[Drunken_Ninja]

G.W. Says new laws are important to reinforce the 'norm'

The canadian earthquake is making waves over in the U.S.A. right now. So I am wondering if all of this is the real deal or not.

Plus i like posting as many useless polls as possible. So are canadians just off on the wrong track like GW Bush says or does this type of thing just take away from his authority or the american people?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

No one should be allowed to marry.
One kid, get one tax break.
Two kids, lose the tax break.
Three kids, pay more tax.
...

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
No one should be allowed to marry.
One kid, get one tax break.
Two kids, lose the tax break.
Three kids, pay more tax.
...

I have to have a license for my dog, why not kids. Actually you should have to get a license to have a kid.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Do we tag their ears, like cattle?

J

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Drunken_Ninja
G.W. Says new laws are important to reinforce the 'norm'

The canadian earthquake is making waves over in the U.S.A. right now. So I am wondering if all of this is the real deal or not.

Plus i like posting as many useless polls as possible. So are canadians just off on the wrong track like GW Bush says or does this type of thing just take away from his authority or the american people?

Congrats man! When's the wedding?

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
Do we tag their ears, like cattle?

J

Why not? A lot of kids like punching big holes in their ears already. We would just make 'em wear tags that say This vermin belongs to -------" along with a barcode to make tracking easier.

 

[Serial Midget]

This is the best hijack ever!

 

[Sideways]

I don't see why marriage should be so strictly defined as to not be inclusive of a legal bond between two members of the same sex.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Sideways
I don't see why marriage should be so strictly defined as to not be inclusive of a legal bond between two members of the same sex.

whoa! Are you sure you live in NC?

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by Sideways
I don't see why marriage should be so strictly defined as to not be inclusive of a legal bond between two members of the same sex.

I want to marry my bike and claim my helmet as a dependant.

 

[Tenchiro]

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by Westy
I want to marry my bike and claim my helmet as a dependant.

So a man and a women can adopt a kid and get a tax break, but a man and a man aren't allowed that same tax break?

That's ****ed up.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Sideways
So a man and a women can adopt a kid and get a tax break, but a man and a man aren't allowed that same tax break?

That's ****ed up.

Same sex couples can and have adopted children.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Same sex couples can and have adopted children.

Hell I could adopt and get a tax deduction without even giving up my swingin' bachelor lifestyle. It has nothing to do with marriage. As long as your are financially taking care of someone in your household. I think you can even claim your parents as dependents if you take care of them when they are old. I wonder if that is how Depends got their name.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by Westy
Hell I could adopt and get a tax deduction without even giving up my swingin' bachelor lifestyle. It has nothing to do with marriage. As long as your are financially taking care of someone in your household. I think you can even claim your parents as dependents if you take care of them when they are old. I wonder if that is how Depends got their name.

Oh.
We'll maybe I was uninformed on that topic.

Whatabout the combined income tax break that legally married couples get?
That's really the only reason I can see for marriage....and I don't see why it should be restricted to just male/female couples.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
So a man and a women can adopt a kid and get a tax break, but a man and a man aren't allowed that same tax break?

That's ****ed up.

What's F***ed up about it all, is that once given the right to marry, so many things will change in the US, that franky, its just not worth it in my eyes. Its not worth it to me, when fixing one problem means causing 10,000 others.
When pleasing such a small minority causes big problems for the majority, that's not working for the good of the country. If gay marriages were made legal, just think of the implications. Ive stated some of this before, but apparently it needs reiteration. If gay marriages were legal, we'd have to teach children in schools about the benefits of both lifestyles, or else school systems would end up getting sued. Playing "house" in kindergarten would get all screwed up. Sesame street would get sued for not having a kid with two dads on the show....and that's just the beginning. Just imagine how at every level, the GAY side of things would have to be represented as well. I just dont see it.

EDIT: What's good for Canada, is not always good for the US. We know there are fundamental differences between us. Just because something works there, doesnt mean the sue-happy americans wont completely twist it to work for their advantage instead of in the interests of the vast majority.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Sideways
Oh.
We'll maybe I was uninformed on that topic.

Whatabout the combined income tax break that legally married couples get?
That's really the only reason I can see for marriage....and I don't see why it should be restricted to just male/female couples.

Myth: Married people get a tax break. We pay more, unless Bush's new tax law has ended that practice.

Some people like to get married because they are in love.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
What's F***ed up about it all, is that once given the right to marry, so many things will change in the US, that franky, its just not worth it in my eyes. ....

EDIT: What's good for Canada, is not always good for the US. We know there are fundamental differences between us. Just because something works there, doesnt mean the sue-happy americans wont completely twist it to work for their advantage instead of in the interests of the vast majority.

