<p>After reading through this thread, I just wanted to re-post an excellent comment by an earlier poster: an article from the treaty of Tripoli, which clearly states that our nation was not founded on Christian principles.
</p>
<p>Just as a reminder, our country was founded by * deists *, not Christians. We are not a Christian nation, and as such, our laws are not based on the teachings of Christian morality. Just because something offends your religious beliefs does not mean it should be banned. </p>
<p>People may think it is immoral to allow gay people to get married, but saying that it should be illegal because your religion dictates it to be so is not a reason why it should not become law. According to my interpretation of the teachings of my religion, it is immoral to treat other people with hate. Deny someone the right to get married to the person that they love, and all of the benefits that come with being a married couple, and you are offending my interpretation of my own religion. If we should make laws based on religion, then why wouldn’t my opinion be just as valid as yours?</p>
<p>I find the general ignorance rather insulting. To all of you who argue that homosexuality is “natural”, only using the definition of the term that means “occurring in nature”. What doesn’t occur in nature? According to you, nothing is wrong as long as it occurs in nature, which is to say nothing is wrong at all! </p>
<p>I believe that homosexuality, amongst many other strange (there, happy?) occurrences, is simply a mutation prominent in the mental expression of reproductive results. Many mutations exist, yet can we not argue that these mutations tend not to survive long in the face of the overwhelmingly adept majority? Homosexuality, compared to, say, sickle cell anemia, at least in my opinion, is the accidental result of a trait that is designed to bear a beneficial role in life, that is to say sexuality at all, and like sickle cell anemia, homosexuality is only found in a tiny amount of cases proportionate to the overall population, an accidental expression that is simply unavoidable due to the fact that the one sacrifice out of four represents a better result for the other three. </p>
<p>Yes, maybe. But not giving tax breaks to married couples puts a big strain on families with children–they’re being taxed the same as the the single people who only have to take care of themselves. Are you okay with this?</p>
<p>Well, if one partner is not making any money, then why would they file taxes in the first place?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I disagree with. You’re not funding gay marriage. Simply because people are filing taxes jointly does not mean that you are paying for them to get married - it’s quite simple, really.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This needs further explanation, because as it is, it doesn’t make any sense and is lacking proof.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your logic runs thus:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If gay marriage is legalized, then the couples will file jointly.</p></li>
<li><p>If the couple files jointly, there will be less revenue. </p></li>
<li><p>If there is less revenue, we will go further into debt.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Conclusion: Because of the above, we should not allow gay marriage.</p>
<p>However, you have failed to do the following:</p>
<p>Show how much revenue will be lost by the fulfillment of (2). Show how you are funding the benefits of gay marriage by the actualization of (1).</p>
<p>Until you show how you are funding people’s marriages, I will not accept your argument. However, with regard to the decrease in federal revenue, I cautiously accept your reasoning as it applies to the present day.</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>Upon further thought, I do not know if I can fully accept your reasoning upon the latter point as I wrote above. Our population is expected to grow dramatically; while this will come with a commensurate rise in social services costs, there will be more tax revenue as well.</p>
<p>“South Africa allows gay marriage. Africa is more progressive than the United States…”</p>
<p>All of Africa is not like South Africa, which does have a far more progressive constitution than does the U.S. For instance, South Africa’s constitution guarantees rights for children. There are parts of Africa, though, where gays are heavily persecuted and can receive the death sentence simply due to their sexual orientation.</p>
<p>Countries allowing gay marriage are: South Africa, Sweden, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal.</p>
<p>First of, nobody knows what nature intended on humanity. Also if homosexuality is a genetic disorder as you claim above, then why all the hate. You don’t see people hating people with Down’s Syndrome. Another thing, taxes is not a big issue on allowing gay marriages. Please be more direct with you justifications.</p>
<p>"I believe that homosexuality, amongst many other strange (there, happy?) occurrences, is simply a mutation prominent in the mental expression of reproductive results. Many mutations exist, yet can we not argue that these mutations tend not to survive long in the face of the overwhelmingly adept majority? "</p>
<p>I found this on a blog:</p>
<p>“In searching for an evolutionary reason for the continued presence of adult homosexuality against fierce selective pressures, Nimmons ( 1994: p70 ) suggests that: ‘being gay might somehow foster the survival of one’s relatives, who in turn pass along part of one’s genetic heritage’. Thus homosexuals would be able to devote their time to the nurture and protection of their close relatives, an act which would further their genetic line without the necessary ‘disadvantages’ of parenthood. This theory has been expanded on by several anthropologists (Ruse, 1981; Denniston, 1980; Kirsch & Rodman, 1982…”</p>
