Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All of the BS About Gay Marriage earned me a big ol' ZOT!

Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious

Here is a better way to look at this ... the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue. Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple [rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children]. Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only. Marriage should be left to the churches. Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people] which extends to that civil union the governmental rights that married couple now enjoy which include the marriage tax credit, right to pass assets without taxation upon death, the right to make life ending decisions [pulling the plug]. The whole issue dies in a blink. This should not have to be a political thing. Moving the line in the sand never works ... better just to erase it. I believe that my wife and I are married in GOD's eyes and believe that we have a civil union in the eyes of government. It should not be anything different then a partnership, LLC, or LP.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anothervanity; asv; civilunions; homosexualagenda; libertarian; rumpranger; samesexmarriage; trollingforsuckers; vanity; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-253 next last
To: svcw

“And your point is what, here?”

People respond to ‘incentives’, regardless of what type they are. But that concept may not register with you.


121 posted on 09/08/2012 2:35:36 PM PDT by BobL (You can live each day only once. You can waste a few, but don't waste too many.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: BobL

You win, I have know idea what point you are trying to make.

I said there have always been families and marriage even before licensing and you are talking about bank robbers and incentives.


122 posted on 09/08/2012 2:40:47 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I love your byline


123 posted on 09/08/2012 2:47:32 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

Here in Illinois Drew Peterson killed his THIRD wife and his FOURTH one went missing. If it was not for all the talk about gay marriage these last two marriages would have ended in a more civilized manner. See once the talk started moving toward gay marriage the world become uncivilized.


124 posted on 09/08/2012 2:52:17 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Homos, lesbos cannot get married. The should pay more in taxes. We heterosexuals should get tax breaks.

Why so weird, or so dishonest? Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not taxed differently.

125 posted on 09/08/2012 2:58:16 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
The problem comes when we will be forced to recognize these "civil unions" which aren't marriage - just like homosexual activists are trying force recognition of counterfeit marriage.

It is legislating same-sex "marriage" by lowest common denominator. Forget it.

126 posted on 09/08/2012 3:01:34 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

It’s one thing to debate the righteousness of our taxation policies—whether you’re single, married, raising children, a (co)property owner, disabled, a veteran, caring for sick parents, making millions a year or just scraping by, every US citizen has a right to demand fairness in this realm. Wasn’t unfair taxation reason enough for the American colonies to revolt?

It is one thing to lament the poor state of marriage and parenthood in our modern society and to how to address those issues in an unobtrusive manner. For example, we can stop benefiting poor behavior on the taxpayers’ dime. We can argue the unfairness of governmental fees and contract laws, the inequities in divorce court and child-support laws. Here there is plenty of room for debate.

It is a completely different matter to endorse a radical societal change under the guise of less government and more freedom and equality, then blatantly ignore the fact that those policies will require changes in government-mandated education, crime legislation, property rights, religious freedom, health care costs and tax policies.

To then turn around and play “Aw shucks, ya got me” and mock people who hold thousands-of-years-old values dear, is just over the top.


127 posted on 09/08/2012 3:03:05 PM PDT by two134711 (I am Conservative, no longer a Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Anyone who thinks this is about the money and benefits is pathetically blind, or is being deceitful.


128 posted on 09/08/2012 3:04:15 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

It is all right there in history, Sir or Madam, insane as it seems. If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. I simply pointed out that when we, as a people allow government to regulate those things that are in the purview of religion, we stand to lose our freedoms-government is already trying to force church-sponsored entities to pay for abortion and birth control, and that is just one example. Government is not here to help you-ever-unless it is protecting our shores from an enemy, as in war.

You do not know me, so do not insult me. I enjoy lively debate and hearing the opinions of others expressed in a civil manner, and I will reciprocate with equal civility.

My opinions are no more ramblings than yours or anyone else’s participating in this discussion. I am a heterosexual woman, never involved in polygamy, and I am not, nor have I ever been a “leftist” if any sort. But I DO believe in government being limited to what is in the original constitution, not what we have now.

I do not believe that homosexuals can really even be married, since the Bible says their having sex is a sin, never mind subscribing to a “homosexual agenda”-and polygamy is a disgusting exploitation of women, and sometimes, children.

I did not insult you, nor anyone else, so I ask that you stop attributing false opinions and beliefs to myself and others-it is not pleasant here in what should be a civilized exchange of ideas and opinions.