So you suggest further propagating the social and legal implications of diversity by simply ignoring the subject?

Personally, I think marriage has its place in church but not in the legal books.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Some people like to get married because they are in love.

Or pregnant.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
So you suggest further propagating the social and legal implications of diversity by simply ignoring the subject?

Personally, I think marriage has its place in church but not in the legal books.

Its not ignoring the subject. Its giving 'NO' as an answer with good reason.

Personally, I think marriage and the traditional family are the backbone of the world in which we live. Even more so, in the US. Many of the problems we encounter today, i believe, are the result of the degradation of the whole 'family' system. I am not religious, but i believe the union of marriage is one we should protect....legally, and with all other means.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I am not religious, but i believe the union of marriage is one we should protect....legally, and with all other means.

Protect from what? A buch of gays playing house? That doesn't sound very dangerous to me... beside most marriages and families self destruct without any outside influence.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
What's F***ed up about it all, is that... [yadaya]... vast majority.

Dude:

I'm not gay and I'm not married. I have, however been living with the same woman for oh, more than three decades.

If she gets real sick or if I do so, hospitals could refuse to let one see the other, or contribute to medical decisions, yadaya. The same applies to gay couples. It affects inheritance, and a bunch of other legal issues. We don't suffer what gays do, which is to be beat up, arrested, or murdered because we're a couple. It did, way back make it hard to get a mortgage.

So let's not legalize gay marriage, let's just put all committed couples on the same legal footing.

And since when did they teach benefits of marriage in schools? Maybe since the "religious" right elbowed in?

J

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
...I think marriage and the traditional family are the backbone of the world in which we live...

Any facts or sociological data to support that belief?

J

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
If gay marriages were legal, we'd have to teach children in schools about the benefits of both lifestyles, or else school systems would end up getting sued.

You're the same dude that claims you don't see skin color as a point of differentiation. Well, maybe this move will allow us to stop seeing sexuality as a point of differentiation.

No one is going to FORCE anything to be represented in school or media, but media and school SHOULD be a reflection of society. If society has a few kids that have two mommies, then why shouldn't that kid have a few folks he can relate to on sesame street?

Two people are in love and choose to stay in a monogamous relationship with each other for the rest of their lives. Seems a lot more "traditional" than most of the bullsh!t hetero weddings that happen.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by ohio
then why shouldn't that kid have a few folks he can relate to on sesame street?

Bert and Ernie were way ahead of their time.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
So let's not legalize gay marriage, let's just put all committed couples on the same legal footing.

aren't you talking about common-law marriages? I know several states consider a man and woman as "married" if they live together for a long enough time.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

No, I'm not discussing common law marriage. Vermont doesn't have it.

I just think that if you satisfy some to be determined criteria for being a committed couple, you ought to be able to register that with minimal fuss and none of the religious trappings of marriage.

I don't think the sex of the individuals is significant - hell, there doesn't have to be a sexual relationship - a lot of people who have been married for a long time find out about that...

J

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Protect from what? A buch of gays playing house? That doesn't sound very dangerous to me... beside most marriages and families self destruct without any outside influence.

It simply needs to be protected as an institution under the law, regardless of what form it takes on...be it gay or not....simply because of its importance in our society. But thats not what the issue is. The issue is whether the gays should be allowed under this protection....and i say ''no"...for the reasons already posted, and some others which may or may not surface, depending on the flow of this argument.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters


So let's not legalize gay marriage, let's just put all committed couples on the same legal footing.

And since when did they teach benefits of marriage in schools? Maybe since the "religious" right elbowed in?

J

If paperwork will help avoid issues such as these, I say GREAT! But the institution of marriage is something different altogether. That IS the way i see it.

The "religious" didnt elbow their way into anything. These are the common values held by most americans (according to the latest poll). I agree with that 60 percent.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Its not ignoring the subject. Its giving 'NO' as an answer with good reason.

Personally, I think marriage and the traditional family are the backbone of the world in which we live. Even more so, in the US. Many of the problems we encounter today, i believe, are the result of the degradation of the whole 'family' system. I am not religious, but i believe the union of marriage is one we should protect....legally, and with all other means.

If family is so important, why would you oppose same sex marriages / families?

You're argument is totally bunk. Sorry.

 

[Serial Midget]

So equal protection under the law is not a right gay people should enjoy? I realize married couples like to think what they have is special, unique and worth protecting but from my perspective marriage isn't under any assault.

