Gay marriage in TX???

[Saltyag2010]

I'm with young gun. Why does marriage and kids make you pay less tax anyway?
I'm not gay and I'm married already so this gay marriage legalization makes no difference to me. It's ok if they want equal rights - this is America. Let's just keep it equal rights and not try to go crazy like we did with affirmative action.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Gay sex is wrong (like any other sex outside of marriage). Period.

If gay marriage was recognized by the government it would have zero impact on me. It's still a mortal sin and its still wrong - I would continue to voice my opinion on that. If gay marriage remains unrecognized by the government it won't stop people from committing that sin.

Basically, this is a stupid thing to argue about. It's and a waste of time, energy and resources. It presupposes that the government is some sort of arbiter of morality. The thought that you are going to stop people who are gay from having sex with each other by disallowing a tax advantage is just ludicrous. People are trying to use some governmental status to fight a cultural war. Again, silly.

If someone wants to fight the cultural war they should explain what they see as the righteous path for people born with those feelings. They should explain the benefits of that path. Ultimately its up the person to choose, but I see this pro/anti gay marriage "struggle" as completely the wrong format for achieving each sides' goals.

 

[Younggun]

I see it as a distraction from bigger issues that are harder to tackle.......like the economy.

 

[London]

These pretzels are making me thirsty.

 

[Dash Riprock]

I see it as a distraction from bigger issues that are harder to tackle.......like the economy.

See, that's just what the left wants you to think.

First of all, they don't stop fighting these cultural battles just because there are "bigger issues". Why should we?

Second of all, most of this stuff is part of a larger movement whose ultimate goal is the destruction - or at least the undermining - of the family unit and religion in general, which allows government to more easily step in and assume the role of caretaker. That's why they push abortion, gay marriage, welfare entitlements, gun control, hostility toward religion in the public square, dependent classes, "soak the rich" tax policies, etc.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. The end game is socialism/communism, whether the mainstream left realizes it or not. Strong families, strong Judeo-Christian values, and the original intent of the Constitution are impediments to that. That's why they push their crap so hard, and that's why these battles need to be fought equally as hard on our side.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Gay sex is wrong (like any other sex outside of marriage). Period.

If gay marriage was recognized by the government it would have zero impact on me. It's still a mortal sin and its still wrong - I would continue to voice my opinion on that. If gay marriage remains unrecognized by the government it won't stop people from committing that sin.

Basically, this is a stupid thing to argue about. It's and a waste of time, energy and resources. It presupposes that the government is some sort of arbiter of morality. The thought that you are going to stop people who are gay from having sex with each other by disallowing a tax advantage is just ludicrous. People are trying to use some governmental status to fight a cultural war. Again, silly.

If someone wants to fight the cultural war they should explain what they see as the righteous path for people born with those feelings. They should explain the benefits of that path. Ultimately its up the person to choose, but I see this pro/anti gay marriage "struggle" as completely the wrong format for achieving each sides' goals.

I don't know that anybody thinks the government can or should stop gay sex. It's the elevation to gay "marriage" to official recognized status, or whatever you want to call it, that's the problem.

The people don't want this. With very few exceptions, they have rejected it every time it's put to a vote, even in horribly liberal bastions of lunacy. The courts once again twisted certain provisions of the Constitution that were never intended to apply to such things into a rationale for imposing a radical social agenda where it's not wanted. That is a recipe for disaster; we can't continue down this path without dire consequences to constitutional order.

There is no inherent government interest in encouraging a union that cannot produce children. None. If we're going to insist that there is, then heterosexual marriage becomes meaningless and we need to just stop recognizing and granting benefits for any of it.

 

[London]

There is no inherent government interest in encouraging a union that cannot produce children.

Why do people keep arguing that married gay couples somehow magically lose the ability to reproduce? They do it all the time.

 

[Mike1234567]

Why do people keep arguing that married gay couples somehow magically lose the ability to reproduce? They do it all the time.

Huh??

 

[Younggun]

See, that's just what the left wants you to think.

First of all, they don't stop fighting these cultural battles just because there are "bigger issues". Why should we?