129 posted on 09/08/2012 3:09:07 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“You win...”

Thanks, glad to have this settled.


130 posted on 09/08/2012 3:12:34 PM PDT by BobL (You can live each day only once. You can waste a few, but don't waste too many.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Most likely. The way I figure it, there would be a general consensus of those churches of whatever kind that respected traditional marriage and wanted to re-sanctify it as sacred and a sacrament apart from government involvement.

But add to this, particular requirements unique to given churches, which vary, but would not undermine the core ideas shared by them all.


131 posted on 09/08/2012 3:15:50 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
fwdude- The problem comes when we will be forced to recognize these "civil unions" which aren't marriage - just like homosexual activists are trying force recognition of counterfeit marriage.

It is legislating same-sex "marriage" by lowest common denominator. Forget it.

Dude, there was a time that blacks were owned and women could not vote. That stuff was legislated away. Do you realize that for thousands of years there were slaves and women were not allowed to vote. With the exception of those two facts, were we more civilized? You do not have to recognize anything.

132 posted on 09/08/2012 3:17:10 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: two134711

“...and mock people who hold thousands-of-years-old values dear, is just over the top.”

Yea, that’s what it has become. We are the IDIOTS, simply because we don’t, essentially, want a ‘cultural’ revolution in the United States. Well, if the clowns here want to call me an idiot, or a reactionary, because I love the country I grew up and I am not interested in their cultural experiments, then I guess I’m an idiot - and I’m just fine with that.

(although I do with that JR would get these dingbats off of this site)


133 posted on 09/08/2012 3:17:42 PM PDT by BobL (You can live each day only once. You can waste a few, but don't waste too many.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: BobL

I am happy that you are happy, that you won a prize for incoherent statements.
You are welcome.


134 posted on 09/08/2012 3:17:59 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Ansel12, I never said ... "Homosexuals and heterosexuals are taxed differently." Why do you continue to imply that I said that? "Married" people and "non-married" people are taxed differently. And I do not know why it is weird or dishonest, but it is! One day you will understand that it is weird and dishonest and one day I might know why.
135 posted on 09/08/2012 3:23:15 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“I am happy that you are happy...You are welcome.”

No prob. That’s the point of this site. Thanks.


136 posted on 09/08/2012 3:26:25 PM PDT by BobL (You can live each day only once. You can waste a few, but don't waste too many.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: two134711
Point taken, Bobl. I will never endorse a radical societal change as I should realize that society has hit the bull's eye and i will not mock people in a joking way because they hold thousands of years of beliefs and values dearly to their hearts.

Hey Bobl, these radical Muslims have thousands of years of values that they hold dear. Are we going to accept those without arguing, discussing, changing, or mocking? Or would that be over the top?

137 posted on 09/08/2012 3:32:09 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: two134711
Point taken, Two. I will never endorse a radical societal change as I should realize that society has hit the bull's eye and i will not mock people in a joking way because they hold thousands of years of beliefs and values dearly to their hearts.

Hey Two, these radical Muslims have thousands of years of values that they hold dear. Are we going to accept those without arguing, discussing, changing, or mocking? Or would that be over the top?

138 posted on 09/08/2012 3:33:14 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Because I am now single I pay $4000 dollars a year more in federal income taxes.

----------------------------------------

You pay $4K more than who? I presume that you are comparing what your taxes would be if you were married and your spouse had no earnings vs. what you pay now.

If you and your spouse had equal earnings, you would pay the same or more in federal taxes if you were married filing jointly vs. if you were both filing as single. There is still a marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code.

The premise of your claim is incorrect.

139 posted on 09/08/2012 3:38:38 PM PDT by stillonaroll (Nominate a non-RINO in 2012!...uh, too late, never mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Bobl, post 137 was not to you, I wrote your name in there in error. It was to Two. This post was meant as a discussion. I would say that the most activity came from you, Two, and me. I would say that if I gave each of you a piece of paper and I said write down the ten individual things that most threaten us [the Unites Sates] as a society, and I did the same. I would say that it would scare me if any of the three of us had civil unions in the top ten. I am sure that we would all have the democratic party as number one, which would encompass the civil union thing. But there are more important things that are bring us down. I am sure that we agree on more than we disagree on. That said, it was a nice way to blast through a beautiful afternoon. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.


140 posted on 09/08/2012 3:43:35 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-253 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson