The Gay Marriage Thread (Page 4)

Coffrey: Like Dots said, consenting adults is really the only parameter. I agree it's a legal issue, not moral or religious, but I wouldn't argue a state right's issue, unless a marriage made in one state was valid in all 50, otherwise what's the point of "United States"?

OCD_OCD: Because of the Constitution, Coffrey. That is not a power given to the Federal government.

Coffrey: Be that as it may, isn't it a bit silly? That you're considered married in one state, but maybe not the next state over?

OCD_OCD: That is the way our country was set up. The purpose was to grant to the states all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. It keeps the federal government from having complete control of everything. In that way we can never be ruled by a single group or person.

Coffrey: But don't you think that anyone in 1776 maybe could have known what possible contentious issues we would see way into the future? I'm not convinced that the founders covered every possible angle, that we would reach a non-delegated power that would sound ridiculous just being left to the states, such as whether or not the legal status of a marriage would be valid once you cross state borders, even if you're in the same country.

The constitution isn't strict rules, it's more guidelines, let people use their best judgment in a contemporary sense. We can't govern like it's 1776

OCD_OCD: we aren't. The separation of state and federal government will serve the same purpose, no matter what year. The hard part is not allowing the Federal government to slowly usurpmthose powers.

It is also why we have three branches of government so that they work together, yet are autonomous with powers that thet cannot usurp from one another. It is about the balance of power and the safeguards in place to insure that no branch of the federal government can gain complete control.

Balance.

Sarcastic Dots: "Huh? Tax reasons?"

Married couples can receive favourable treatment if they file jointly for taxes, lower insurance premiums and various other financial bonuses. Couples also receive higher benefits for cohabitation. All of that combined means that if you were in a polygamous marriage then the amount the state would lose (or pay out, in some cases) would be unfair.

OCD_OCD: i still do not understand why these supposed polygamous tax breaks would make any difference since it is illegal, therefore there would be no tax breaks.

Being married gives no special tax breaks in and of itself. Our tax laws are much more complex than that.

Sarcastic Dots: It is an issue. So much so that Google has been subsidising wages for gay couples for a while now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/your-money/01benefits.html?_r=0

Coffrey: You don't think there are tax benefits that come with marriage?

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7199100_benefits-marriage-taxes_.html

I see your argument though, Dots, and if the lawmakers think that it would be a good idea for it to be the same benefits as a single marriage, then they'll take the consequences. Personally, I don't think there should be any tax benefits to being married, at that point, it's not love any more, it's a legal contract and saying that ONLY two people of the opposite gender can enter into that contract is just plain discrimination

OCD_OCD: You can file a joint return if the marriage is recognized as legal in the state you live in.

OCD_OCD: http://statesthatallowgaymarriage.com/

We have states that have legalized same sex marriage, states that have civil or domestic partnerships, states that don't have narriage, but do not ban it and states where same sex marriage is banned.

it is not like the entire US has banned gay marriages or domestic partnerships.

the real slim DEEPy: i like leaving issues to the states, that way, if i disagree with my states law, i can move to a different state, instead of a whole new country.

OCD_OCD: And that's the purpose of States' Rights.

OCD_OCD: You know, that kind of speech usually gets people suspended.

If you have something to say and you can say it without using sexual epithets, its helpful. If not, it's just a ridiculous rant.

okokk73: Nope, its just the truth

OCD_OCD: It's your barely intelligible, repressed version of "truth".

Aura: Lol, so bad taste in music makes you gay? that's a new one

okokk73: No, letting fukin f@gs like them get to you (and if you are a 14-15 year old kid you will) does

Aura: homosexuality is not contagious

the real slim DEEPy: what if its an sti?

OCD_OCD: He's still unintelligible.

MichaeI: http://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

MichaeI: In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.

Copied and pasted.