Gay marriage

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:04 pm

Accountable wrote: Do my eyes deceive me? Do I have an ally in the marriage threads?

Okie, are you saying the gov't should get out of the marriage game? All the way out? That would mean no more gay marriage as well. No tax incentive for having children & contributing to the overpopulation myth. No more divorce. No more alimony.

Are you with me?

Exactly. Well I do not mean no marriage. Just that you dont have to have the government ok it. or go to a judge to get it dissolved. I guess more like a civil union i guess. Gays or straight dont matter. I dont want to marry a man. but if I did I dont want the government to tell me I can't.

I think there are enough people in the world now. Too many really. But I realize that if population fell off that sometime down the road retired people would not have any young people paying to support them. That is how social security works. Those working support the retired. Just as they did while they were working.

Yes, no tax incentive for being married or for having kids. But really lets face it you cannot save more money by having kids. You might get some tax back but you really have to pay a lot more to raise them. Life insurance and clothes and tuition etc you would be richer if you did not have kids. But life goes on and at some point people want to have kids to carry on their name and maybe to help them out when they are too old to get around much. :rolleyes:

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:37 pm

Far Rider wrote: we already are in population decline, ill find a link but I believe it is 1.8 births perdeaths in the US currently.

so yes there needs to be incentive to procreate inside of a stable union.

What is a stable union. I think about 43% of marriages end in divorce?

http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/a2parentscarce.html

It says 26% of marriages are the traditional kind with a married couple and a child or children. that was in 1998

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:36 am

Okie wrote: Exactly. Well I do not mean no marriage. Just that you dont have to have the government ok it. or go to a judge to get it dissolved. I guess more like a civil union i guess. Gays or straight dont matter. I dont want to marry a man. but if I did I dont want the government to tell me I can't.
I don't mean no marriage, either. Just take it out of the legal/legislature realm. It's holy matrimony. If people want to get married, go to the church. Same with ending it. The gov't doesn't need to be involved at all.

Okie wrote: I think there are enough people in the world now. Too many really. But I realize that if population fell off that sometime down the road retired people would not have any young people paying to support them. That is how social security works. Those working support the retired. Just as they did while they were working.
We have a welfare system. Social Security is welfare with a prettier name - a redundant bureaucracy. A responsible person can manage retirement without help. Social Security has created a dependent class out of the aged because so many believe the myth that SS is all they need. Welfare can still be the safety net.

Okie wrote: Yes, no tax incentive for being married or for having kids. But really lets face it you cannot save more money by having kids. You might get some tax back but you really have to pay a lot more to raise them. Life insurance and clothes and tuition etc you would be richer if you did not have kids. But life goes on and at some point people want to have kids to carry on their name and maybe to help them out when they are too old to get around much. :rolleyes:
This is the biggest danger with the tax breaks, imo. People actually think they are getting a break! The paltry sum the gov't gives back to them doesn't do anything. If people want to have kids, God bless'em. Good money management is what makes it possible to afford a family. Tax breaks are feel-good smoke screens.

BTW tax deductions for home ownership is a similar myth.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:39 am

Far Rider wrote: we already are in population decline, ill find a link but I believe it is 1.8 births perdeaths in the US currently.

so yes there needs to be incentive to procreate inside of a stable union.
Why? People scream all the time that we're overpopulated. Overpopulation creates poverty. Poverty creates crime. Our prisons are overcrowded. Our schools are overcrowded. Our cities are overcrowded. ad nausium.

I would think a disincentive would be in order.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:47 pm

ArnoldLayne wrote: Acc, can you elucidate a bit on what you meant here. As a non Christian my wife and I entered into a civil marraige 29 years ago. Its matrimony, only holy matrimony if its performed in a church. Are you denying the non christians the opportunity of having a civil ceremony, the chance for us to have our bond witnessed.

I trust you dont think our 29 years together has been a sham because it wasn't performed in front of a priest
Why do you need a judge (or whatever) to certify your relationship? Anyone can witness your bond. Your time together couldn't possibly be a sham exactly because it was 29 years. Who could stand you so long if it weren't for love?

