<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jan 18 2005, 06:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> God talking to Moses: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How many years from which that line was first spoken? How many minds from which that line had first entered? HOW MANY HANDS HAVE PASSED OVER THAT LINE?!
Were those hands simply hands, or hands with malicous intent. For all anyone knows that line could've been altered from it's original meaning hundreds of years ago... But there's always the chance that the line is in it's original form.
@ illuminex<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality is typically a sign of the crumbling away of a society or civilization, not a cause. Rome didn't crumble just because of barbarian invasions or because they were spread too thin; the Romans fell to their knees because they were no longer strong as a people. They were divided, too focused on pleasure and entertainment, and had no great leaders to bring them together as a people once more. Division causes a house to crumble, and homosexuality is simply one such division that has occurred in many cultures that have died off.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know this is off topic, but I really need to point something out. Homosexuality was <b>not</b> a contributing factor to the fall of Rome. I'll just reiterate what BathroomMonkey said because he has it exactly right. As you can see, he noted the Introduction of Christianity, which is interesting as there weren't actually any qulams about homosexuality in Rome until Christianity was introduced as the sate religion, which means there wouldn't be any division or "weakness" associated with homosexuality until then. Remember than homosexuality was practiced long before Rome even fell into the dismal state of an empire, if anything, homosexuality strengthened society because it was a common form of male and female bonding and brother/sisterhood. (OMGOMG!)
@ Wheeee <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Snidely, look. If you want, you can have the guys sue the hospital, because they're not supposed to be denied as visitors based on their sexuality. If their family has requested that no one be able to enter, however, there's not much you can do. It can happen with straight couples, too. However, there is, as far as i know, no rights being infringed upon by law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They weren't denying him entrance based on his sexuality, they were refusing him entrance because he wasn't a legal family member or spouse, who can be the only people admitted to a dying patient's room depending on a hospitals policies. As for no rights being infringed, I know you think the analogy is rediculous, but that's what whites said about Jim Crowe laws in the good old days. They were completely legal under the 'seperate but equal' clause, so no rights were being infringed as far as they could tell.
@Milton <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a <i>fantastic</i> argument. Now all you have to do is prove that homosexual marriages diminish strong family relationships and stable societies.
@ Wheeee (again!) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but since it's not a prereqisite, we should not allow a certain group of people to marry for love because it causes the need for "new bureaucracy"? Where are you going with this?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Honestly I'd have to say that most of the anti-marriage arguments are stemming from an egocentric standpoint. We have it, so it's okay if you don't. You make us feel uncomfortable, so we're going to impose OUR views on how you should live your life... to the point that if your significant other is dying, you won't even be able to sit with them. Most of the anti-homosexual arguments expressed have had zero logical argument beyond 'it's wrong', or 'it makes me feel weird to think about that'... with no ACTUAL reasoning as to why. Social stigma? Back of the bus, ma'am. Religious reich? We were <i>supposed</i> to have a seperation of church and state, so 'my god has a bigger **** than yours' is not an explanation.
As some of you might know, I'm not exactly straight. I don't make a point of it, because it doesn't really affect anyone. But I've gotten the stares, the glares when I was out with a boyfriend at the local mall, walking hand in hand even. And a light peck on the cheek was enough to get mothers scurrying by, completely ignoring the straight couple on the bench next to them, sitting and grinding against each other, tongue-deep.
Why the hell should YOU care who <b>I</b> sleep with?! It's none of your f**king business.
As for the marriage thing, if I did find someone that I wanted to be with for the rest of my life, why is it a problem if we legally commit to one another, as straight couples do? We shouldn't get the same benefits? The same help that male/female couples get? Why... because what we do in the bedroom makes YOU uncomfortable? Stop looking in my window then. It's not exactly like I'm screwing on a bus bench on Main and First.
I can only hope that this crap passes by faster than black/white marriages did. After all, 'checkerboard chick' were killing words for a while.
That's because I see marriage as unique, and saying "legalize **** marriage" is like saying "elephants are pink." Where I was going with that argument was "the prerequisite for marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman." The reason the state recognizes this is because it's a pretty universal human institution. So basically I want proof (objective proof) that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Otherwise it's like saying "I love my dog and he/she/it (in case it's neutered) love sme, so I demand rights for us."
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's because I see marriage as unique, and saying "legalize **** marriage" is like saying "elephants are pink." Where I was going with that argument was "the prerequisite for marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman." The reason the state recognizes this is because it's a pretty universal human institution. So basically I want proof (objective proof) that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Otherwise it's like saying "I love my dog and he/she/it (in case it's neutered) love sme, so I demand rights for us." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Now Wheeee, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you’re trying to say is that legalizing **** marriage, which would make it legally equal to a heterosexual marriage, is just one step closer to the complete degradation of marriage? So if we except **** marriage as normal what’s next? People marrying animals?
