Pro-Christian Legislation vs. Anti-Christian Legislation

[Evangelical]

Two persons make $50k a year, individually $100k is taxed per year.

A married couple makes $100k per year jointly, only $90k is taxed, due to deductions.

It's not necessarily those figures, but you get the idea. You obviously don't have a very complex understanding of how government works. I suggest you just not vote next time around.

Referring to Mormons, Gay marriage would complicate the legal issues and give out too many benefits so that's a good enough secular reason not to allow it.

No, it would also cut their federal retirement (Social Security) to make up for it, so no, we don't pay for that. However we could just take that benefit out completely to make it fair if that's your only legal reasoning, which would make a lot of single tax payers really happy. You seem incapable of considering the other side so I will just leave it at that.

The government doesn't balance this, it SUBSIDIZES marriages, with YOUR money, if you're too much a tard to know this then stop voting.

 

[KittenKoder]

Two persons make $50k a year, individually $100k is taxed per year.

A married couple makes $100k per year jointly, only $90k is taxed, due to deductions.

It's not necessarily those figures, but you get the idea. You obviously don't have a very complex understanding of how government works. I suggest you just not vote next time around.

Referring to Mormons, Gay marriage would complicate the legal issues and give out too many benefits so that's a good enough secular reason not to allow it.

No, it would also cut their federal retirement (Social Security) to make up for it, so no, we don't pay for that. However we could just take that benefit out completely to make it fair if that's your only legal reasoning, which would make a lot of single tax payers really happy. You seem incapable of considering the other side so I will just leave it at that.

The government doesn't balance this, it SUBSIDIZES marriages, with YOUR money, if you're too much a tard to know this then stop voting.

No, you just gave me a reason to push and vote for all marriages being dissolved and the entire institute ended, thank you.

 

[Fregretu]

No, it would also cut their federal retirement (Social Security) to make up for it, so no, we don't pay for that. However we could just take that benefit out completely to make it fair if that's your only legal reasoning, which would make a lot of single tax payers really happy. You seem incapable of considering the other side so I will just leave it at that.

The government doesn't balance this, it SUBSIDIZES marriages, with YOUR money, if you're too much a tard to know this then stop voting.

Evan, If you are going to use an angelical userid, then please try a little harder to represent the image you are trying to portray. Kitten is not a retard.

 

[AllieBaba]

But she's a big girl and is perfectly capable of fighting her own battles.

 

[tigerbob]

Pro-Christian vs Anti-Christian, and never the twain shall meet.....

When I get in a funk I just think of the churches I'd like to burn. Snaps me right out of it.

What they don't get is Americans actually engage each other, and find shit out. And when they learn that Obama has been repeating lies 24/7 they will just want him murdered.

Will we even have an election next round? Or will we just basically hang the guy?

 

[Evangelical]

No, it would also cut their federal retirement (Social Security) to make up for it, so no, we don't pay for that. However we could just take that benefit out completely to make it fair if that's your only legal reasoning, which would make a lot of single tax payers really happy. You seem incapable of considering the other side so I will just leave it at that.

The government doesn't balance this, it SUBSIDIZES marriages, with YOUR money, if you're too much a tard to know this then stop voting.

Evan, If you are going to use an angelical userid, then please try a little harder to represent the image you are trying to portray. Kitten is not a retard.

I beg to differ. Her points are as salient as a child's...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The government doesn't balance this, it SUBSIDIZES marriages, with YOUR money, if you're too much a tard to know this then stop voting.

Evan, If you are going to use an angelical userid, then please try a little harder to represent the image you are trying to portray. Kitten is not a retard.

I beg to differ. Her points are as salient as a child's...

So you're saying children are retarded?!

Why, I'm outraged! What would Sarah Palin have to say about that one! What kind of Christian are you?! I thought Christians cared about children. I thought Christianity was all about the family! Now I find out that Christians really believe that children are retarded- wait! It all makes sense now: Christians are grown-up retarded children. That's why Christians believe children need two parents, cause they grew up as special needs children who require more supervision and indoctrination than normal children. Aha! Epiphany!

 

[AllieBaba]

Isn't bigotry beautiful?

 

[KittenKoder]

The government doesn't balance this, it SUBSIDIZES marriages, with YOUR money, if you're too much a tard to know this then stop voting.

Evan, If you are going to use an angelical userid, then please try a little harder to represent the image you are trying to portray. Kitten is not a retard.

I beg to differ. Her points are as salient as a child's...