The piece of paper and payment had little, if anything to do with it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:45 pm

ArnoldLayne wrote: Because we wanted a ceremony with our respective families witnessing the event. It was as much OUR day as it is for the full blown church do. Why should we be denied, like second class citizens, the right to have our union sanctioned, purely because we choose not to be Christians.

Our joining in marriage is as valid once it is sanctioned, socially and morally. Please dont say that the church has the monopoly on morality, there is other morality, that of being in accord with standards of right and good conduct.

I'm proud to say I am married not just a life long partner or what other title we would be kindly afforded
Who's sanctioning it? I don't get it. Why can't you have a big party, exchange vows, cut cake & all, without the gov't? Your marriage is as valid as you make it. You don't need the mayor's permission.

My main deal is the gov't charging you to get married, charging you to get divorced, yet they recognize a union without license as well. What gives?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:03 pm

ArnoldLayne wrote: Just call me old fashiond then. That piece of paper makes me and her special We''ll just have to disagree
Keep your paper. I love ours as well. It's the tax incentives and all the rest that needs to go. I think it would be cool to be married on a ship. Maybe towns could make really nice unique certificates with the mayor doing the honors, for a small fee of course.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:26 pm

moverguy wrote: It's not my or my curved wienerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fault that you like men and are united in a civilized non celebrated and paper only fashion - AKA married.

Why so formal in your vocabulary and literal whims?

I have a bent dick, you have a bent wrist, I think this is OK for both of us honey
What?!?

Dude, go back & read. Then come back & apologize.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:29 pm

ArnoldLayne wrote: You seem to have the impression that I am gay for some reason. try READING my post and you will find out that I was refering to me and my WIFE. Try again
Oh the visual!! MY EYES!!

123cat · Post by **123cat** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:09 pm

gay marriage on-line, what a forum!

123cat · Post by **123cat** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:11 pm

vegus style

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:48 pm

Accountable wrote: A software upgrade, perhaps? :sneaky:

Software!! Snort!! You been peeking. Hey, I just got out of the swimming pool.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:53 am

Okie wrote: Software!! Snort!! You been peeking. Hey, I just got out of the swimming pool.

:yh_rotfl

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:01 am

Far Rider wrote: we already are in population decline, ill find a link but I believe it is 1.8 births perdeaths in the US currently.

so yes there needs to be incentive to procreate inside of a stable union.
But how many are coming here from other coutries, legally and illegally. Of course it might be hard to know how many come here illegally. but they are here nonetheless. I see Bush wants to allow 350,000 per year to come here as guest workers. He says our economy DEPENDS on people coming here from other countries. Meaning we need cheaper labor than one can live on here.

I still recall that when I was still in school one of the biggest problems facing the world was over population. and that was when people were expected to die much younger. Now with people living so much longer the birth to death ratio is not quite the same as it once was. I thinnk when they started social security the expected lifespan was 64 so they set the retirement age at 65. Now the retirement age is still 65 but lifespan is longer. Not sure, maybe 72?

downag · Post by **downag** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:19 am

I'd be less worried about what other people do and be more concerned that I wasn't prepared to greet the creator of the universe when the sky rolls back and he is revealed from heaven, which is to occur shortly.

BUT, as it says in the Bible,before that great and terrible day, the times are going to be just like they were before the great flood recorded in the Bible, when the Sons of God came down and saw that the daughters of men were fair and took wives of the daughters of men , etc.

Is that aliens landing and people going gaga over this event and going wild about having sex with even them?

HMMMMMMM, could be!

downag:-5

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:54 pm

downag wrote: I'd be less worried about what other people do and be more concerned that I wasn't prepared to greet the creator of the universe when the sky rolls back and he is revealed from heaven, which is to occur shortly.

BUT, as it says in the Bible,before that great and terrible day, the times are going to be just like they were before the great flood recorded in the Bible, when the Sons of God came down and saw that the daughters of men were fair and took wives of the daughters of men , etc.

Is that aliens landing and people going gaga over this event and going wild about having sex with even them?

HMMMMMMM, could be!

downag:-5

Its nice to see at least one other person thinks like I do. And if you read Revelations you will find reference to some city with "walls of glass" or something like that. I made me think they were actually seeing a space ship.

