<p>^ Give me a break, when you make it that easy for anyone to get married, the problems will multiple.</p>
<p>Think about the huge illegal immigration loophole it will open up. </p>
<p>It’s not just a simple tax benefit, it’s decades of SSI and pensions, healthcare, citizenship, ect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying that you should. I’m saying that the actual discussion of premises relies on the fact that they have been brought out. In this case, they have not. They have been guessed, which is both common and ineffective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the morality of gay marriage isn’t even worth discussing in the context of US policy – it is strictly a constitutional issue. I am saying that it is not worth discussing that with me unless it is purely instructive, as I am not a constitutional scholar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I generally agree with the idea of infertile couples not getting married. So, you are preaching to the choir here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never claimed it was a weakening of anything – why you associate with me statements that I have never made is beyond me. The point is that unless the premises are conclusively determined, then discussing the particular issue (unless in the context of the legal system itself) is inevitably, and therefore necessarily, unproductive. Convincing me that abortion is wrong is harder if I don’t accept that the baby is human, that it is not the woman’s body, etc.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be best if we removed recognition of marriage from the state level and put that recognition back where it belongs - in the churches? Marriage is a religious institution, after all.</p>
<p>^ No. I love my wife and I appreciate the vows we took, they are special and mean alot. Lot’s of couples don’t respect marriage, which is obvious, but for the ones who do the significance of marriage means a great deal.</p>
<p>^You can still be married under a religious institution. You just won’t get any marriage benefits from the government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you accept the idea that murdering an innocent human life is more humane than allowing that person to live? So long as you admit it. I’m sick of leftists ■■■■■-footing around and not saying what they truly believe. Like that guy in Congress who admitted on video that he simply didn’t care what the Constitution said, he was going to vote for a bill because he wanted the bill to pass. I want to see more of that type of honesty from the left.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BigEastBeast,</p>
<p>That answer to my question isn’t to my liking. I think you need a strong answer to support your point. Is using marriage fraudulently currently a big problem with heterosexual marriages? </p>
<p>My opinion: There isn’t much of a reason to say that homosexual marriages are more condusive to this than heterosexual marriages–a man and a woman who are friends or merely acquaintances could marry each other and reap the financial benefits of marriage. I’d think that it would have to be a big problem in heterosexual marriages if it were a big problem should there be homosexual marriages.</p>
<p>Also, since you seem to be really concerned with people abusing marriage, I’d expect you to be for increased regulation of marriage licenses for heterosexuals too (however this could be done). That is if you are truly opposed to gay marriage by this principle, instead of being opposed to gay marriage and then after the fact concocting these principles.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with adoption, I know lots of people who were adopted and live great lives.</p>
<p>FatAnorexic, a review of history will show you that the right to vote does not mean that a person’s rights will be upheld. Matter of fact, it is often through the workings of democracy that peoples’ rights are taken away. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, The New Deal and other social democracy programs chipping away at our economic freedoms, etc.</p>
<p>Voting also does not ensure that politicians will even do what a majority of the country wants. We’re taught in school how the government works, but this view does not reflect reality. In reality, powerful special interests both at the local and national levels have far more sway than all but the most committed and organized blocs of voters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for demonstrating how useless the labels “liberal” and “conservative” are. Just forty years ago, Milton Friedman would have been called a liberal, now the word “liberal” has lost so much of its meaning that they had to invent a new word: libertarian. I’d love to debate the merits of the various programs you mentioned, but this thread has ballooned enough.</p>
<p>Voting doesn’t matter much, the ACLU will just ruin any part of America it can through the judicial system.</p>
<p>Public Enemy No. 1</p>
<p>There are far too many people in this thread locked into the false dichotomy of Democrat/Republican and conservative/liberals. These terms don’t have NEARLY the meaning you think they might. Neither represents a unified, consistent ideology. You should all be debating issues and ideas, and instead a lot of your are debating people.</p>
<p>You guys are all amateurs when it comes to these debates.</p>
<p>The abortion debate can’t be solved because the crux of the issue is when “life” or the mystic “soul” begins. First, no one supports late-stage abortions.</p>
<p>But if you think it begins at conception, then thousands of lives are destroyed each year because embryos simply detach from the uterine wall and get flushed out with a period all the time. Some simply get absorbed by the woman’s body. Why not meticulously collect that period blood and try to reinsert the embryo? Right, because no one really cares about a cell.</p>
<p>What if the pregnancy will kill the women? What about the bacteria in your stomach you are killing… ah who cares.</p>
<p>Gay marriage - give it a rest people. They want a simple marriage so they can meager tax benefits and hospital visitation - plus the principle.</p>
<p>Two fallacies in your arguments.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>naturalistic fallacy - because it is natural it is right. So is rape and murder.