My points are logical, if it's true that us who do not agree with marriage being a legal institute are paying for it, then it should be dissolved and not be influenced nor should it influence the laws in any way. If not, then your entire position on why gay marriage should not be allowed is wrong. Reasoning and logic are cold, hard, and hurt when your position is based only on opinions and feelings. I want separation of church and state, and you should to, but this also means marriage is subject to the laws and thus a legal institute and only the votes of the majority can change it, no religious appeals could nor should be made so long as it is a legal institute. I am also sure that if we wanted, there would be a successful movement of us "single for life by choice" people who would get it completely dissolved if your point was right. Luckily it's not accurate unless you ignore the drawbacks married couples face from Social Security retirement and disability. I just pointed out how you really are not making a good case.

 

[AllieBaba]

The whole gay marriage thing has me stymied.

Honestly, I don't think the state should have anything to do with who does and who doesn't get married. But the state is involved, for record (and taxation) purposes.

On the other hand, I really resent the redefinition of the core of our civilization..the traditional family. I honestly don't care if gays get the same tax breaks as traditional couples, I don't care if they get married. But I think they should call it by a different name. And I DON'T want it presented to my children as an acceptable lifestyle.....if that means we don't get to discuss traditional marriage in school either, I think I'm okay with that. Does it get discussed anymore, anyway???

 

[KittenKoder]

The whole gay marriage thing has me stymied.

Honestly, I don't think the state should have anything to do with who does and who doesn't get married. But the state is involved, for record (and taxation) purposes.

On the other hand, I really resent the redefinition of the core of our civilization..the traditional family. I honestly don't care if gays get the same tax breaks as traditional couples, I don't care if they get married. But I think they should call it by a different name. And I DON'T want it presented to my children as an acceptable lifestyle.....if that means we don't get to discuss traditional marriage in school either, I think I'm okay with that. Does it get discussed anymore, anyway???

I have only one problem with the "call it something else" idea, which is why I always propose they separate the religious aspect from the legal aspect completely, because in the laws it makes it unequal, and one thing I want (though it may not seem like it) is complete equality for all who obey the law. So if the law said everyone was in a civil union, then let the churches or what-not call it marriage if they want (or hand-fasting, or whatever) as long as the laws themselves call it all the same name, it's all good.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why should it be considered the same thing? It's not the same?

 

[KittenKoder]

Why should it be considered the same thing? It's not the same?

Perhaps religiously, but by the laws it should be, whether it isn't or not. That was my point. The only reason it's not the same thing is because the laws are unbalanced as they are on the matter, they were written when people didn't consider the possibility of this issue coming up. Much like the original laws all referred to "men" and were constantly claimed to no apply to women just because they were not written with a term like "human" or "humankind". They did not see that it would be an issue and therefore they were written unbalanced through no fault of their own. Now many have been clarified to include term like "people", "humankind", etc. or there are laws that clarify those others by stating that "mankind" includes everyone.

 

[AllieBaba]

Nope. It requires a change of the definition of marriage. We didn't change the definition of "man" we just included "women".

 

[KittenKoder]

Nope. It requires a change of the definition of marriage. We didn't change the definition of "man" we just included "women".

Actually, if you want the true definition of the word "marriage" then you really wouldn't get what you want at all. The word itself is applicable to many architectural and scientific processes and techniques, so if you define it by the word itself then you are actually destroying the meaning completely. I'm all for that to, the true definition would not be based on gender at all, but only compatibility.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, the defintion of marriage is a man and a woman when you apply it socially to humans.

Changing the definition of it is akin to declaring "Only men have rights, and we must all have rights, so now all women are men."

It doesn't wash.

 

[KittenKoder]

No, the defintion of marriage is a man and a woman when you apply it socially to humans.

Changing the definition of it is akin to declaring "Only men have rights, and we must all have rights, so now all women are men."

It doesn't wash.

We'll just have to admit to not seeing eye-to-eye on this.

 

[Evangelical]

No, the defintion of marriage is a man and a woman when you apply it socially to humans.

Changing the definition of it is akin to declaring "Only men have rights, and we must all have rights, so now all women are men."

It doesn't wash.

Thank you for pointing out this truth.

Homosexuals are not discriminated against because they have every right as individuals of any other individual heterosexual or not. They can vote, they can work, they can live and be protected by the US Constitution, etc. etc.

Marriage is not individual but group rights, belonging to a specific definition that by its nature excludes homosexuals. Too bad.

 

[tigerbob]

Nope. It requires a change of the definition of marriage. We didn't change the definition of "man" we just included "women".

Can't we include "gay"?

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no exclusion, as there's no "heterosexual" mentioned in the first place.