of parsnips or avocados. I think people who like all those things should have every right and privledge I do. There's something in this world that turns my stomach, and I won't engage in voluntarily at all......but I still think people should be allowed to drink coffee, and I think coffee drinkers should be allowed their civil rights. I will quite literally be physically ill if I drink coffee, and yet I went so far as to marry a coffee drinker.

If we're all quibbling over semantics....over the word "marriage," then let's just agree to end it. The sanctity of marriage could be reserved for religious ceremonies only. And anyone "married" that way wouldn't get any tax breaks or have any legal standing in society. Retroactively. To the beginning of civilization. You bastards. (since pretty much all of us would be born to "non-legally-bonded" people, we'd all be legally bastards, but spiritually clean). Yep, that means all those deductions wouldn't be legal.....here comes the IRS. Married by the pope himself? Great! Now get your illegal butts out of here. Go see a judge.

Is that what you're against? Giving our fellow human beings the right to have some minor tax breaks and be able to make legal decisions about the care of one another? That'll break up your families? That'll ruin civilization? I'd say it's already ruined then. When we decide to be un-civil to our brothers and sisters, over something that has absolutely no direct impact on your lives, I don't think we can be called civilized.

Ok, flame away. Blast me and tell me how bloody intolerant I am, how I miss the point and this will directly cost each decent married couple thousands of dollars a year in extra "gay marriage" taxes, or whatever you may need to do to make you feel right in your discrimination. I've got thick skin and a clear conscience.

[meauxna 15]

What do people seriously think will happen if Gay Marriage is legalised?

Just curious...

Divorced men will get their unemployed buddies to move in with them, pretend to be gay, claim them as dependants on their tax returns and use them to decrease their alimony and child support payments.

Since when do married people get to claim their spouse as a dependant?

If the divorced man is willing to go through a legal commitment with his unemployed buddy for the pitiful tax break, by all means, go for it. Don't try to tell me there will be a tsunami of those kinds of cases.

You get to decrease child supoprt if you get remarried?

I can't believe the weak arguments 'against' in this thread. Really.

If that were the case we need to ban second marriages when there are children from the first.

If Dr Laura had her way.....

[ceriserose 1]

There's something in this world that turns my stomach, and I won't engage in voluntarily at all......but I still think people should be allowed to drink coffee, and I think coffee drinkers should be allowed their civil rights. I will quite literally be physically ill if I drink coffee, and yet I went so far as to marry a coffee drinker.

Stopping me from drinking my coffee would be "grounds" for legal action...

[tigretigre 0]

Most Americans believed that marriage between a black person and a white person was immoral, unnatural, and deviant when the Supreme Court held in Loving v. Virginia that state bans on interracial marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.

There are a not-insignificant number of Americans who still hold these beliefs. Nobody's stopping them. They can view it as immoral, unnatural, and deviant all they like. And interracial couples can go right ahead and get married anyway.

The whole reason we have this system of courts as interpreters of Constitutional rights is because in this country we aren't supposed to allow "most Americans" to decide who gets Constitutional protections and who doesn't. If you're a woman and you voted on Tuesday, if you're a black person and you sued a white person in court, if you're Jewish and you worked at a government job, you've enjoyed a Constitutional protection that the majority of Americans did not want you to have when the courts decided you were entitled to it.

The Supreme Court, in another unpopular decision, once held that mandating separate legal institutions for different groups of people based on classifications like race and gender and disability was inherent discrimination, even if the institutions functioned equally. To allow one group (heterosexuals) access to the institution of marriage, and restricting access to the other group (homosexuals), or even restricting them to an institution that offers most of the rights and protections of marriage but cannot by law be called "marriage," offers a pretty good test case for this holding, in my opinion. And I believe that's where this will be decided--in a courtroom. It will get called "judicial activism," and people will be mad about it, but gay couples will be able to go right ahead and get married anyway. That's how people's rights are safeguarded from the tyranny of the American popular vote.

So, as a proponent of legalizing gay marriage YESTERDAY, I'm not telling you that you have to accept what you call a homosexual lifestyle. I'm not telling you that you have to like it, approve of it, support it, or tolerate it. You don't, and you won't. I'm telling you that when the courts do make this decision, what you think is right or wrong won't stop people gay people from getting married. The law will not tell you what to think and how to feel. It will ask that when it comes to who does and doesn't get married, you mind your own business.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it's child abuse to teach your children that homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and wrong. I just think it's really sad.

[dalegg 143]

Divorced men will get their unemployed buddies to move in with them, pretend to be gay, claim them as dependants on their tax returns and use them to decrease their alimony and child support payments.

Since when do married people get to claim their spouse as a dependant?

A single man who makes $30,650 to $74,200 pays $4,220 plus 25% of the amount over $30,650

A married couple that makes $15,100 to $61,300 pays $1,510 plus 15% of the amount over 15,100

This is about the best I can do for comparison, but just say that a guy who makes $60,000 would see a few thousand dollar break.