<p>Thanks for pointing that out, Northstarmom. In fact, there have been instances of such open persecution, mostly fomented by extremist conservative groups.</p>
<p>First, stating exactly how much revenue is lost because gay couples could file jointly is not known to me. You would need stats on how many homosexuals planned to marry, how many of them had significantly different incomes, and what their tax brackets would become based on their new filing. </p>
<p>I’ve never seen such a study conducted. But that doesn’t make the outcome less real; it simply hasn’t been quantified yet. </p>
<p>But we agree that federal revenue decreases. Also, let’s assume the US doesn’t declare bankruptcy; if they do the markets will be very unpredictable. </p>
<p>So, to avoid bankruptcy, the US either needs to balance their budget or borrow to match their expenditures. </p>
<p>Expenditures, if anything, will increase due to gay marriage. (As I showed you in a previous article, gays that are federal employees are already receiving fringe benefits that is funded by federal expenditures. These benefits would increase further when all married gay employees would have the same benefits as married heterosexual couples). </p>
<p>Revenues, compared to data the CBO uses to forecast future budget deficits, will decline because the gay population will be paying less taxes. </p>
<p>Less Revenues + More expenditures = greater deficit. (I don’t mean to be condescending but you’re being difficult so I want to be clear).</p>
<p>A greater deficit must be funded by borrowing or balancing the budget. They both ultimately have the same ultimate outcome assuming bankruptcy is avoided, so lets focus on the simple situation, where the government decides to balance it’s budget:</p>
<p>In order to balance the budget, this deficit must be slashed. That means either reducing other expenditures (such as social welfare programs) or increasing taxes (which will allow them to balance the budget the following year). Taxes come from me. Social welfare programs go to others. Either I pay more, or other social programs are cut. So either we are funding gay marriage, or else other benefits the government currently offers are slashed.</p>
<p>The reality is, that we borrow to meet our budget deficit. These borrowings come with interest, and this interest reduces the available revenues to fund expenditures for future fiscal years. This literally compounds the problem–the cost of gay marriage today could be multiple times more a couple decades from now.</p>
<p>I must add: just because gays would pay less taxes isn’t a reason to prevent them from marriage. </p>
<p>BUT under the same lines, just because we have an impending budget crisis is not a reason to limit our social welfare programs. Nonetheless, we must eventually balance our budget or else face increasing interest expenses on federal debt. </p>
<p>Ultimately, that will lead to a loss of faith in the US federal reserve both among private investors and foreign countries, which means the US won’t even be able to borrow in order to balance its budget.</p>
<p>You can’t spend what you don’t have forever. So the question becomes: what matters most to you? </p>
<p>I care more about social welfare, and I also care about incentivizing companies for production/expansion which opens up new jobs–so I’m not willing to endlessly tax just to provide our generation with rights that will come at the expense of a future generation’s job prospects.</p>
<p>I am AGAINST gay marriage being legalized by US law, unless it’s presented as an amendment. This goes against the Constitution, which presented marriage as an exclusive right of the state, not by federal government.</p>
<p>wow. ban gay marriages because it wastes money? how about cutting the army? cutting down on campaign expenditures? not churning out stupid bills in congress? there are so many other things that are unnecessary wastes of money that don’t benefit any people.</p>
<p>^^^Do all of the above and you still haven’t solved our issues. The CBO predicts that if we plan well (i.e. do what you suggest), our Debt: GDP ratio still hits ~70% by 2035. That is the lower dotted line on the graph I linked to.</p>
<p>As you can see, NOT doing what you are suggesting is guaranteed bankruptcy. But doing what you suggest doesn’t free up cash flows for legalizing gay marriage.</p>
<p>that’s what ya get with huge social programs</p>
<p>@whoever said that South Africa is more progressive because they allow gay marriage… come back to me about that when South Africa ISN’T the rape capital of the world.</p>
<p>I must say I’m surprised by the amount of homophobes in this thread. For a website that attracts supposedly intelligent people there sure are a lot of ignorant bigots.</p>
<p>And if we legalize gay marriage, the budget prediction will become what? 70.01%? Gays are a minority; legalizing their marriage will have a minor impact on the budget and can be offset by cuts in other areas.</p>
<p>You need to start reading the CBO budget reports. The costs of social services (particularly medicare/aid) are rising at a far faster rate that expected future cash flows from tax revenue. As you could guess, this is because (even though the population is rising) the proportion of the population that is older than 65 is expected to increase dramatically over the next 20 years. Baby boomers.</p>
![http://rutledgecapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Federal-Debt-as-Share-of-GDP-CBO-projection-566x450.jpg[/url]](http://rutledgecapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Federal-Debt-as-Share-of-GDP-CBO-projection-566x450.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