I see where you’re coming from, and it's a valid argument. I just want to clarify because some people seem to have a hard time understanding your arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jan 18 2005, 10:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 18 2005, 10:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's because I see marriage as unique, and saying "legalize **** marriage" is like saying "elephants are pink." Where I was going with that argument was "the prerequisite for marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman." The reason the state recognizes this is because it's a pretty universal human institution. So basically I want proof (objective proof) that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Otherwise it's like saying "I love my dog and he/she/it (in case it's neutered) love sme, so I demand rights for us." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now Wheeee, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you’re trying to say is that legalizing **** marriage, which would make it legally equal to a heterosexual marriage, is just one step closer to the complete degradation of marriage? So if we except **** marriage as normal what’s next? People marrying animals?
I see where you’re coming from, and it's a valid argument. I just want to clarify because some people seem to have a hard time understanding your arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I mean that you add extra "marriage" institutions, it stops being "marriage", but an excuse to grab any extra tax rebates. Which means it might as well be that the state doesn't even say anything about marriages. Which would lead to discrimination anyway, because few places would offer **** marriage. Basically, by legalizing **** marriage, it makes **** marriage meaningless.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 10:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 10:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, I mean that you add extra "marriage" institutions, it stops being "marriage", but an excuse to grab any extra tax rebates. Which means it might as well be that the state doesn't even say anything about marriages. Which would lead to discrimination anyway, because few places would offer **** marriage. Basically, by legalizing **** marriage, it makes **** marriage meaningless.
And hell, I do love my dog. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well it wouldn't be an "extra institution" if it was legalized it would considered the exact same thing as a heterosexual marriage. Now if two **** people really do 'love' each other then perhaps they want to get married for other reasons then tax breaks. There are also other benefits that maybe considered more important by these people such as visiting rights as well.
Not precisely true. And even disregarding that argument, what defines a marriage? I've already presented my definition. If you want to expand that definition solely on the basis of "I love <xxx>," then that means marriage becomes meaningless. If you wanted to marry a dog, you could. So basically there would be no reason not to marry. And you know people would do it just to jack the tax benefits. That's why I say that redefining marriage makes it meaningless. Hospitals would have to make stupid rules like "no dogs are allowed to visit, even if they are married to the patient." Hence, bureacracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So basically I want proof (objective proof) that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you get that if it's not allowed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which would lead to discrimination anyway, because few places would offer **** marriage. Basically, by legalizing **** marriage, it makes **** marriage meaningless. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... since only a few places would perform homosexual marriage services, we should just not go through the trouble at all?
I like this idea! We could just throw the mentally ill into prisons like we used to do instead of giving them special institutions, I mean, they're only a small percentage of Americans anyway, why worry about what they or their loved ones would want? And think of all the tax dollars we would save!! [/Sacrasm] (Again, just to cover my arse...)
It seems to me like you're argument is basically <i>revolving</i> around the fact that homosexual marriage makes you uncomfortable.
Edit: Homosexual marriages leading to beastiality! It's been a while since I've heard that one. You seem to regard a strong-family society in America as important, but you don't seem to mind disregarding the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Ironic, really.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not precisely true. And even disregarding that argument, what defines a marriage? I've already presented my definition. If you want to expand that definition solely on the basis of "I love <xxx>," then that means marriage becomes meaningless. If you wanted to marry a dog, you could. So basically there would be no reason not to marry. And you know people would do it just to jack the tax benefits. That's why I say that redefining marriage makes it meaningless. Hospitals would have to make stupid rules like "no dogs are allowed to visit, even if they are married to the patient." Hence, bureacracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the dog argument is becoming a bit...trite. I can't honestly say that I see our country as unable to recognize the difference between two loving humans, whatever the sex, and a human-animal...coupling.
As for the tax benefits I could make just as strong an argument against heterosexual marriages for that exact reason. Why should a man and a woman get married at all? Do they need a ring and some pieces of paper to define their love?
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jan 18 2005, 11:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 18 2005, 11:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not precisely true. And even disregarding that argument, what defines a marriage? I've already presented my definition. If you want to expand that definition solely on the basis of "I love <xxx>," then that means marriage becomes meaningless. If you wanted to marry a dog, you could. So basically there would be no reason not to marry. And you know people would do it just to jack the tax benefits. That's why I say that redefining marriage makes it meaningless. Hospitals would have to make stupid rules like "no dogs are allowed to visit, even if they are married to the patient." Hence, bureacracy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the dog argument is becoming a bit...trite. I can't honestly say that I see our country as unable to recognize the difference between two loving humans, whatever the sex, and a human-animal...coupling.
As for the tax benefits I could make just as strong an argument against heterosexual marriages for that exact reason. Why should a man and a woman get married at all? Do they need a ring and some pieces of paper to define their love? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But the problem is, the same exact arguments are going to be presented. And they can't be refuted. There's no real, objective way to prove that a interspecies marriage is incompatible with the definition of marriage just as homosexual marriage is compatible with marriage. In fact, sexual relations with other species have been here just as long as homosexual relations.
