Reply With Quote
Why can't everyone just admit the truth? The truth is that marriage is a government handout. Gay people wouldn't be ing if marriage was just a ceremony that gave out no privileges or benefits.
There are voices of dissent among the faithful, though. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-gop-in-2016/
Why can't everyone just admit the truth? The truth is that marriage is a government handout. Gay people wouldn't be ing if marriage was just a ceremony that gave out no privileges or benefits.
Do you think they have a right to ?
I don't see marriage as a right. I think it's a privilege. I also think the government shouldn't be handing out goodies just because you're married.
Are you a got?
Yeah, exactly, I mean the first amendment right?
That didn't answer the question.
95% huh? I guess that means you 'work' for yourself. I don't really care about the specifics.
You post here all day Saturday and Sunday.trying to front that here.
You also were trying to protect the second amendment from black people last weekend too. In fact over the past week you have posted over 300 times on this account alone. Thank you for telling us how you rationalize it to yourself or your lying face.
Remember what we have talked about the explicit as facade with intent? mmhm.
Are you a got?
"I don't really care about the specifics "...proceeds to count each post throughout the week.95% huh? I guess that means you 'work' for yourself. I don't really care about the specifics.
You post here all day Saturday and Sunday.
You also were trying to protect the second amendment from black people last weekend too. In fact over the past week you have posted over 300 times on this account alone. Thank you for telling us how you rationalize it to yourself or your lying face.
Remember what we have talked about the explicit as facade with intent? mmhm.
My friends had you pegged after 5 mins of reading your posts.
1. Takes message board to serious
2. got
"I don't really care about the specifics "...proceeds to count each post throughout the week.
My friends had you pegged after 5 mins of reading your posts.
1. Takes message board to serious
2. got
you do lack empathy though that is obvious.Remember what we have talked about the explicit as facade with intent? mmhm.
Over 300 posts is not very specific to me. I guess we just have different standards for things like that.
Your friends sound like wonderful people. Also, LOL at you showing your friends this thread. Good way to show how unserious this thread is to you.
This thread reeks of " love"
The problem with de-incentivizing marriage is that you end up top heavy like Japan...
young people are cohabitating, having babies, but not getting married, so the marriage tax break isn't working well.
the biggest marriage disincentives for young people are college loan debt, ty job and/or ty job prospects.
There's a giant victim culture temper tantrum coming from the Christian right
Opponents of marriage equality are raising all kinds of dire scenarios about how marriage equality will usher in an era of vicious discrimination against Christians, who will face all sorts of outrageous punishments for merely upholding their religious beliefs. But when they say discrimination and punishment, they're really talking about basic consequences, which many on the right feel they should be exempt from.It's true that some religious people and ins utions will face choices:
First Amendment protections for worship and clergy are clear. Potential conflicts could arise, however, over religious organizations with some business in the public arena. That category ranges from small religious associations that rent reception halls to the public, to the nation's massive network of faith-based social service agencies that receive millions of dollars in government grants.
But those very scenarios make clear that what we're talking about is facing basic consequences.
You're a religious association that doesn't want to rent to an LGBT wedding? You don't have to, but you might have to give up renting to the public.
You're a faith-based social service agency? Maybe your internal policies will be incompatible with government grants.
The thing is, this isn't a disproportionate penalty. It's a basic consequence.
As marriage equality was argued before the Supreme Court:
[Justice Samuel] Alito noted the high court's 1983 decision to revoke the tax-exemption of Bob Jones University in South Carolina because it barred interracial dating. Alito asked if the government would take such action against religiously affiliated schools that oppose same-sex marriage. [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli said, "It is certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that."
Let's focus on the penalty we're talking about here. Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption because it prohibited interracial dating. Its tax exemption. As in, it had to pay taxes. That's the punishment. Not exactly persecution at the level of the Spanish Inquisition.This is how deep the right's culture of victimhood and en lement goes. They believe they're automatically en led to tax exemptions and government grants without having to follow the government's rules to get those benefits.
They think if they're not allowed to discriminate and still get every possible government benefit, they're victims. And they're gearing up for a decades-long battle to demand that the government see things their way
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...t?detail=email
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/o...ort-gays280615
Bible humpin, hatin' Arkansas!
Seems to me that single parents get better tax breaks/bigger refunds but I'm not totally sure.
And yeah, if a chick comes along that wants to get married but has 100k in college debt, in Texas among a few other states with shared property, that's an extremely huge deterrent to tie the knot with her
How's your ex wife?
ok I guess
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