This reminds me of my neighbor who couldn't stop harping about parenthood - I heard it everyday until I just about puked. It's a real drag that marriage ain't what it used to be but hey - times change. Marriage does not need to be what what it used to be. There was a time when women didn't work and were considered to be the property of men.

Originally posted by BurlySurly
It simply needs to be protected as an institution under the law, regardless of what form it takes on...be it gay or not....simply because of its importance in our society. But thats not what the issue is. The issue is whether the gays should be allowed under this protection....and i say ''no"...for the reasons already posted, and some others which may or may not surface, depending on the flow of this argument.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
You're the same dude that claims you don't see skin color as a point of differentiation. Well, maybe this move will allow us to stop seeing sexuality as a point of differentiation.

No one is going to FORCE anything to be represented in school or media, but media and school SHOULD be a reflection of society. If society has a few kids that have two mommies, then why shouldn't that kid have a few folks he can relate to on sesame street?

Two people are in love and choose to stay in a monogamous relationship with each other for the rest of their lives. Seems a lot more "traditional" than most of the bullsh!t hetero weddings that happen.

Skin Color and sexuality are VERY different things. Homosexuality is only a perversion of the natural act of mating. To force it upon the masses as an accepted form of living is wrong in my mind...whether or not it is accepted, simply because the numbers dont warrant it.
Ohio, you're crazy if you dont think this will have to be represented equally across the board. We've all seen how it works, and for the most part, its benefited us as a society when it comes to cultures. But this is no beneficial culture.
If the society has a "FEW" kids with two mommies, then thats the way it is, but the way of the "FEW" should not be forced upon the many, and thats what i propose will happen.

What we're seeing here arent the outcries of a huge portion of the country for equal rights in the gay community, but rather a few very loud voices with something to prove. I, for one, do not concur.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
If family is so important, why would you oppose same sex marriages / families?

You're argument is totally bunk. Sorry.

Becuase, in my mind, this would undermine the entire concept of family.....in the traditional sense. Which is what upon our nation thrived and still depends.

I dont care if you think my argument is good or not, im simply voicing the opinions of more than half of the people in the country.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Becuase, in my mind, this would undermine the entire concept of family.....in the traditional sense. Which is what upon our nation thrived and still depends.

I dont care if you think my argument is good or not, im simply voicing the opinions of more than half of the people in the country.

Firstly, who's to say that more than half the people in the country have given this topic any actual thought?
The concept of family is not at stake here, only freedom which is what I've always understood is what this nation truly depends upon.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Skin Color and sexuality are VERY different things.

You're right, and I shouldn't have equated the two... but while I'm already at it ...

Minorities were grossly underrepresented in the media and in school curriculums. having programming and textbooks that they can relate to WAS forced through beauracracy, but it was hardly forced on people. Folks accepted it because they could look at it and it was a reflection of the world around them.

No one is demanding or ever will demand that HALF of the examples used in textbooks are gay-couple oriented... just that it's recognized (which is different than singled out). So every once in awhile the example will contain a gay couple... just like real life.

 

[rbx]

The thing that bother me abit is when a gay couple decides to adopt does having two fathers or mothers screws up the kid while growing up?if not then i would rather see a kid get a home then staying in a orphanage,but if it does i think we should give this gay marriage more thought .
I would be interested into seeing a sociological study on children that were raised by same sex marriages.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LordOpie
whoa! Are you sure you live in NC?

Asheville, NC : Highest number of lesbians per capita in the country.
(They're great, btw: all the sex, none of the clinginess)

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by rbx
The thing that bother me abit is when a gay couple decides to adopt does having two fathers or mothers screws up the kid while growing up?if not then i would rather see a kid get a home then staying in a orphanage,but if it does i think we should give this gay marriage more thought .
I would be interested into seeing a sociological study on children that were raised by same sex marriages.

One of my best freinds was raised by a lesbian couple.
There is no indication that he had an alternative upbringing unless he offered the information.

Plain and simple: Gay couples are every bit as capable of raising socially functional kids as are non-gay couples (who really don't have such a great track record if you think about it).

 

[DHiDave]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Skin Color and sexuality are VERY different things. Homosexuality is only a perversion of the natural act of mating. (snip)

Did you know that there are species of animals on this very planet living in nature that have homosexual relationships? There are also species of animals that are asexual. Would you consider that unnatural?

How an you can that it is not a natural act? You say natural act of mating.....which means that everytime you have sex you're trying to conceive and not just doing it for the pleasure?

You seem to have a very narrow view of sex and relationships.

Dave

 

[laura]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Skin Color and sexuality are VERY different things.

i beg to differ. they are two arbitrary ways of classifying people based on a societal contex.