As to your argument against heterosexual marriage - I've already addressed that in a previous post. You can't legislate love. Many people marry for money, and I'm sure some for the tax breaks. But the very definition of marriage is why there are tax breaks in the first place. Therefore, since you can't legislate love, how would you define marriage? Oh, right, I already told you that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do they need a ring and some pieces of paper to define their love?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Therefore, since you can't legislate love, how would you define marriage? Oh, right, I already told you that.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well of course it comes down to how a person defines marriage. That’s a fundamental difference that nether side will ever convince the other...as to who is right...well I suppose the majority rules at this point in time. Might makes right as they say.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jan 18 2005, 11:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 18 2005, 11:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Therefore, since you can't legislate love, how would you define marriage? Oh, right, I already told you that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well of course it comes down to how a person defines marriage. That’s a fundamental difference that nether side will ever convince the other...as to who is right...well I suppose the majority rules at this point in time. Might makes right as they say. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Eh, people campaigning for **** marriage poo-poo the slippery slope argument. But it has real consequences and can't be ignored. Has anyone read "The Positronic Man" yet?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know this is off topic, but I really need to point something out. Homosexuality was not a contributing factor to the fall of Rome. I'll just reiterate what BathroomMonkey said because he has it exactly right. As you can see, he noted the Introduction of Christianity, which is interesting as there weren't actually any qulams about homosexuality in Rome until Christianity was introduced as the sate religion, which means there wouldn't be any division or "weakness" associated with homosexuality until then. Remember than homosexuality was practiced long before Rome even fell into the dismal state of an empire, if anything, homosexuality strengthened society because it was a common form of male and female bonding and brother/sisterhood. (OMGOMG!)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, I didn't say it was a cause, more of a sign of the impending fall. If you do look at BathroomMonkey's post, you'll see that he actually does somewhat agree with me, although he puts more emphasis on the other issues surrounding the fall of Rome. I agree with all of those things he brought up, but no matter what economic issues helped topple the empire, the social issues, such as the destruction of traditional values, massive social upheavel, and the desire for pleasure (truth be known, homosexuality comes partially from the desire for pleasure. That's what traditional homosexuality has always been, an obsession with masculine sexuality) that became the focus of the entire aristocracy and much of the other classes as well. If you've ever seen the movie "Caligula," you know what I mean. Much of the film's raw portrayel of the bestial sexuality and lust in the late Roman empire is grounded in fact.
To recap, widespread acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of much greater problems in a society, at least traditionally. It is more a showing of people putting more emphasis on the "pleasure" part of life, instead of the "work" part of life, which results in a more lazy attitude among all social and economic classes. Society cannot withstand something like an invasion at this point in their history, as the Roman's showed thousands of years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...no matter what economic issues helped topple the empire, the social issues, such as the destruction of <b>traditional values</b>, massive social upheavel, and the desire for pleasure<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality was a <b>traditional value</b> of Rome. You've completely ignored the fact that homosexuality was common practice and widely accepted <i>during Rome and Greece's golden years</i>. There's no way you can say it was a warning sign, unless you are saying warning signs exist indefinitely, in which case we should blame the fall of Rome on human nature.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And you know people would do it just to jack the tax benefits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, I mean that you add extra "marriage" institutions, it stops being "marriage", but an excuse to grab any extra tax rebates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many people marry for money, and I'm sure some for the tax breaks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be obsessed with the silly notion that marriage is some sort of tax cure-all. Are you talking federal income taxes?
Not everyone benefits from marriage-- in fact, until very recently, nearly half of married couples received a tax <i>penalty</i>.
This is because marriage allows you to file jointly within a single bracket. Traditionally, the good news was that the brackets for married filers were much wider than those for single taxpayers-- for example, the 15% bracket for singles peaks at 29.7k, and the joint bracket tops out at 59.4k (for full info, go <a href='http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/index.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>.)
Splendid, correct? Let's all get married, if only for the tax benefits! Heck, I'm not ****, but I think I'm gonna marry me a guy just to get in on that sweet, sweet tax cut action!
Well, here's the problem-- this is only a benefit if the partners have a great disparity in their incomes-- which I suspect would be more likely in a heterosexual household, especially if there are children and the wife only works part time (or because we still have that pesky <a href='http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,168306,00.html' target='_blank'>gender salary gap</a>.
As an example, if the husband makes 54k and his stay at home wife makes 5k in her spare time, but they file jointly, their tax bill drops from 25% to 15%.
However, if both make 29k, then their joint rate is the same as their individual rate (15% of 29 * 2 = 15% of 58). Again, I would suspect that, if anything, more **** couples have similar income levels-- this is just a hunch, though.
Additionally, filing jointly has another hidden catch-- the standard deduction doesn't scale. Note, Congress recently passed the Marriage Relief Act to try to alleviate part of this imbalance:
(Explained by the fine folks at <a href='http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,1674,P3686,00.html' target='_blank'>Met Life</a>) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->JGTRRA raises the standard deduction for joint filers, making it twice that of single filers in 2003 and 2004. For 2003, the standard deduction for joint filers is $9,500. When this provision expires in 2005, the differential between the deduction amounts for single and joint filers will decrease, and the standard deduction for joint filers will drop from 200% to 174% of the deduction for single filers. From 2005 through 2008, the standard deduction for joint filers inches higher until again reaching 200% of the deduction for single filers in 2009 as stipulated by EGTRRA<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But even with this act, a couple filing jointly would receive much less of a deduction over time than their live-in counterparts.
Besides, many of the other tax credits for married couples are actually for married <i>families</i>, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, a deduction based on number of dependents, which even has the potential to reduce your FICA taxes. I think the number of homosexual couples receiving these benefits would be <i>slightly</i> minimal. Their route to parenthood is a bit more problematic than a heterosexual couple.
