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

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

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.

I second that!

[Artegal 1]

StevenJinky

Funny quotation in your signature line about the Question of Bush to Brazilian President do you have blacks too?

Its funny but yet sad because it shows how lacking in world history our nation is--in that--a lot of Americans really do not know much about the Americas outside of America. Not really the topic of this thread, but anyway.

Back on topic here, also let Gays get married and divorced and have all kinds of head aches just like Straight people--and while we are at it don't give Gay people a pass on Dying in Iraq or any other war--let them serve its stupid to boot them out of the military for gayness. And anyway once Gays get all the same rights as straights then we will all be boring and nothing special for either sexual orientation.

[chri'stina 190]

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.

I second that!

ILIKEALLCAPS does write well, but it's easy to say that the person you agree with has the best post in this thread. IMO, others have written the "best posts". It's very subjective.

[meauxna 15]

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.

Whew! I wishwishwish you'd come take the bar in Oregon so you could be my lawyer. I'd do bad stuff just so I could hire you.

We had an interesting measure on our ballot this election. Our state is very divided urban/rural. The maps are quite amusing.. something like over 2/3 of the state has like 10% of the population. As you might imagine, us cityfied folk are a bit different from your average cattle rancher out east.

The measure was to district the state so that Supreme Court judges would have to be elected from the more conservative parts of the state to 'represent' for everyone.

The DAH, fresh off his naturalization testing said 'But the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the supreme law of the land--the Constitution. Where you are from has nothing to do with it!'.

Bless his cotton socks.

btw, we also had an interesting gay marriage flutter here ourselves a couple of years back. it was legal in one county for about 30 days. Since the 'legalizing' was based on a Constitutional interpretation, it took the courts to say, whoa, wait just a minute. And for those of you happy with this year's bans, many of them were spurred by the Oregon Constitution and a few mislaid words, like 'one man' and 'one woman'. The day will come tho, they just didn't do it right the first time.

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.

But again, spouses are not dependants, right?

And if a couple is married, you now have their combined net worth to consider, right?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

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.

But again, spouses are not dependants, right?

And if a couple is married, you now have their combined net worth to consider, right?

Suppose for a second one could decrease one's support payments by engaging a friend to enter into a homosexual sham marriage. However, banning homosexual marriage, one could still defraud the ex by engaging in a heterosexual sham marriage, no? Is that somehow better? More morally tolerable? I don't get it.

[mybackpages 0]

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

Just curious...

Seriously, what is the answer?

[dalegg 143]

But again, spouses are not dependants, right?

Sure they are. Even if you don't want to call them a "dependant," they are definitely an exemption which means that other than the better tax status bracket you get to use, they are also worth an additional $3,300 for a tax deduction.

And if a couple is married, you now have their combined net worth to consider, right?

Yes, but if you remember in my what-if scenario, the fake gay husband was unemployed.

He would HAVE to be an unemployed straight guy for this to work. Gay couples are usually both employed and very often both of them have high salaries since they have to live in San Francisco. When their income is combined there may actually be a tax penalty (remember the marriage tax penalty Bush sought to abolish?)

For example

If each man made $100,000 per year, their single tax would be $15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over $74,200 ($25,800)

Or, ($15,107.50 + $7224)= X 2 = $44,663 total

If each man made $100,000 per year, their married tax would be $42,170.00 plus 33% of the amount over 188,450 ($11,550)

Or, $42,170 + $3811 = $45,981 total, which nets about $1300 more in taxes PLUS since the total is over $112,875 you now have to file for the alternative minimum tax, which means you don't even get the $3300 exemption.

So.. come to think of it you are right. Tax revenue loss is NOT a good reason to ban same-sex marriages, because any savings brought on by the lower income gays and fake-gays would be offset by the marriage tax penalties gained by having two successful homosexual men filing jointly on their taxes.

Edited November 10, 2006 by dalegg

[Ecalos 0]

In response:

Life will continue on, people will be outraged, shocked, appalled and whatnot.

Then I'm pretty sure it will die down, be forgotten, and life will still continue on.

Do people seriously think that the world as we know it will suddenly change? Become a blazing fiery pit of Hell? Come on now.

The world isn't going to end if gay marriage is legalized. In fact -gasp- maybe life will become a little more preogressive. People will become a little less sheltered as they realize that the world does not conform to their specific beliefs anymore.