Source

If the divorced man is willing to go through a legal commitment with his unemployed buddy for the pitiful tax break, by all means, go for it. Don't try to tell me there will be a tsunami of those kinds of cases

I doubt there will be.

You get to decrease child supoprt if you get remarried?

One of the forms we fill out here in California for a divorce is the Net Worth statement. It includes your remaining dependants and is used to determine support liabilities.

Edited November 10, 2006 by dalegg

[mybackpages 0]

Ok, here's another try.

The homosexual lifestyle has no appeal for me. I have no interest in engaging in it. That doesn't mean that the human beings who are homosexual should not have the same rights and privledges that I have.

If I were to restrict behavior only to that which I condoned, there'd be a lot of people who are upset. I don't enjoy NASCAR. I honestly don't see the thrill. That doesn't mean I think the people who do shouldn't be allowed to drive, just as an example.

I don't golf. I don't want to golf. I am against restricting the rights of golfers, however. They're people, just like you and me. I don't read romance novels, don't generally listen to rap or country, and I'm not fond of parsnips or avocados. I think people who like all those things should have every right and privledge I do. There's something in this world that turns my stomach, and I won't engage in voluntarily at all......but I still think people should be allowed to drink coffee, and I think coffee drinkers should be allowed their civil rights. I will quite literally be physically ill if I drink coffee, and yet I went so far as to marry a coffee drinker.

If we're all quibbling over semantics....over the word "marriage," then let's just agree to end it. The sanctity of marriage could be reserved for religious ceremonies only. And anyone "married" that way wouldn't get any tax breaks or have any legal standing in society. Retroactively. To the beginning of civilization. You bastards. (since pretty much all of us would be born to "non-legally-bonded" people, we'd all be legally bastards, but spiritually clean). Yep, that means all those deductions wouldn't be legal.....here comes the IRS. Married by the pope himself? Great! Now get your illegal butts out of here. Go see a judge.

Is that what you're against? Giving our fellow human beings the right to have some minor tax breaks and be able to make legal decisions about the care of one another? That'll break up your families? That'll ruin civilization? I'd say it's already ruined then. When we decide to be un-civil to our brothers and sisters, over something that has absolutely no direct impact on your lives, I don't think we can be called civilized.

Ok, flame away. Blast me and tell me how bloody intolerant I am, how I miss the point and this will directly cost each decent married couple thousands of dollars a year in extra "gay marriage" taxes, or whatever you may need to do to make you feel right in your discrimination. I've got thick skin and a clear conscience.

Beautifully put. Best post in this thread.

[ceriserose 1]

Most Americans believed that marriage between a black person and a white person was immoral, unnatural, and deviant when the Supreme Court held in Loving v. Virginia that state bans on interracial marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.

There are a not-insignificant number of Americans who still hold these beliefs. Nobody's stopping them. They can view it as immoral, unnatural, and deviant all they like. And interracial couples can go right ahead and get married anyway.

The whole reason we have this system of courts as interpreters of Constitutional rights is because in this country we aren't supposed to allow "most Americans" to decide who gets Constitutional protections and who doesn't. If you're a woman and you voted on Tuesday, if you're a black person and you sued a white person in court, if you're Jewish and you worked at a government job, you've enjoyed a Constitutional protection that the majority of Americans did not want you to have when the courts decided you were entitled to it.

The Supreme Court, in another unpopular decision, once held that mandating separate legal institutions for different groups of people based on classifications like race and gender and disability was inherent discrimination, even if the institutions functioned equally. To allow one group (heterosexuals) access to the institution of marriage, and restricting access to the other group (homosexuals), or even restricting them to an institution that offers most of the rights and protections of marriage but cannot by law be called "marriage," offers a pretty good test case for this holding, in my opinion. And I believe that's where this will be decided--in a courtroom. It will get called "judicial activism," and people will be mad about it, but gay couples will be able to go right ahead and get married anyway. That's how people's rights are safeguarded from the tyranny of the American popular vote.

So, as a proponent of legalizing gay marriage YESTERDAY, I'm not telling you that you have to accept what you call a homosexual lifestyle. I'm not telling you that you have to like it, approve of it, support it, or tolerate it. You don't, and you won't. I'm telling you that when the courts do make this decision, what you think is right or wrong won't stop people gay people from getting married. The law will not tell you what to think and how to feel. It will ask that when it comes to who does and doesn't get married, you mind your own business.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it's child abuse to teach your children that homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and wrong. I just think it's really sad.

Beautiful post.

[Vipul and Jamie 0]

(Complete and utter side note....nice to see you VipulandJamie.....hope all is as blissful as you'd hoped)

We're doing just wonderful. Thanks for thinking about us.