And, FYI, dogs don't pay taxes. They also have no social security number, so it would be physically impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Alas, that couple wouldn't receive <i>any</i> tax breaks.
Your concept of marriage seems to be built strictly along a procreational model-- so should the barren or sterile be allowed to marry? Should a vasectomy or hysterectomy automatically annul an outstanding marriage? Should the marriage contract include a promise to be fruitful and multiply?
It doesn't seem to me that disallowing same sex marriage is discriminating. Each person has identical rights to marry an elligible person of the opposite sex. How you feel about someone doesn't guarantee that you can marry them regardless of the circumstances. Like the song says you can't always get what you want.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 19 2005, 12:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 19 2005, 12:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> stuff about taxes <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I meant that allowing bestiality, which is a logical consequence of allowing homosexuality, would create such a situation. And a man-dog income disparity would definitely be more than a man-wife income disparity.
And, for your information - according to international human rights treaties, the wife/spouse recieves FULL LEGAL STATUS with regards to property rights on par with the husband. That can be extended to income too.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited January 2005
Wheeee, if you continue likening homosexual marriage to bestiality, you will be removed. Your statements ring pretty close to the KKK's 'monkey' or 'ape' comments about blacks, and how a black man and a white woman is bestiality.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 05:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 05:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 19 2005, 12:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 19 2005, 12:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> stuff about taxes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I meant that allowing bestiality, which is a logical consequence of allowing homosexuality, would create such a situation. And a man-dog income disparity would definitely be more than a man-wife income disparity.
And, for your information - according to international human rights treaties, the wife/spouse recieves FULL LEGAL STATUS with regards to property rights on par with the husband. That can be extended to income too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The three quotes I listed weren't all in reference to beastiality. You were making it sound as if marriage is some grand tax shelter. Not necessarily. Also, you did see this, right?:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, FYI, dogs don't pay taxes. They also have no social security number, so it would be physically impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Alas, that couple wouldn't receive any tax breaks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So it's <i>logically</i> and <i>physically</i> impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Which, I believe, invalidates that portion of the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the wife/spouse recieves FULL LEGAL STATUS with regards to property rights on par with the husband. That can be extended to income too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, they own things jointly. All part of making a commitment to one another. What's the big deal?
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jan 19 2005, 12:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jan 19 2005, 12:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wheeee, if you continue likening homosexual marriage to bestiality, you will be removed. Your statements ring pretty close to the KKK's 'monkey' or 'ape' comments about blacks, and how a black man and a white woman is bestiality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Talesin, refer to the forum rules and read the thread before you misinterpret my posts. And even if I did liken bestiality to homosexuality, are you going to prove to be prejudiced? Are you saying that I, as a lover of animals, should not be afforded the same sexual release as homosexuals and heterosexuals are? Please. Get off your defensive nature "omg he's against **** marriage he's a homophobe " and realize that at no point in time did I equate homosexuals with any animals or disrespect them in any way. And, according to some people, we're all animals anyway. Ban me if you dislike my logic, but if you look at this thread objectively you will see that at no time did I ever disrespect any member of the forums, nor post any hateful remarks, nor break forum rules in any form or fashion.
Thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So it's logically and physically impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Which, I believe, invalidates that portion of the argument.
Right, they own things jointly. All part of making a commitment to one another. What's the big deal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN..
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 12:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent?
Either way, your logic still falls victim to slipery slope fallicy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My guess is that Wheee will make up some nonsensical response that relies upon the barest of probabilites (as well as a total disruption of reality), but will nonetheless masterfully handcuff us with our own dastardly logic.
"I'll just teach my dog to say that he loves me. And then they'll <i>have</i> to marry us."
Drat, foiled again!
<a href='http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0412,goldstein,52050,1.html' target='_blank'>This</a> is kind of a comical sarcastic analysis of the 'man on dog' fear gripping the nation. Not too offensive, but not necessarily for the faint of heart, either.
Boy, is anyone watching me screw this link up repeatedly in realtime? It is definitely approaching bedtime . . .
That was hilarious, BM <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 19 2005, 01:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 19 2005, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 12:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent?
Either way, your logic still falls victim to slipery slope fallicy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If it can hump my leg and wag its tail at me, that's good enough.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 01:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 01:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 19 2005, 01:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 19 2005, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 12:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent?
Either way, your logic still falls victim to slipery slope fallicy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it can hump my leg and wag its tail at me, that's good enough. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No it isn't. That just indicates that it is horny. But what the hell, lets say it can consent. If that is the case, then I don't see a reson why they can't be married.
Alright skulkbait, to address your challenge of slippery slope, i submit the following.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman. Now let's assume that we relax the marriage laws to accomodate homosexual marriage on the basis that there are homosexual couples that love each other and desire to commit their lives to each other. Let us say that all legal challenges to this have been nullified. Now, let us examine what we have here. Since I doubt religious testimony will be allowed in court cases here, we will have to rely on scientific expertise on this matter.
