I'm a little confused... why are you against civil unions overall? Civil unions keep religion out of the equation, which is a good thing.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm against civil unions.
Having said that, if anyone gets civil unions/marriage/de facto status then everyone should get it (obviously excepting people trying to marry a 10 year old, or other crazy stuff like that).
Because the only effect of a civil union is to give the named people special exceptions (specifically to tax). I don't think that's fair.
So, you're saying that marriages and civil unions should impart no tax benefits? Hmm... I like that idea, but I doubt it would ever pass here. It's like how we give tax exemption to religious institutions. It's not really fair, but the majority supports it.
Oh, I'm not saying it would ever work. And I'd go further: as I understand it there are other legal implications to marriage, yes?
Well, to be fair, I have a lot less of an issue creating incentives for people to get married and stay married. Our divorce rate is through the roof, and far too many single parent households are out there. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with getting divorced or raising kids as a single parent, but I'd like to foster an environment where these things happen less. Some of that involves economic incentives.
So.........I have to pay to create the community you want?
You do that with social programs too. It's part of being in a society. Everyone has their limits to what they are willing to pay for, but I guess I'm more socialist than you might be.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So.........I have to pay to create the community you want?
No, I'm pretty far to the socialist/communist side of the scale. Having said that, I believe in giving money to those that need it, not those already lucky enough to be living in a two income household.
Fair enough, but I guess my motivation for giving aid is more multifaceted. For example, we have government student loans for students that need the money, but most of them still are middle class and living in households with 2 incomes.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, I'm pretty far to the socialist/communist side of the scale. Having said that, I believe in giving money to those that need it, not those already lucky enough to be living in a two income household.
I don't see a problem with giving tax breaks to married couples anymore than I see one with giving tax credits out for the first 2 or 3 kids a family has. Of course, giving credits out for more than 3 is probably sending the wrong message.
The difference is that when two people who are working move in, their income is increased. A student, by contrast, quite possible can't work, and giving aid to them lessens the burden of being a student.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but I guess my motivation for giving aid is more multifaceted. For example, we have government student loans for students that need the money, but most of them still are middle class and living in households with 2 incomes.
The difference is children are a burden (economically speaking), whereas combining incomes lessens cost.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see a problem with giving tax breaks to married couples anymore than I see one with giving tax credits out for the first 2 or 3 kids a family has. Of course, giving credits out for more than 3 is probably sending the wrong message.
Further, I don't see why people should necessarily get tax breaks for children.
Having children is necessary for the survival of the human race. It is something of a burden, so giving some form of support to parents of said children makes sense if you value the survival of the human race.
Gay couples might not be able to have children themselves but they could, with less bigotted legislation, adopt children which won't receive good care elsewhere.
Gay couples might not be able to have children themselves but they could, with less bigotted legislation, adopt children which won't receive good care elsewhere.
There are plenty of children being born. In fact, if anything we should be discouraging children to prevent overpopulation.
Tax breaks for adoption is definitely something that should be looked at.
Tax breaks for adoption is definitely something that should be looked at.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-05-18 03:57:31)
Thats actually quite a good idea.
I'm pretty sure that's the first time anyone on bf2s has said that to me.
I'm overwhelmed.
I'm overwhelmed.
If I'm not mistaken, there are effectively tax breaks for adoption, because the foster parents still get child tax credits from adopted children. The problem is the cost of adoption. There are a lot of red tape and extra expenses incurred from adoption. We need to cheapen and streamline the adoption process.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the first time anyone on bf2s has said that to me.
I'm overwhelmed.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-18 10:27:22)
I'm not against gay couples or anything, I'm just not a fan of the way marriage is being used here. IMO marriage is a bond between man and woman. IMO people who have 3-day-marriages should have their right to marriage taken from them.God Save the Queen wrote:
konfusion
but anyone who feels that they disagree with this statement, really.
IMO.
This is not about their rights - I do not care about anything they do as long as it doesn't offend me - what offends me is that they are using the term marriage. I know that homosexuality goes back probably to the beginning of the human race (probably further with other animals), and that the Greeks (for example) had homosexuals and whatnot - but the term marriage is coined as a 'holy' bond between a man and a woman.
That is what I mean.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.
If you disagree with me just make sure to PM me when you reply because if this thread keeps growing so fast I won't be able to find the reply Oo
-konfusion
If 2 people want to get married regardless of sexual preference thats their decision and no one else should infringe on it because they arent hurting anyone or infringing on anyone elses rights by doing it. This makes me hate religion even more because people think that gives them a reason to tell other people how to live their lives. And people who say Marriage is between a Man and Woman only are ridiculous and are the religious fanatics that are fanning the flame. The 1st amendment should guarantee marriage for same sex couples because of the separation of Church and State.
