Author Topic: us californians are at it again (Read 2201 times)

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #15 on:** September 07, 2005, 10:31:04 AM »

I don't understand why a married couple gets tax breaks. Then again, I don't understand why the government can take my money and decide to spend it on things that I would never want my money spent on.

Theiving bastards.
-SW

mora · « **Reply #16 on:** September 07, 2005, 10:42:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea I love it when this is an equal rights issue. "People should be allowed to marry who they love" Gays have the same rights as anyone else, they want extra rights.

People in many countries do get special rights when they register their relationship, in tax benefits for example. All possible benefits should be of course abolished.

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
why were at it lets let NAMBLA have their special rights.

Dunno what you're talking about here, but I'm quessing it's somekind of a slippery slope argument. "Soon they will be marrying sheeps and pigs and copulating with them on the streets!"

Gunslinger · « **Reply #17 on:** September 07, 2005, 10:46:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
People in many countries do get special rights when they register their relationship, in tax benefits for example. All possible benefits should be of course abolished.

Dunno what you're talking about here, but I'm quessing it's somekind of a slippery slope argument. "Soon they will be marrying sheeps and pigs and copulating with them on the streets!"

well in the land of the free and the home of the brave all men are created equal.

Slippery slope or not gays are making this an equal rights argument. Why couldn't any other degenerate do the same?

Chairboy · « **Reply #18 on:** September 07, 2005, 11:04:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Last time I checked you can get extra prison time for a strait guy beating up a gay guy but not the other way around.

If the gay guy beat the heterosexual up BECAUSE they were heterosexual, then it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The straight guy beating up the gay is considered a hate crime only when it's BECAUSE they were gay. I'm not certain how well this will go over with you, because I think you've made up your mind not to let facts get in the way of your argument, but I may be wrong.

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Slippery slope or not gays are making this an equal rights argument. Why couldn't any other degenerate do the same?

I've read this sentiment before, back in the 1960s. Back then, the person was usually a white male who was talking about "negroes", and "degenerates" referred to other non-whites. In a way, I can admire the force of conviction behind steadfast bigotry even as I am saddened by the sentiment expressed.

lazs2 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 07, 2005, 02:29:05 PM »

I beleive that the idea behind giving special breaks and tax breaks to married people is that they do a very important part in growing America and making it strong... they are our future and our heritage in that they raise up our citizens form birth.

this is hetrosexual marriage. that is why heterosexual couples should get breaks that homosexuals and single people don't get.

If you do not think that married couples raising children are an asset then that is one thing but.... to say that a homosexual union is the same so far as raising future generations.... that is ridiculous..

married people should get a break and homosexual couples should not qualify... calling something a marriage that is not between heterosexuals is just plain confusing and wrong..

other than that... they can call what they have anything they want.

lazs

mora · « **Reply #20 on:** September 07, 2005, 02:33:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I beleive that the idea behind giving special breaks and tax breaks to married people is that they do a very important part in growing America and making it strong... they are our future and our heritage in that they raise up our citizens form birth.

You don't have to be married to do that.

Also, If the goverment should encourage "positive" behaviour by taxation, then it should also discourage "negative" behaviour by taxation too, right? In that case you probably wouldn't have a problem with taxing the hell out of old and polluting automobiles for example? You sound like a good old socialist this time.

soda72 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 07, 2005, 02:39:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
If the gay guy beat the heterosexual up BECAUSE they were heterosexual, then it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The straight guy beating up the gay is considered a hate crime only when it's BECAUSE they were gay. I'm not certain how well this will go over with you, because I think you've made up your mind not to let facts get in the way of your argument, but I may be wrong.

I've read this sentiment before, back in the 1960s. Back then, the person was usually a white male who was talking about "negroes", and "degenerates" referred to other non-whites. In a way, I can admire the force of conviction behind steadfast bigotry even as I am saddened by the sentiment expressed.

Jesse has spoken...

Jesse Jackson: Gay marriage rights are not civil rights

Amazing this is the only time the extreme left will not listen to him....

Chairboy · « **Reply #22 on:** September 07, 2005, 02:48:01 PM »

Lazs, you will agree then that all tax benefits accorded to childless heterosexual married couples should be frozen? Additionally, any gay couples that adopt and raise children should immediately receive those benefits, right?

Soda72, waving the words of Jesse Jackson at me won't be quite like the 'holding a cross in front of a vampire' effect you were looking for, as I'm not a member of the extreme left. Best regards.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #23 on:** September 07, 2005, 03:39:34 PM »

Who gives a rat's bellybutton if a gay couple is allowed to get married? A lot of the same arguments the bible thumpers use sound very similiar to the one they used to condone slavery and segregation.

ack-ack

Chairboy · « **Reply #24 on:** September 07, 2005, 03:43:06 PM »

Agreed.

WilldCrd · « **Reply #25 on:** September 07, 2005, 03:43:13 PM »

ok heres my question: If they have kids and then divorce and assuming the state gives the kids to the mother like 80% of the time.....HOW to you figure out witch one is the "woman" to give the kids to??

Chairboy · « **Reply #26 on:** September 07, 2005, 03:45:45 PM »

With respect, that's asinine. The 'woman' shouldn't be the default person the kids go to. The person best suited/equipped to give them a good home should be. Same with heterosexual parents.

Vulcan · « **Reply #27 on:** September 07, 2005, 03:46:52 PM »

The earliest "marriage" the resembles modern marriaqe dates back to ancient egypt, and they allowed gay marriages.

Some of the attitudes remind me of those old victorian attitudes where a man and wife should not take pleasure in sex.

AWMac · « **Reply #28 on:** September 07, 2005, 03:54:15 PM »

Do you wish to touch my Monkey?

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** September 07, 2005, 03:58:49 PM »

chair... no I do not. I believe that families of two heterosexual people do a lot in the raising of Americans. they may have children at any time and they may take over the duties of relatives who have died or are unable to raise children.

Unmarried people who raise children do get tax breaks... you simply get more of one if you are married.... it makes sense.. if you are married and have children then you are either doing it by one person supporting an entire family or two people working and having to pay extra expenses related to child rearing.

If you do not feel any obligation to those who raise Americas children then that is indeed a different matter. I believe that heterosexualmarried people are helping with making America stronger and are an asset or, at the very least, a potential asset in raising more Americans..

Homosexual marriages benifiet no one but the homosexuals involved. I feel no obligation to help subsidize them.

lazs