Second of all, most of this stuff is part of a larger movement whose ultimate goal is the destruction - or at least the undermining - of the family unit and religion in general, which allows government to more easily step in and assume the role of caretaker. That's why they push abortion, gay marriage, welfare entitlements, gun control, hostility toward religion in the public square, dependent classes, "soak the rich" tax policies, etc.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. The end game is socialism/communism, whether the mainstream left realizes it or not. Strong families, strong Judeo-Christian values, and the original intent of the Constitution are impediments to that. That's why they push their crap so hard, and that's why these battles need to be fought equally as hard on our side.

Riiiiiiiggghhhht.

 

[itchin]

Change the language to civil unions for gays and straits. Gay "marriage" will still be illegal.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Riiiiiiiggghhhht.

It is right. Modern liberalism is rooted in Marxist-Leninist theory, which espouses atheism and the abolishing of religion, among other things. This is all part of a long-term process. After they get gay marriage, they will move on to something else - probably gun restrictions, since they've been gearing up for that lately. And we'll roll over and let them have it because it won't be as "big" of an issue as the national debt.

 

[Mike1234567]

Who really gives a shit about gay marriage anyway? BUT... heterosexual marriage encourages child-bearing which makes future WORKERS and TAXPAYERS. Homosexual unions CAN'T DO THAT!! WE TAXPAYERS offer incentives to MAKE MORE BABIES... FUTURE WORKERS/TAXPAYERS. IF "WE, THE PEOPLE" are to offer identical tax breaks (create a level "playing field") for gay/lesbian couples then let's DUMP "ALL" TAX INCENTIVES BECAUSE THOSE NO LONGER HAVE ANY MEANING... NO FISCAL ADVANTAGE TO TAXPAYERS... not to ANYONE!!

 

[TheDan]

Advocating for the tax farm is just gross...

 

[Dash Riprock]

Why do people keep arguing that married gay couples somehow magically lose the ability to reproduce? They do it all the time.

Single people reproduce all the time as well. Why don't they get to pay married tax rates?

 

[Younggun]

Who really gives a shit about gay marriage anyway? BUT... heterosexual marriage encourages child-bearing which makes future WORKERS and TAXPAYERS. Homosexual unions CAN'T DO THAT!! WE TAXPAYERS offer incentives to MAKE MORE BABIES... FUTURE WORKERS/TAXPAYERS. IF "WE, THE PEOPLE" are to offer identical tax breaks (create a level "playing field") for gay/lesbian couples then let's DUMP "ALL" TAX INCENTIVES BECAUSE THOSE NO LONGER HAVE ANY MEANING... NO FISCAL ADVANTAGE TO TAXPAYERS... not to ANYONE!!

Putting it in bold does not validate a silly proposition. It's obvious that people do not need a tax incentive to reproduce and I've yet to meet anyone who chose to get married for a "tax break". Yet I've know. Several couples who were in relationships and raised hard working children while never getting married.

The "raising future taxpayers" line just doesn't hold water, not even if you put it in all caps, increase the font, and make it bold print.

 

[Mike1234567]

I agree the all caps thing is silly. I was drinking and ticked off. IMO, we should just cease all tax breaks for marriage and kids. Of course, families across the US will be screaming and stamping their little feet in outrage and sending emails to their congressmen in ALL CAPS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!

 

[London]

Single people reproduce all the time as well. Why don't they get to pay married tax rates?

That's not really what I was critiquing, but since you asked- maybe all parents should get the tax break? Maybe no one should? Hell, I don't know. It's the IRS. Expecting them to do anything that makes sense is foolish, and I'm immediately suspicious of anyone defending their policies.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I don't know that anybody thinks the government can or should stop gay sex. It's the elevation to gay "marriage" to official recognized status, or whatever you want to call it, that's the problem.

The people don't want this. With very few exceptions, they have rejected it every time it's put to a vote, even in horribly liberal bastions of lunacy. The courts once again twisted certain provisions of the Constitution that were never intended to apply to such things into a rationale for imposing a radical social agenda where it's not wanted. That is a recipe for disaster; we can't continue down this path without dire consequences to constitutional order.

There is no inherent government interest in encouraging a union that cannot produce children. None. If we're going to insist that there is, then heterosexual marriage becomes meaningless and we need to just stop recognizing and granting benefits for any of it.

I guess I don't see the government recognizing my marriage as any kind of official status whatsoever.

The church did that. The government just charged me a fee and gave me a piece of paper. My marital status wouldn't revert back to single just because the government took that paper back. The morality of my union wouldn't change in Gods eyes.