[Fandango 1,440]

I will not apologize. It is child abuse to me as much as being gay is the same as murder to some who posted. Assassinating somebody's character because they chose to love someone of the same sex is reprehensible IMO.

So according to you, these regular posters here:

charlesandnessa

stina&suj

mdyoung

Carol&Marc

garya505

VipulandJamie

..and possibly me...cos I'm on the fence..

...along with the majority of voters in CO ID SC SD TN VA WI, should they have children & instill their beliefs in them, are child abusers? Is that really what you're saying here or have you just spoken out of anger?

BTW, to the above-mentioned posters, I have included your names because I have read this whole thread and inferred from your posts that you disagree with gay 'marriage' in one way or another. If I have gotten this wrong, then I apologise!

You are making some mighty big assumptions. I was refering to one maybe two people. Get over yourself.

You owe me an apology. Apologize to me.

I have assumed nothing. You'll note I asked you a question for you to confirm or deny. You made this sweeping statement pages ago & I have since been posting to you trying to open up a dialogue as to what you mean. Look at your responses on the subject....you even bring in the KKK for crying out loud! As I stated before, I'm quite certain that the KKK children in question were taken away for other reasons, as you are allowed to hate anyone you want. You're allowed to protest and whatnot, so I fail to see what the relevance is.

I have asked you many times to clarify your statement. I have also given you a clear indication of how I took your statement....teaching children their morals, and you calling them child abusers. Now here you go...how many pages later....telling me you were only referring to 'one or two' people. Hokay.

No one here has expressed a hatred of homosexuals. There are many who don't agree with it, and that's fine too. For you to bring up child abuse is just plain wrong, but I feel you are in beligerant mode, therefore you won't accept your own words as wrong. That's fine too....but funny how you're throwing around the 'ignorant' label yet displaying ignorance in its purest form.

You are angry at ppl leaping to conclusions, yet you're calling ppl homophobes passive-aggresively calling people secret homosexuals.

You say that it's wrong to compare homosexuality to murder...yet you use that as an excuse to link beliefs to child abuse. So one comparison is so wrong that it's practically child abuse, yet it's your shield for casting aspersions on ppl's character.

I will not apologize. It is child abuse to me as much as being gay is the same as murder to some who posted. Assassinating somebody's character because they chose to love someone of the same sex is reprehensible IMO.

'do as I say not as I do' eh?

I also meant to say

hahahah imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

[Cristy 4]

Ok, here's another try.

The homosexual lifestyle has no appeal for me. I have no interest in engaging in it. That doesn't mean that the human beings who are homosexual should not have the same rights and privledges that I have.

If I were to restrict behavior only to that which I condoned, there'd be a lot of people who are upset. I don't enjoy NASCAR. I honestly don't see the thrill. That doesn't mean I think the people who do shouldn't be allowed to drive, just as an example.

I don't golf. I don't want to golf. I am against restricting the rights of golfers, however. They're people, just like you and me. I don't read romance novels, don't generally listen to rap or country, and I'm not fond of parsnips or avocados. I think people who like all those things should have every right and privledge I do. There's something in this world that turns my stomach, and I won't engage in voluntarily at all......but I still think people should be allowed to drink coffee, and I think coffee drinkers should be allowed their civil rights. I will quite literally be physically ill if I drink coffee, and yet I went so far as to marry a coffee drinker.

If we're all quibbling over semantics....over the word "marriage," then let's just agree to end it. The sanctity of marriage could be reserved for religious ceremonies only. And anyone "married" that way wouldn't get any tax breaks or have any legal standing in society. Retroactively. To the beginning of civilization. You bastards. (since pretty much all of us would be born to "non-legally-bonded" people, we'd all be legally bastards, but spiritually clean). Yep, that means all those deductions wouldn't be legal.....here comes the IRS. Married by the pope himself? Great! Now get your illegal butts out of here. Go see a judge.

Is that what you're against? Giving our fellow human beings the right to have some minor tax breaks and be able to make legal decisions about the care of one another? That'll break up your families? That'll ruin civilization? I'd say it's already ruined then. When we decide to be un-civil to our brothers and sisters, over something that has absolutely no direct impact on your lives, I don't think we can be called civilized.

Ok, flame away. Blast me and tell me how bloody intolerant I am, how I miss the point and this will directly cost each decent married couple thousands of dollars a year in extra "gay marriage" taxes, or whatever you may need to do to make you feel right in your discrimination. I've got thick skin and a clear conscience.

Beautifully put. Best post in this thread.

2 of the best posts by ILIKEALLCAPS. Well I gotta say ILIKEILIKEALLCAPS.

[tmma 467]

Having ####### sex does not make someone homosexual......

Try again!!!!!

I think I am gay.

....... Well I gotta say ILIKEILIKEALLCAPS.

Well, I gotta say NOW we ALL know what else you LIKELIKE...