Your use of discrimination can be used against all our rules and laws. Is laws against pedophilia disriminating? Is making laws against ting on the sidewalk discriminating? Should our society allow public drug usage so as not to be discriminate?
baseline bum's whole argument is ridiculous to me.
he seems to believe that law makers or whatever, would add extra rights, or changes, to one side and not the other because 'they forgot'
As if the entire gay population, which totals 1% of the population of USA, would allow that
Dumb argument. Makes no sense.
Pedophilia is a crime with a real victim incapable of defending himself. I don't know why the you all always try to equate sexuality with pedophilia and bestiality.
There is no way you'd keep the two definitions in sync, even in a perfect world where there is no malicious intent. Of course there would be malicious intent from social conservatives who would drag bills out and refuse to vote for them with unless the language "civil unions" was removed from the bill. Furthermore, they'd sneak in stipulations for marriage only into bills that the rest of congress wants to pass the same way so many earmarks get thrown into everything that comes out of DC.
Back to the perfect world, keeping the two notions together under different names without making them direct synonyms would give plenty of room for interpretation unless they're written word for word as the exact same law and if every amendment of the rights was written word for word exact in comparison to its counterpart. Fat chance of that ever happening.
The government needs to either not recognize marriage, or recognize it equally for everyone. It does not have the right to discriminate the way private individuals and businesses do.
typical bigotry, irrational argument of many anti-gay people
the anti gay marriage crowd sure is grasping for anything to justify their bigotry..
What I think is funny is the picking and choosing of what cons utes moral orthodoxy. We can all agree slaves are bad, we can all agree that we can be around menstruating women, we can all agree that any number of OT pronouncements are either wrong or only partially right (and that this fact doesn't need to have a negative impact on our faith), but somehow some people can't wrap their heads around letting people love who they want to love. And honestly, the only reason I can reason it out for myself is that by reducing certain types of people into "others," some pastors are able to energize their flocks in a way that they fail to do by using Christ's message of love and acceptance. I can't help but find that reprehensible and un-Christian by definition.
Last edited by admiralsnackbar; 12-07-2009 at 07:42 AM.
Regarding moral orthodoxy again, isn't it interesting that the guy wants to end the discussion rather than have a conversation about his interpretation of scripture? At what point does something become so self-evident (especially when we're talking about textual interpretation) that it no longer merits consideration as a topic?the anti gay marriage crowd sure is grasping for anything to justify their bigotry..
No one knows what God thinks. Century old texts can be interpreted to fit anyon'e point of view. God made man in his own image.
I thought Jesus was loving and accepted everyone?
I'll pre-empt all the haters who justify their nastiness with Matt 10:34
Without taking sides in this debate (right or wrong) - it is NOT about insurance; it is about votes/public opinion. Gay marriage loses EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.
Loving? Yes.
"Accepting". No. Read the Sermon on the Mount, or any of a number of parables. There were many behaviors that Jesus did NOT suffer lightly.
So when God says marriage is between a man and a woman we have to make sure that two men or two women don't get married because it goes against God's definition of marriage. But when a man and a woman want to get divorced suddenly it's okay to let two people decide for themselves whether or not God's definition of marriage needs to be adhered to. Why is that?
consenting adults (excluding those related within a certain degree designated by statute) should have the freedom to marry.
I agree with whottt on this one. This is entirely a social construct.
And as I said a while ago, I think it's worth repeating: There will be a future time when we will look back and feel pretty stupid about all this sexual-orientation driven discrimination. Much like the way we feel when we look back at things like racial segregation in the past.
^^^^^^^This is made of win^^^^^^^^
I love how you thumpers think that marriage is your union. You somehow own it and god created it for you. Its not your union. You never created it. It was never yours. Marriage or unions date back much further than your creation of Christ and any notion of his Father God. It was never yours to manipulate in the first place. Like everything else in this society your fantasy tale religion has taken something from someone or something else and twisted it to fit in your own little disgusting vision of perfection.
Moreover, why is polygamy frowned on now if the same OT that allegedly "defines" marriage as boy on girl (forgetting for a moment that Genesis is the story of creation and can therefore easily be taken as less the definition of marriage than an observation that only the union of men and women create life and human history) later describes boy on girl on girl on girl etc. marriage with no judgment? Why the sliding goalpost?
Also, if Genesis is a definition, does this mean that women are defined as being inferior to men? Or not made in the image of God as man is? Or more susceptible to evil?
Gay marriage solves,creates money issues
By Chuck Jaffe | May 20, 2004
When friends asked Sharon Rich whether she and her partner planned to marry when Massachusetts allowed them to, Rich said, "I have to talk with my lawyer first."
"One thing I do know is that if we are married, we'll save more than $500 a month in health insurance costs, so I'll probably discuss this with my lawyer soon," she said.
That Rich is taking a pragmatic and financial approach is hardly a surprise. She runs Womoney in Belmont and is routinely included on any list of the nation's top financial advisers.