Really, it isn't a big deal. It's the way a decent percentage of the US population lives their lives, and they should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

p.p.s.: edited for a spelling mistake.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Ecalos

[dalegg 143]

Suppose for a second one could decrease one's support payments by engaging a friend to enter into a homosexual sham marriage. However, banning homosexual marriage, one could still defraud the ex by engaging in a heterosexual sham marriage, no? Is that somehow better? More morally tolerable? I don't get it.

Aha! I thought this would come up. The difference is that in the sham marriage you are buddies living together. This would never work with a man and a woman living together unless you could find a woman that also liked to sit around drinking beer and watching football. Eventually the two would either irritate the hell out of each other and one would move out, or they would turn into a real married couple due to sexual attractions or whatever- then irritate the hell out of eachother, get divorced, and one would move out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Just curious...

Seriously, what is the answer?

No answer is forthcoming because we all know what that answer would be. It would require admitting to a degree of prejudice.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Suppose for a second one could decrease one's support payments by engaging a friend to enter into a homosexual sham marriage. However, banning homosexual marriage, one could still defraud the ex by engaging in a heterosexual sham marriage, no? Is that somehow better? More morally tolerable? I don't get it.

Aha! I thought this would come up. The difference is that in the sham marriage you are buddies living together. This would never work with a man and a woman living together unless you could find a woman that also liked to sit around drinking beer and watching football. Eventually the two would either irritate the hell out of each other and one would move out, or they would turn into a real married couple due to sexual attractions or whatever- then irritate the hell out of eachother, get divorced, and one would move out.

Is that the best you got?

[ceriserose 1]

He would HAVE to be an unemployed straight guy for this to work. Gay couples are usually both employed and very often both of them have high salaries since they have to live in San Francisco. When their income is combined there may actually be a tax penalty (remember the marriage tax penalty Bush sought to abolish?)

Please tell me that comment is facetious. You do realize that there are gay people in just about every part of the world, including areas outside of San Fran, right?

They're just not as open about it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But again, spouses are not dependants, right?

Sure they are. Even if you don't want to call them a "dependant," they are definitely an exemption which means that other than the better tax status bracket you get to use, they are also worth an additional $3,300 for a tax deduction.

And if a couple is married, you now have their combined net worth to consider, right?

Yes, but if you remember in my what-if scenario, the fake gay husband was unemployed.

He would HAVE to be an unemployed straight guy for this to work. Gay couples are usually both employed and very often both of them have high salaries since they have to live in San Francisco. When their income is combined there may actually be a tax penalty (remember the marriage tax penalty Bush sought to abolish?)

For example

If each man made $100,000 per year, their single tax would be $15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over $74,200 ($25,800)

Or, ($15,107.50 + $7224)= X 2 = $44,663 total

If each man made $100,000 per year, their married tax would be $42,170.00 plus 33% of the amount over 188,450 ($11,550)

Or, $42,170 + $3811 = $45,981 total, which nets about $1300 more in taxes PLUS since the total is over $112,875 you now have to file for the alternative minimum tax, which means you don't even get the $3300 exemption.

So.. come to think of it you are right. Tax revenue loss is NOT a good reason to ban same-sex marriages, because any savings brought on by the lower income gays and fake-gays would be offset by the marriage tax penalties gained by having two successful homosexual men filing jointly on their taxes.

Are you a comedian by any chance? You seriously crack me up.

[garya505 2]

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

Just curious...

Seriously, what is the answer?

No answer is forthcoming because we all know what that answer would be. It would require admitting to a degree of prejudice.

Not really. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution and a tradition that has withstood the test of time, for thousands of years. Most of us think it should remain that way. Personally I don't care what kind of relationship people want to have, that's their business and I accept it. Acceptance of homosexuality as reality is one thing, redefining marriage is another.

[mybackpages 0]

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

Just curious...

Seriously, what is the answer?

No answer is forthcoming because we all know what that answer would be. It would require admitting to a degree of prejudice.

Not really. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution and a tradition that has withstood the test of time, for thousands of years. Most of us think it should remain that way. Personally I don't care what kind of relationship people want to have, that's their business and I accept it. Acceptance of homosexuality as reality is one thing, redefining marriage is another.

You do realize that marriage over the last 1000s of years has been redefined over and over again.