And what does scientific expertise have to say about humans? That they arose from other animals. Thus, we cannot define humans to be totally different than animals. Secondly, we have that there are several quite intelligent animals, some (like dolphins) that display remarkably human traits and can understand speech on the level of a human child. We also have the fact that we do not limit rights to mentally handicapped people, unless it directly endangers them. Thus we can rule out the "intelligence factor." Thirdly, we have the fact that animals, especially of the domesticated variety, show affection, loyalty, etc etc to their masters. Thus we can rule out the "a relationship with an animal is meaningless" argument. Lastly, we have that animals do not have rights like humans do. However, there are several groups campaigning for more animal rights. Maybe they're just oppressed, eh?
Voila. Human-animal marriage. And an income tax nightmare, because you can be guaranteed that everyone and their dog will marry for the benefits.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 01:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 01:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Alright skulkbait, to address your challenge of slippery slope, i submit the following.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman. Now let's assume that we relax the marriage laws to accomodate homosexual marriage on the basis that there are homosexual couples that love each other and desire to commit their lives to each other. Let us say that all legal challenges to this have been nullified. Now, let us examine what we have here. Since I doubt religious testimony will be allowed in court cases here, we will have to rely on scientific expertise on this matter.
And what does scientific expertise have to say about humans? That they arose from other animals. Thus, we cannot define humans to be totally different than animals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aha, you're first mistake. We can and have, otherwise animal rights activist wouldn't have a cause.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Secondly, we have that there are several quite intelligent animals, some (like dolphins) that display remarkably human traits and can understand speech on the level of a human child. We also have the fact that we do not limit rights to mentally handicapped people, unless it directly endangers them. Thus we can rule out the "intelligence factor." Thirdly, we have the fact that animals, especially of the domesticated variety, show affection, loyalty, etc etc to their masters. Thus we can rule out the "a relationship with an animal is meaningless" argument. Lastly, we have that animals do not have rights like humans do. However, there are several groups campaigning for more animal rights. Maybe they're just oppressed, eh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Possibly, but if we go that route then we will also have to make meat eating illegal, among many other things. See how rediculous this is becoming?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Voila. Human-animal marriage. And an income tax nightmare, because you can be guaranteed that everyone and their dog will marry for the benefits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Voila. You make it sound so easy, maybe you should work for an animal rights group? If its that easy for you to get that kind of legislation passed then they could really use you.
Ah, you, sir, who say it won't happen - I submit to you that homosexual marriage won't happen either.
And by won't happen I mean, will happen eventually. When we get around to admitting that humans don't have the monopoly on happiness. Our pets deserve it too, dammit.
Comments
How many years from which that line was first spoken?
How many minds from which that line had first entered?
HOW MANY HANDS HAVE PASSED OVER THAT LINE?!
Were those hands simply hands, or hands with malicous intent. For all anyone knows that line could've been altered from it's original meaning hundreds of years ago... But there's always the chance that the line is in it's original form.
I know this is off topic, but I really need to point something out. Homosexuality was <b>not</b> a contributing factor to the fall of Rome. I'll just reiterate what BathroomMonkey said because he has it exactly right. As you can see, he noted the Introduction of Christianity, which is interesting as there weren't actually any qulams about homosexuality in Rome until Christianity was introduced as the sate religion, which means there wouldn't be any division or "weakness" associated with homosexuality until then. Remember than homosexuality was practiced long before Rome even fell into the dismal state of an empire, if anything, homosexuality strengthened society because it was a common form of male and female bonding and brother/sisterhood. (OMGOMG!)
@ Wheeee
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Snidely, look. If you want, you can have the guys sue the hospital, because they're not supposed to be denied as visitors based on their sexuality. If their family has requested that no one be able to enter, however, there's not much you can do. It can happen with straight couples, too. However, there is, as far as i know, no rights being infringed upon by law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They weren't denying him entrance based on his sexuality, they were refusing him entrance because he wasn't a legal family member or spouse, who can be the only people admitted to a dying patient's room depending on a hospitals policies. As for no rights being infringed, I know you think the analogy is rediculous, but that's what whites said about Jim Crowe laws in the good old days. They were completely legal under the 'seperate but equal' clause, so no rights were being infringed as far as they could tell.
@Milton
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a <i>fantastic</i> argument. Now all you have to do is prove that homosexual marriages diminish strong family relationships and stable societies.
@ Wheeee (again!)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but since it's not a prereqisite, we should not allow a certain group of people to marry for love because it causes the need for "new bureaucracy"? Where are you going with this?
Most of the anti-homosexual arguments expressed have had zero logical argument beyond 'it's wrong', or 'it makes me feel weird to think about that'... with no ACTUAL reasoning as to why. Social stigma? Back of the bus, ma'am. Religious reich? We were <i>supposed</i> to have a seperation of church and state, so 'my god has a bigger **** than yours' is not an explanation.
As some of you might know, I'm not exactly straight. I don't make a point of it, because it doesn't really affect anyone. But I've gotten the stares, the glares when I was out with a boyfriend at the local mall, walking hand in hand even. And a light peck on the cheek was enough to get mothers scurrying by, completely ignoring the straight couple on the bench next to them, sitting and grinding against each other, tongue-deep.
Why the hell should YOU care who <b>I</b> sleep with?! It's none of your f**king business.