While many people focus on the religious, moral, and ethical issues around gay marriage, Rich and the financial community are looking at the monetary picture. It is here that allowing gay marriage will make one of the biggest day-to-day differences in the celebrants' lives, and it is also here that the biggest potential errors may be made.
Talk with financial advisers who have a large gay and lesbian clientele and they are likely to acknowledge that these customers are more aware of estate planning and tax issues, if only because the system for years has forced makeshift maneuvers aimed at achieving the financial ends that straight couples take for granted. These include survivor benefits, beneficiary rights, and more.
Yet many of these same financial advisers -- particularly here in Massachusetts, the first state to allow gay marriage -- suggest that the couples rushing to tie the knot may be undoing years of financial planning in the process.
"A lot of people developed domestic partnership or relationship agreements, which functioned like a prenuptial agreement," says John LeBlanc of Back Bay Financial in Boston. "But state law supersedes those agreements, so when a couple gets married, those prior agreements in most cases become null and void. If the couple gets a divorce -- and if there are marriages, you can bet there will be divorces -- the careful planning that a couple did when they were not married may be undone by having gone through the ceremony."
There are other obstacles for gay couples to negotiate, most notably the difference between state and federal law.
A couple married in Massachusetts, for example, might file their taxes jointly. Since Massachusetts taxes ride on the federal tax form, the couple would complete a federal tax form as a married couple, then transfer the information to a Massachusetts form.
And then the couple would toss out the federal form they had prepared, because they're not married in the eyes of Uncle Sam.
That means not only starting over and filing federal returns as singles, but enclosing a letter with their federal return saying they are married in Massachusetts. Some financial and tax planners are concerned that if couples file as single when they are married -- and don't include a letter of explanation -- they could be considered guilty of tax fraud under federal law.
That's a little twisted.
There are other issues, such as how Massachusetts tax payments will be split for federal credit and more. And there will be issues surrounding Medicaid, COBRA benefits (the federal rule allowing a worker who loses a job to continue health benefits at his or her own cost), Social Security benefits for adopted children, different forms of property ownership, and more.
Eventually, if the debate on gay marriage becomes a federal issue, there will be broader decisions on Social Security, too.
For now, whether it is a marriage or a civil union, there are two sets of rules to be aware of -- federal and state -- and there is the need to remember that major life events require significant financial planning reviews.
For every financial issue gay marriage creates, however, it solves one or two problems.
Rich's insurance case -- where married couples can get discounts that are unavailable to singles in this state -- is one example.
Another: Massachusetts residents who are married can make unlimited financial gifts to each other, unlike partners who are subject to an annual gift tax law limit. (This is another area where partners need to be careful, as it will be possible to move money in accordance with state rules but still mess up on federal statutes.)
There are estate tax benefits -- married couples have an unlimited marital tax deduction in Massachusetts -- and basic protections.In this state,married spouses who die without a will have their assets automatically move to their partner, which is not the case with an unmarried person.
Says Rich: "The issues are more complicated than heterosexual marriage, so the people who are rushing to get married now need to do this with stars in their eyes but they must take off the rose-colored glasses. Don't assume everything will be very simple, because it isn't."
IRS won't roll over
A recent Internal Revenue Service ruling may put the kibosh on a strategy that a large number of financial gurus were trumpeting as a short-term solution to money problems. The strategy has involved making an IRA rollover and using the proceeds during the 60-day rollover period as a form of interest-free loan.
In more than 30 prior rulings in the past few years, the IRS had been willing to overlook mistakes where the taxpayer didn't get a rollover completed within the allotted time.
But in the recent case, the taxpayer wasn't trying to do a rollover, he just wanted the cash. Once his financial situation changed, he wanted to put it back in the IRA.
That was not in the cards, so he gets no leniency and owes taxes and penalties on what is now classified as an IRA withdrawal.
The moral of the story is clear: No matter how attractive an interest-free loan to yourself may sound, don't risk your IRA savings with an unnecessary rollover.
"The IRA is the last place you ever want to take money from," says Ed Slott of E. Slott & Co., who runs the IRAHelp.com website. "People advising that you can get away with tapping your money for short-term needs need to know that they have no margin for error anymore. Any problem and they will have blown up your savings."
Chuck Jaffe is a senior columnist at CBS Marke ch. He can be reached at jaffe@marke ch.com or at P.O. Box 70, Cohasset, MA 02025-0070.
who cares if something loses a majority vote? since when has the majority been right about something? , if the civil rights acts of 1965 had been put to a vote it would have been shot down in no time.
Actually, Genesis got that part right.
My first marriage confirmed it, too, but I thought making an ex-wife joke would diminish my credibility in this thread
I don't really care if gays want to get married, but at the same time I'm not that crazy about my future son growing up in a culture where it is normal for two dudes to get married. Who is anyone else to deny two people happiness from the love they share between one another, I get that. It's just kind of weird maaaaaaaaaan.
The religious/bigotry bull is old and tired. Those two sides will around with each other for all of eternity.
I think whoever said it is mainly about the gays feeling "accepted" is right.
Last edited by EmptyMan; 12-07-2009 at 12:07 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