1a. homosexuality actually is an evolutionary adaptation - that’s why it exists millions of years after apes first formed. it could lead to more resources for smaller families (one child is gay) — also, the gay individual could aid the raising of nieces and nephews (resource focusing).</p></li>
<li><p>“slippery slope” argument - overused and logic fallacy. “You marry gays, the next thing you know, they will be marrying cats and dogs!!” This argument can be used against gun ownership. “First, you give them guns, next thing you know, they will be driving tanks and using nuclear missiles in the street!” Your retardation is staggering. It doesn’t hurt anyone, and it relies on precedent - two people marrying (to avoid tax and visitation schemes) and EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL (14th amendment). What’s next, black and white people marrying?! Crazy I know, you hick.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Take a look at this info-graphic detailing reasons against gay marriage: [MADATOMS</a> - WHAT YOUR OPPOSITION TO GAY MARRIAGE MEANS by Rick Paulas - Artist: Josh House](<a href=“http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/what-your-opposition-to-gay-marriage-really-means]MADATOMS”>http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/what-your-opposition-to-gay-marriage-really-means)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean like, oh, HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE DO?</p>
<p>Give me a break people. Your idiotic parents voted for George W. Bush, the worst president in US history two times running, who ran this country into the ground so hard that Obama could send a nuke to the US treasury and STILL not suck as hard. You reap what you sow, buddy.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, Obama CUT TAXES for any individual making less than 100k a year. This includes most of you and your parents. No taxes were increased even one red cent for any family making $250,000 a year or less. This includes a lot of the rest of you. If you make over $250k a year, we feel real bad for you. Times must be tough.</p>
<p>It’s fair because 1. less income means higher percent-of-ur-income sales tax on everything. 2. if you look at discretionary income after food, housing, water, and basic necessities, the poor/ middle class have about 5-20% of their income left, while the rich have about 80-90% left. If anything, they are not taxed enough.</p>
<p>So here’s my proposition: Instead of the state handing out marriage licenses, have them hand out civil union licenses. These civil union licenses confirm the participants to be a family. All peoples in a civil union receive the tax benefits that current married couples receive now. Then, if the participants wish, they can run from the government office to the church to get married. Under this system, marriage is optional and entirely in the hands of the church where it belongs. Religious people are happy because homosexuals don’t get to call themselves “married” and homosexuals are happy because they receive tax benefits like all the other civil unions.</p>
<p>Some will argue that it is the term “married” that homosexuals really want. But with my system in place, a strong distinction is made between “union” and “marriage.” “Marriage” becomes a term only desirable to the religious.</p>
<p>But there are more benefits to abolishing state recognized marriage.</p>
<p>Relationships will no longer have to end through court proceedings. Matters of dissolution of property and child support can be handled as matters of contract law at the outset of relationships rather than by state coercion. Moreover, with alimony and gold digging then completely out of the picture, it forces women to stand on their own two feet and make their own way rather than hoping to ride a man’s success to their desired lifestyle.</p>
<p>We’re in the 21st century now, people. Time to get rid of this anachronistic institution and put relationships in the hands of the people involved and kick the state out of it.</p>
<h2>Your idiotic parents voted for George W. Bush, ~ Peter_parker</h2>
<p>^ So now you are going to insult members parents?</p>
<p>Oh well, enjoy the message board. I know pond-scum like you would never have the balls to say that to me in real life, so it can be brushed off. Most likely you are a small, feeble person and a coward.</p>
<p>There are SOME issues I will forever be liberal on (i.e. gay marriage and abortion). But there are some issues in which I have swing from the left to the right. After I got my first job and started paying taxes, I started to become bitter about the leeches in the welfare system. Why is it that what little money I make is being given to those who don’t want to help themselves?</p>
<p>I also used to be liberal about illegal immigration…come to find out, they are getting some of my hard earned tax money too. That **** needs to stop.</p>
<p>I have found myself to be conservative on issues that will affect me. Like illegal immigration and the welfare system. But issues like abortion and gay marriage do not affect me at all, so it isn’t a big concern to m.</p>
<h2>Time to get rid of this anachronistic institution and put relationships in the hands of the people involved and kick the state out of it. ~ JamesGold</h2>
<p>I’m agreed with your post, and I have said multiple times I’m in favor of civil unions.</p>
<p>However, in regards to the quoted comment, I disagree slightly. Remember, if a person wants a state benefit, the state should absolutely have a say in who receives that benefit. Especially if the majority of their constituents are in opposition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? I’m not sure what you are getting at.</p>
<p>I’m tired of public policy being in the hands of Santa Claus. Shouldn’t it be based on logic and reason and what works and what is fair, rather than what Emperor Xenu wants?</p>
<p>Riddle me this you God-fearers–</p>
<p>Why is it—</p>
<p>No really, why is it—</p>
<p>That the most intelligent people in human history are all atheists?</p>
<p>Einstein, Mark Twain, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Edison, all of the founding fathers - I can’t think of more intelligent people right now.</p>
<p>Someone come up with ONE famous intelligent Christian. I beg of thee. I mean someone SUPER SMART.</p>
<p>Did they all delude themselves, while you, mere infant, figured it all out?</p>
<p>Honestly…</p>
<p>Atheism increases every year, and it because rattling sticks around like a witch doctor spinning fairy tales is looking increasingly ridiculous, despite one’s desperate need to feel a greater purpose and that the universe is just and ‘taken care of’ and we can all relax and rest easy. Some people don’t want to be unplugged for the matrix. understandable, i guess</p>
<p>Tell me, Big. </p>
<p>I am engaged. No really, I am. </p>
<p>Does the fact that it’s a man or woman matter?</p>
<p>I can’t have kids. So that’s not an issue. My partner and I have been together for 4.5 years, which is longer than many marriages last at this point. </p>
<p>If you say that that really matters- what genitalia my partner has- then that tells a lot more about you than us. Why does his/her genitalia matter, but not the color of his/her skin? Or does that matter to you as well?</p>
<p>ETA: </p>
<p>Also, those who were talking about ONLY workers being allowed to vote, does that mean that stay-at-home parents aren’t allowed to vote? That’s screwed up if you think that, sorry. One is just as much of a job as the other, except one doesn’t get paid in cold, hard cash.</p>