As for the marriage thing, if I did find someone that I wanted to be with for the rest of my life, why is it a problem if we legally commit to one another, as straight couples do? We shouldn't get the same benefits? The same help that male/female couples get? Why... because what we do in the bedroom makes YOU uncomfortable? Stop looking in my window then. It's not exactly like I'm screwing on a bus bench on Main and First.
I can only hope that this crap passes by faster than black/white marriages did. After all, 'checkerboard chick' were killing words for a while.
Now Wheeee, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you’re trying to say is that legalizing **** marriage, which would make it legally equal to a heterosexual marriage, is just one step closer to the complete degradation of marriage?
So if we except **** marriage as normal what’s next? People marrying animals?
I see where you’re coming from, and it's a valid argument. I just want to clarify because some people seem to have a hard time understanding your arguments.
Now Wheeee, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you’re trying to say is that legalizing **** marriage, which would make it legally equal to a heterosexual marriage, is just one step closer to the complete degradation of marriage?
So if we except **** marriage as normal what’s next? People marrying animals?
I see where you’re coming from, and it's a valid argument. I just want to clarify because some people seem to have a hard time understanding your arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I mean that you add extra "marriage" institutions, it stops being "marriage", but an excuse to grab any extra tax rebates. Which means it might as well be that the state doesn't even say anything about marriages. Which would lead to discrimination anyway, because few places would offer **** marriage. Basically, by legalizing **** marriage, it makes **** marriage meaningless.
And hell, I do love my dog.
And hell, I do love my dog. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it wouldn't be an "extra institution" if it was legalized it would considered the exact same thing as a heterosexual marriage.
Now if two **** people really do 'love' each other then perhaps they want to get married for other reasons then tax breaks. There are also other benefits that maybe considered more important by these people such as visiting rights as well.
How can you get that if it's not allowed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which would lead to discrimination anyway, because few places would offer **** marriage. Basically, by legalizing **** marriage, it makes **** marriage meaningless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... since only a few places would perform homosexual marriage services, we should just not go through the trouble at all?
I like this idea! We could just throw the mentally ill into prisons like we used to do instead of giving them special institutions, I mean, they're only a small percentage of Americans anyway, why worry about what they or their loved ones would want? And think of all the tax dollars we would save!! [/Sacrasm] (Again, just to cover my arse...)
It seems to me like you're argument is basically <i>revolving</i> around the fact that homosexual marriage makes you uncomfortable.
Edit: Homosexual marriages leading to beastiality! It's been a while since I've heard that one. You seem to regard a strong-family society in America as important, but you don't seem to mind disregarding the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Ironic, really.
Well the dog argument is becoming a bit...trite. I can't honestly say that I see our country as unable to recognize the difference between two loving humans, whatever the sex, and a human-animal...coupling.
As for the tax benefits I could make just as strong an argument against heterosexual marriages for that exact reason. Why should a man and a woman get married at all? Do they need a ring and some pieces of paper to define their love?
Well the dog argument is becoming a bit...trite. I can't honestly say that I see our country as unable to recognize the difference between two loving humans, whatever the sex, and a human-animal...coupling.
As for the tax benefits I could make just as strong an argument against heterosexual marriages for that exact reason. Why should a man and a woman get married at all? Do they need a ring and some pieces of paper to define their love? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the problem is, the same exact arguments are going to be presented. And they can't be refuted. There's no real, objective way to prove that a interspecies marriage is incompatible with the definition of marriage just as homosexual marriage is compatible with marriage. In fact, sexual relations with other species have been here just as long as homosexual relations.
As to your argument against heterosexual marriage - I've already addressed that in a previous post. You can't legislate love. Many people marry for money, and I'm sure some for the tax breaks. But the very definition of marriage is why there are tax breaks in the first place. Therefore, since you can't legislate love, how would you define marriage? Oh, right, I already told you that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do they need a ring and some pieces of paper to define their love?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of common-law marriages?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well of course it comes down to how a person defines marriage.
That’s a fundamental difference that nether side will ever convince the other...as to who is right...well I suppose the majority rules at this point in time. Might makes right as they say.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well of course it comes down to how a person defines marriage.
That’s a fundamental difference that nether side will ever convince the other...as to who is right...well I suppose the majority rules at this point in time. Might makes right as they say. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, people campaigning for **** marriage poo-poo the slippery slope argument. But it has real consequences and can't be ignored. Has anyone read "The Positronic Man" yet?
I know this is off topic, but I really need to point something out. Homosexuality was not a contributing factor to the fall of Rome. I'll just reiterate what BathroomMonkey said because he has it exactly right. As you can see, he noted the Introduction of Christianity, which is interesting as there weren't actually any qulams about homosexuality in Rome until Christianity was introduced as the sate religion, which means there wouldn't be any division or "weakness" associated with homosexuality until then. Remember than homosexuality was practiced long before Rome even fell into the dismal state of an empire, if anything, homosexuality strengthened society because it was a common form of male and female bonding and brother/sisterhood. (OMGOMG!)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, I didn't say it was a cause, more of a sign of the impending fall. If you do look at BathroomMonkey's post, you'll see that he actually does somewhat agree with me, although he puts more emphasis on the other issues surrounding the fall of Rome. I agree with all of those things he brought up, but no matter what economic issues helped topple the empire, the social issues, such as the destruction of traditional values, massive social upheavel, and the desire for pleasure (truth be known, homosexuality comes partially from the desire for pleasure. That's what traditional homosexuality has always been, an obsession with masculine sexuality) that became the focus of the entire aristocracy and much of the other classes as well. If you've ever seen the movie "Caligula," you know what I mean. Much of the film's raw portrayel of the bestial sexuality and lust in the late Roman empire is grounded in fact.
