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.
I’m a straight woman, not a guy-the historical references were just intended to point out the folly of allowing government to control matrimony and sell licenses for same-not intended to offend or inflame-as I stated, civil debate is a good thing. And I wear construction boots to work, not the western kind...
Despite your belief that society is always moving upwards towards some progressive Utopia, history shows that there always have been ages of transformation: those of decadence followed by eras of restraint and then eras of enlightenment. Throughout those times, despite whatever social conventions were accepted by the people, the Absolute Truth always existed and always will be.
The human male and female were created for each other, to love and to procreate and to understand God. They are to love their children, and in turn their children are to love them. We are not to murder, unless our own lives or those of our loved ones are in direct peril. We are to treat our neighbors with the respect we would require of ourselves, no more no less. To encourage an ethos that is not biologically, mentally or spiritually sound is evil. To re-imagine nature as what you would want it to be instead of what it was intended to be is abhorrent.
Some WAYS are perfect just they are. It is the people who are imperfect.
So your original post about BS was just BS. See you around.
I QUOTED you in post 125.
If you now want to agree that homosexuals and heterosexuals are taxed EXACTLY the same, then welcome aboard.
You didn’t give any history, you merely posted some rambling nonsense.
IMHO, they also want more people to be homosexual, thus the blatant promotion of homosexuality in government schools.
in post 125 I used the word “should” which kind of indicates “that which is not”. I said homos “should pay more, and married people “should” get a tax break. That said, I always thought that homos and heteros were taxed the same. On board!
-----------------------------------------------------
I agree 100%!
Just trying to keep it light with some humor.
They want marriage redefined so they can indulge in their behavior and attempt to not be reminded that it's unnatural. After that it will be transsexuals, transsexual rights to teach children, "education about this", military sensitivity...until we are Rome and a destroyed society. Hell they have conferences about pedophilia now.
You say that “marriage should be left to the churches” - but in our society, marriage is a solemn affair which is a fusion of both church and state, altar and government. And this is PRECISELY WHY the gays want marriage, and NOT for any “benefits” no matter what they try to tell themselves and the rest of us. They want nothing less than TOTAL and exalted and celebrated recognition and reception by the highest forms of human institutions. If you do not realize this, you go very much astray on the entire question.
The marriage penalty was removed with Bush’s initial tax cuts in 2001 and certainly in the 2003 tax cuts. So, I hate to say you’re wrong and I do know what I am talking about. The tax penalty is on single people.
One more reply to you. It’s interesting that you do admit that there is a tax penalty based on married or not. Do you believe that people should be penalized/taxed based on marrriage status?
“Because people don’t see you as being married.”
Back in the day, “gay” activists acknowledged that marriage was a heterosexual relationship and they were not interested in marriage because they were “gay”.
Then they started movements to obtain laws granting “gays” “civil unions”, and every attempt and success at that idea was slightly different and measured a little more or a little less in terms of legal rights equal to the rights of a married couple.
Then something changed and civil unions were no longer “good enough”; good enough to whom, “gay” persons or the activists and their laweyers; I suspect it was the latter not the former.
And now? Now the activists’ legal assault is not for “equality under the law”, is not for tolerance; it is an attempt to use the law to have the law mandate social acceptance.
It’s a false goal. “Gays” don’t need it and it does not really work, because true acceptance cannot be taken, is must be given, willingly.
Everyone, including social conservatives and “gays” should have accepted the separate institution of civil unions, with equality in legal respects therein, as a solution befitting the use of law, and leaving marriage unchanged, in law and socially, and leaving “acceptance” where it belongs - with those with whom you seek it in your own life, period.
"Homos, lesbos cannot get married. The should pay more in taxes. We heterosexuals should get tax breaks."
--------------------------------------------------
You are wrong. The marriage penalty was removed only for certain tax brackets, those below 25%.
There is also a marriage penalty for capital losses, for some real estate investments, credits (adoption credit, child tax credit, earned income credit), IRA deductions, Roth IRA conversions, business deductions (Section 179), taxability of Social Security benefits.
I know there are more, but I'll let you do your own research. :)
One more time, please-”rambling nonsense” is not a nice thing to say-if you had asked me to cite my source(s), that would be fine-I don’t hand out bull****, nor cite non-existant readings. But if you have a problem with my speech/grammar-well, that is the way I talk.
I’ve read all of that in my college years in books, but I’m sure that a passing reference to the history of civil marriage is available just about everywhere, and faster than me fetching an old textbook from upstairs.
Just about every society that sold licenses for marriage ended up issuing them to just about anyone who had the price-do you know how many bigamists never get caught, even today?
I agree with the person who started the thread-make the state call the license a civil contract, and let churches perform the sacrament of marriage.
In my former life, I was a casemanager/social worker-until I figured out that it was not a profession for a person who loved Reagan and had any sense-so I went to work in the private sector. But I did get a pretty good idea of what government’s hands doesn’t belong in while I was in the belly of the beast.
Just more ramblings. Example *”Just about every society that sold licenses for marriage ended up issuing them to just about anyone who had the price-do you know how many bigamists never get caught, even today?”*, you have no idea of those numbers or statistics over the time of man, yet you pretend to.
For marriage to survive in America, then it has to be defined.
That means a common definition, not the definition of the Muslim church, or the FLDS church, or the definition of the liberal arm of the Episcopal church, or of the San Fran gay chapel church.
I’m not a statistician, but I did (and do) study history rather extensively-my favorite subject ever. The anecdotal evidence is there, if you care to research it, over the years in all of human folly-check it out.
In my capacity as a casemanager, I’ve been acquainted with more than one bigamist, by the way.
At the risk of being redundant, let the churches define the fine points of marriage, with the common thread that it is a religious ceremony. Those ministers who perform non-traditional ceremonies can call it what they want-I know what the Bible says marriage is, and no amount of posturing by any liberal/rogue arm of a church changes that-and the constitution does not provide for meddling in church affairs.
Let a civil contract be just that-call it that-no different than any other business partnership. Let the churches own marriage-it seems very natural and right to me.
Actually, mentally ill sex perverts want “gay” marriage to destroy society and have access to children. It’s quite clear, in their own words:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
ansel, if we debate again, please look up the stats you want before you pounce-if I were to post stats with every reference I posted, I’d be Spock instead of just someone who enjoys debating...
Hey, thanks-I’ve really enjoyed debating with you both. Another time, perhaps...
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.