Imagine How Stupid You are Going to Look in 40 Years!
389 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 190 previous comments
- That being said, can we push to legalize incest now?May 14, 2012
- whether or not there are homosexual animals freely living in the wild or not is a stupid point. As I stated previously, there are animals that kill each other for territory, a mate, or just because. There are animals that take hostages and kidnap. Just because animals do it doesn't make it desirable.
No one is preventing two people who love each other from committing to one another. The gay marriage argument is absurd. Its not a civil rights issue, as no rights that are available to others arent available to homosexuals. It is not about inheritance, visitation, or the like because all of those things can be given through either a will, or a power of attorney. So its about a tax break or ss.
SS is a non issue since it will likely be bankrupt by the time most of the upcoming generations hit that point.
So all of this fuss over a tax break? I dont receive many different tax breaks due to my desires and decisions being contrary to what the people think deserves credit. I'm not discriminated against because i am drawn to gas guzzling trucks, and as such dont receive a tax break for buying an electric car. I chose to exercise my agency, to give in to my desires for a big truck rather than go with the car that society wants me to pick.
Homosexual rights are a non issue.May 16, 2012
- "You're mistakenly applying that point to a separate argument"
Where am I mistaken?
" it's not appropriate to tell other people what they should or should not do in their own relationships"
Correct. People can do whatever they please in their own relationships. However, when they try to compare apples to oranges and push for the public change of a word that has had one meaning throughout time, that's a different story.
There are three aspects of marriage, Religious, Social, and Legal. Religious and social, none of my business. Legal, that's everyone's business. We as a society decide what is legal and what is not, so this is an issue that is everyone's business.
"...think about the "rights" that you want so dearly to "protect" - why do they matter?"
This is a false argument, as there are no rights associated with marriage that are denied to others outside of a tax break and SS. Both of these are trivial at best, and definitely not worth blurring the lines between apples and oranges.
"Lastly, when you say that homosexuals enjoy the same rights as everyone else, that is ridiculous - they do not share the right to MARRY the person whom they wish to commit to."
Wrong again. One can go out and do a ceremony and commit to any other they please. No one can deny them that commitment, nor can they change their friends and families view on the commitment they have made (An outsider, not approving of the relationship does not make it any less valid between the two people nor does it make it less valid in the eyes of friends and family). The only thing that they cannot do is file taxes jointly in some states. Just because a commitment isn't legally recognized doesn't change the commitment.
There is a criteria everyone must fit to have their commitment legally recognized. They must marry a member of the opposite sex (A straight person cannot marry a member of the same sex and have it legally recognized, the law is not skewed). The only advantage of a legal marriage is a tax break, as all other advantages (that I am aware of) can be gotten through a will or a PoA. So this is an argument over the criteria required to receive a tax break.
So, from a government point of view, is a homosexual commitment an endeavor that will contribute greatly enough to society to allow for a tax break? My answer is no. Is the potential there for creation of more tax paying citizens? No. Is this union the ideal situation for child rearing? No. That's not to say that homosexual couples cannot be good at raising children. However, just as a single mother or father is not the ideal child rearing situation, nor is a homosexual household. Not because they are homosexual, but rather, because they are missing a mother or a father from the household. Whether they'll admit it or not, all other things equal, it is best for a child to have a mother and a father. The only upside to legalizing homosexual marriage is to increase revenue on marriage certificates and to make someone feel good. Laws should not be based on either revenue nor should they be based upon making people feel good.May 16, 2012
- Hahahaha. Nice one. First you say:
"is a homosexual commitment an endeavor that will contribute greatly enough to society to allow for a tax break"
"Is the potential there for creation of more tax paying citizens"
Then you go on to say:
"Laws should not be based on either revenue nor should they be based upon making people feel good."May 16, 2012
- wow, a true liberal trained seal! Great job mincing words to make it sound like I contradicted myself.
In context, the first one you quote: since there is no advantage of marriage that can't be obtained through a will or PoA other than a tax break (not revenue creation, rather a reward for behavior that gov/people deem worthy of reward) , that is how we have to view the legal aspect of marriage so...
Second, in context that was only one of two qualifiers I listed (I am sure there are many more, but these are the biggest), meaning that there are other desirable things that come from heterosexual marriage to leave the definition intact, and hence the law is not BASED on revenue.
Lastly, I should have realized I was talking to libs who seem to have reading comprehension problems. As such I should have added the word "solely" before "based". This last one, in context, was a clarifying statement that tied everything, previously said, together. As there is no other gain for homosexual unions outside of a tax break for the couple and a boost in marriage certificate revenues for government.May 16, 2012
- Non sono contro i matrimoni gay per principio. Ma la natura (non Dio) rende le coppie omosessuali INERENTEMENTE sterili.
Per cui sono contrario a che possano avere bambini orfani in affido.
Questi, già hanno subito l'abbandono dei genitori naturali. Avranno diritto o no ad avere un padre e una madre ?
Se hanno dei figli loro la questione ovviamente cambia, ma nessuno mi farà mai credere che un bambino figlio di una coppia homo cresca più felice di uno che ha entrambi i genitori.
Quando si ragionava del divorzio nessuno poi pensava ai figli dei divorziati. Chiedetelo a loro figli dei genitori divorziati, chiedete loro se si sentono o no più felici o piuttosto non invidiano le quelli che hanno una famiglia unita. Lo so per esperienza mia personale come ci si sente.Nov 4, 2013