To recap, widespread acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of much greater problems in a society, at least traditionally. It is more a showing of people putting more emphasis on the "pleasure" part of life, instead of the "work" part of life, which results in a more lazy attitude among all social and economic classes. Society cannot
withstand something like an invasion at this point in their history, as the Roman's showed thousands of years ago.
Homosexuality was a <b>traditional value</b> of Rome. You've completely ignored the fact that homosexuality was common practice and widely accepted <i>during Rome and Greece's golden years</i>. There's no way you can say it was a warning sign, unless you are saying warning signs exist indefinitely, in which case we should blame the fall of Rome on human nature.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, I mean that you add extra "marriage" institutions, it stops being "marriage", but an excuse to grab any extra tax rebates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many people marry for money, and I'm sure some for the tax breaks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be obsessed with the silly notion that marriage is some sort of tax cure-all. Are you talking federal income taxes?
Not everyone benefits from marriage-- in fact, until very recently, nearly half of married couples received a tax <i>penalty</i>.
This is because marriage allows you to file jointly within a single bracket. Traditionally, the good news was that the brackets for married filers were much wider than those for single taxpayers-- for example, the 15% bracket for singles peaks at 29.7k, and the joint bracket tops out at 59.4k (for full info, go <a href='http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/index.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>.)
Splendid, correct? Let's all get married, if only for the tax benefits! Heck, I'm not ****, but I think I'm gonna marry me a guy just to get in on that sweet, sweet tax cut action!
Well, here's the problem-- this is only a benefit if the partners have a great disparity in their incomes-- which I suspect would be more likely in a heterosexual household, especially if there are children and the wife only works part time (or because we still have that pesky <a href='http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,168306,00.html' target='_blank'>gender salary gap</a>.
As an example, if the husband makes 54k and his stay at home wife makes 5k in her spare time, but they file jointly, their tax bill drops from 25% to 15%.
However, if both make 29k, then their joint rate is the same as their individual rate (15% of 29 * 2 = 15% of 58). Again, I would suspect that, if anything, more **** couples have similar income levels-- this is just a hunch, though.
Additionally, filing jointly has another hidden catch-- the standard deduction doesn't scale. Note, Congress recently passed the Marriage Relief Act to try to alleviate part of this imbalance:
(Explained by the fine folks at <a href='http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,1674,P3686,00.html' target='_blank'>Met Life</a>)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->JGTRRA raises the standard deduction for joint filers, making it twice that of single filers in 2003 and 2004. For 2003, the standard deduction for joint filers is $9,500. When this provision expires in 2005, the differential between the deduction amounts for single and joint filers will decrease, and the standard deduction for joint filers will drop from 200% to 174% of the deduction for single filers. From 2005 through 2008, the standard deduction for joint filers inches higher until again reaching 200% of the deduction for single filers in 2009 as stipulated by EGTRRA<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But even with this act, a couple filing jointly would receive much less of a deduction over time than their live-in counterparts.
Besides, many of the other tax credits for married couples are actually for married <i>families</i>, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, a deduction based on number of dependents, which even has the potential to reduce your FICA taxes. I think the number of homosexual couples receiving these benefits would be <i>slightly</i> minimal. Their route to parenthood is a bit more problematic than a heterosexual couple.
And, FYI, dogs don't pay taxes. They also have no social security number, so it would be physically impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Alas, that couple wouldn't receive <i>any</i> tax breaks.
Your concept of marriage seems to be built strictly along a procreational model-- so should the barren or sterile be allowed to marry? Should a vasectomy or hysterectomy automatically annul an outstanding marriage? Should the marriage contract include a promise to be fruitful and multiply?
I meant that allowing bestiality, which is a logical consequence of allowing homosexuality, would create such a situation. And a man-dog income disparity would definitely be more than a man-wife income disparity.
And, for your information - according to international human rights treaties, the wife/spouse recieves FULL LEGAL STATUS with regards to property rights on par with the husband. That can be extended to income too.
Your statements ring pretty close to the KKK's 'monkey' or 'ape' comments about blacks, and how a black man and a white woman is bestiality.
I meant that allowing bestiality, which is a logical consequence of allowing homosexuality, would create such a situation. And a man-dog income disparity would definitely be more than a man-wife income disparity.
And, for your information - according to international human rights treaties, the wife/spouse recieves FULL LEGAL STATUS with regards to property rights on par with the husband. That can be extended to income too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The three quotes I listed weren't all in reference to beastiality. You were making it sound as if marriage is some grand tax shelter. Not necessarily. Also, you did see this, right?:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, FYI, dogs don't pay taxes. They also have no social security number, so it would be physically impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Alas, that couple wouldn't receive any tax breaks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So it's <i>logically</i> and <i>physically</i> impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Which, I believe, invalidates that portion of the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the wife/spouse recieves FULL LEGAL STATUS with regards to property rights on par with the husband. That can be extended to income too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, they own things jointly. All part of making a commitment to one another. What's the big deal?
Your statements ring pretty close to the KKK's 'monkey' or 'ape' comments about blacks, and how a black man and a white woman is bestiality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Talesin, refer to the forum rules and read the thread before you misinterpret my posts. And even if I did liken bestiality to homosexuality, are you going to prove to be prejudiced? Are you saying that I, as a lover of animals, should not be afforded the same sexual release as homosexuals and heterosexuals are? Please. Get off your defensive nature "omg he's against **** marriage he's a homophobe " and realize that at no point in time did I equate homosexuals with any animals or disrespect them in any way. And, according to some people, we're all animals anyway. Ban me if you dislike my logic, but if you look at this thread objectively you will see that at no time did I ever disrespect any member of the forums, nor post any hateful remarks, nor break forum rules in any form or fashion.
Thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So it's logically and physically impossible for a man and a dog to file jointly. Which, I believe, invalidates that portion of the argument.
Right, they own things jointly. All part of making a commitment to one another. What's the big deal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN..
quoted for clarity
What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent?
Either way, your logic still falls victim to slipery slope fallicy.
My guess is that Wheee will make up some nonsensical response that relies upon the barest of probabilites (as well as a total disruption of reality), but will nonetheless masterfully handcuff us with our own dastardly logic.
"I'll just teach my dog to say that he loves me. And then they'll <i>have</i> to marry us."
Drat, foiled again!
<a href='http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0412,goldstein,52050,1.html' target='_blank'>This</a> is kind of a comical sarcastic analysis of the 'man on dog' fear gripping the nation. Not too offensive, but not necessarily for the faint of heart, either.
Boy, is anyone watching me screw this link up repeatedly in realtime? It is definitely approaching bedtime . . .
What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent?
Either way, your logic still falls victim to slipery slope fallicy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it can hump my leg and wag its tail at me, that's good enough.
What's the big deal? If I were married to my dog, I'd definitely sue to make sure the tax code didn't discriminate against my wife. Which means I'd make sure she got a SSN.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent?
Either way, your logic still falls victim to slipery slope fallicy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it can hump my leg and wag its tail at me, that's good enough. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it isn't. That just indicates that it is horny. But what the hell, lets say it can consent. If that is the case, then I don't see a reson why they can't be married.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman.
Now let's assume that we relax the marriage laws to accomodate homosexual marriage on the basis that there are homosexual couples that love each other and desire to commit their lives to each other.
Let us say that all legal challenges to this have been nullified.
Now, let us examine what we have here.
Since I doubt religious testimony will be allowed in court cases here, we will have to rely on scientific expertise on this matter.
And what does scientific expertise have to say about humans? That they arose from other animals. Thus, we cannot define humans to be totally different than animals.
Secondly, we have that there are several quite intelligent animals, some (like dolphins) that display remarkably human traits and can understand speech on the level of a human child. We also have the fact that we do not limit rights to mentally handicapped people, unless it directly endangers them.
Thus we can rule out the "intelligence factor."
Thirdly, we have the fact that animals, especially of the domesticated variety, show affection, loyalty, etc etc to their masters. Thus we can rule out the "a relationship with an animal is meaningless" argument.
Lastly, we have that animals do not have rights like humans do. However, there are several groups campaigning for more animal rights. Maybe they're just oppressed, eh?
Voila. Human-animal marriage. And an income tax nightmare, because you can be guaranteed that everyone and their dog will marry for the benefits.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman.
Now let's assume that we relax the marriage laws to accomodate homosexual marriage on the basis that there are homosexual couples that love each other and desire to commit their lives to each other.
Let us say that all legal challenges to this have been nullified.
Now, let us examine what we have here.
Since I doubt religious testimony will be allowed in court cases here, we will have to rely on scientific expertise on this matter.
And what does scientific expertise have to say about humans? That they arose from other animals. Thus, we cannot define humans to be totally different than animals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aha, you're first mistake. We can and have, otherwise animal rights activist wouldn't have a cause.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Secondly, we have that there are several quite intelligent animals, some (like dolphins) that display remarkably human traits and can understand speech on the level of a human child. We also have the fact that we do not limit rights to mentally handicapped people, unless it directly endangers them.
Thus we can rule out the "intelligence factor."
Thirdly, we have the fact that animals, especially of the domesticated variety, show affection, loyalty, etc etc to their masters. Thus we can rule out the "a relationship with an animal is meaningless" argument.
Lastly, we have that animals do not have rights like humans do. However, there are several groups campaigning for more animal rights. Maybe they're just oppressed, eh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Possibly, but if we go that route then we will also have to make meat eating illegal, among many other things. See how rediculous this is becoming?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Voila. Human-animal marriage. And an income tax nightmare, because you can be guaranteed that everyone and their dog will marry for the benefits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Voila. You make it sound so easy, maybe you should work for an animal rights group? If its that easy for you to get that kind of legislation passed then they could really use you.
And by won't happen I mean, will happen eventually. When we get around to admitting that humans don't have the monopoly on happiness. Our pets deserve it too, dammit.