Last edited by Mystline (2008-05-18 12:13:17)
Marriage has existed in far too many capacities in too many cultures and religions to consider any one definition an acceptable one. Neither should we hang onto tradition for the sole reason that it is what we have always done.konfusion wrote:
I'm not against gay couples or anything, I'm just not a fan of the way marriage is being used here. IMO marriage is a bond between man and woman. IMO people who have 3-day-marriages should have their right to marriage taken from them.God Save the Queen wrote:
konfusion
but anyone who feels that they disagree with this statement, really.
IMO.
This is not about their rights - I do not care about anything they do as long as it doesn't offend me - what offends me is that they are using the term marriage. I know that homosexuality goes back probably to the beginning of the human race (probably further with other animals), and that the Greeks (for example) had homosexuals and whatnot - but the term marriage is coined as a 'holy' bond between a man and a woman.That is what I mean.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.
If you disagree with me just make sure to PM me when you reply because if this thread keeps growing so fast I won't be able to find the reply Oo
-konfusion
And it means the same thing in far too many cultures. You don't have to agree with me, but can you at least understand where I'm coming from? I'm not trying to impress my view upon anyone, just explaining my (and a few others') views.Drakef wrote:
Marriage has existed in far too many capacities in too many cultures and religions to consider any one definition an acceptable one. Neither should we hang onto tradition for the sole reason that it is what we have always done.
-konfusion
Agreed, but what I was saying is that just because I'm opposed to tax breaks for couples who have children, I'm not necessarily opposed to those who adopt.Turquoise wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, there are effectively tax breaks for adoption, because the foster parents still get child tax credits from adopted children. The problem is the cost of adoption. There are a lot of red tape and extra expenses incurred from adoption. We need to cheapen and streamline the adoption process.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the first time anyone on bf2s has said that to me.
I'm overwhelmed.
For everyone arguing that the "definition of marriage" specifies that marriage be "between a man and a woman," I would just like to say that definitions change. I don't give a fuck that the definition of marriage has been that way forever. Definitions change, culture changes, and I think that redefining marriage to include perfectly equal gay couples is the right thing to do. It's not the same as a civil union either, because if it were, there wouldn't be such a movement to legalize Gay Marriage. Just watching interviews with the gay couples made me realize how much marriage meant to them. They were elated to be married, and why should that happiness be denied to any human being? Of course, certain religious fundamentalists could argue that because they're sinners, they don't deserve it, but I'm gonna have to extend a big, fat "fuck that" towards your bigotry and hatred.
I don't know that anyone here has actually argued that, certainly it's not a major thread............
Oh I know. I was just responding to my own statement with what I thought an argument could be as to why gay people don't deserve to be happy.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I don't know that anyone here has actually argued that, certainly it's not a major thread............
well, I am pretty sure that one day, when you're faced with the costs of raising a child ( or more than one ) yourself, you'll begin to cherish those tax breaks for families...ZombieVampire! wrote:
Agreed, but what I was saying is that just because I'm opposed to tax breaks for couples who have children, I'm not necessarily opposed to those who adopt.Turquoise wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, there are effectively tax breaks for adoption, because the foster parents still get child tax credits from adopted children. The problem is the cost of adoption. There are a lot of red tape and extra expenses incurred from adoption. We need to cheapen and streamline the adoption process.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the first time anyone on bf2s has said that to me.
I'm overwhelmed.
Cause double income or not, kids are expensive stuff...
Personally, I am a supporter of tax breaks for anyone who raises a child, be it in a traditional marriage, as a single parent, or through adoption.
Raising a child is an enormous task and responsibility, and I think it is only fair that those who contribute to the survival of our society are awarded for that in some way.
Which assumes that I'll have one, and that fact that I'll cherish them means that they should exist.B.Schuss wrote:
well, I am pretty sure that one day, when you're faced with the costs of raising a child ( or more than one ) yourself, you'll begin to cherish those tax breaks for families...
Which you can choose not to have.B.Schuss wrote:
Cause double income or not, kids are expensive stuff...
And you can always choose to adopt. Further, those that have children do so because they see it as a reward in and of itself.B.Schuss wrote:
Raising a child is an enormous task and responsibility, and I think it is only fair that those who contribute to the survival of our society are awarded for that in some way.