I dont know but I feel there were different sorts of primitive man and that maybe people from an advanced planet used some sort of genetic upgrade on them. But maybe not. Maybe it just happened. I do not think man was always just as we are now. I trust there were Cro Magnon and Neanderthals.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:37 pm

Anastrophe...I just read through this entire thread and I'm wondering...if your question was ever answered? "bottom line: show me the harm."

(By the way, your comments were well-written, concise and I agree with all of them.)

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:53 pm

Although gays and gay relationships are becoming acceptable in the UK, they are still a minority group....and as such they do their cause no good by 'stealing' the word marriage in the hope that it will give credence to their cause.

Marriage should remain what it is and always has been traditionally....the union of a man and a woman.

Why, Fred?

And how are they stealing the concept of marriage? What does being a minority group have to do with it? If they were in the majority, would that change your opinion?

I think if someone has a problem with gay people then that's their business. It's not for me to try and make them change their mind. They can think what they want. In fact, the KKK can think what it wants too. You have the right to dislike any person or any person's behavior for whatever reason you want. But when it comes to disparaging people or denying them the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then we have a problem.

I feel civil unions are an insult. They should call it a marriage. Not a union. Not a commitment ceremony. A marriage. We can see who is married to who. We don't need special qualifiers or disclaimers.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:01 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Although gays and gay relationships are becoming acceptable in the UK, they are still a minority group....and as such they do their cause no good by 'stealing' the word marriage in the hope that it will give credence to their cause.

Marriage should remain what it is and always has been traditionally....the union of a man and a woman.

Why, Fred?

And how are they stealing the concept of marriage? What does being a minority group have to do with it? If they were in the majority, would that change your opinion?

I think if someone has a problem with gay people then that's their business. It's not for me to try and make them change their mind. They can think what they want. In fact, the KKK can think what it wants too. You have the right to dislike any person or any person's behavior for whatever reason you want. But when it comes to disparaging people or denying them the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then we have a problem.

I feel civil unions are an insult. They should call it a marriage. Not a union. Not a commitment ceremony. A marriage. We can see who is married to who. We don't need special qualifiers or disclaimers.

I am not gay so I just cannot understand how one man can look at another man and feel romantic. but I know they do so go for it. Just leave me alone.

Long ago when I came to Oklahoma the law did not recognize a marriage between races. One black man wanted to divorce his wife who was white. The state could not do it because they did not recognize their marriage. I think we are headed for more of the same if we do not recognize a marriage between same sex couples. And if they choose that life style then they ought to get the same rights in medical records available and heath care etc. that any married couple gets. I dont care what its called.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:56 am

Lulu2 wrote: (By the way, your comments were well-written, concise and I agree with all of them.)

Yeah

That's how I feel about Anastrophe, too

And you as well

Two peas in a pod :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:32 am

Pinky wrote: Someone earlier said that being gay is not natural, and that 'God' is against it.

Do me favour! Gayness is not a choice - they are born that way. Therefore it must be natural. If you happen to believe that we are all created by god, then why would he create gay people if he were so against it?I think some do choose. Physical appearance, abuse, or some other rejection from the home or "normal society" causes some to look anywhere for acceptance. The homosexual community seems to be more tolerant of the outcast and unaccepted. One finds love and acceptance where one finds it.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:18 am

If we are going to get out of the business of legislating morality and permit gay marriages, then shall we permit polygamy as well? There are certainly more naturally occuring examples of this behaivior in nauture than homosexuality. If marriage is not between a man and woman who says it has to be between One man and One women?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:41 am

Diuretic wrote: Who says that there is any link between legislating morality and gay marriage? Legislatures have always tried to legislate morality, usually as a result of moral panics. The minority, whoever it is at the time, are the ones who cop the sharp end of the stick when there's a frenzy of moralistic legislation. But they come and go.

How we define marriage deserves a little more than the usual populist response to the latest moral panic.

As for polygamy. Who the hell cares? Same for polyamory and polyandry. As long as (a) the adults are consenting and (b) any children produced are not abuse - psychologically or physically - then why should big brother society intervene? Just because I favour the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others doesn't mean that I should impose my views on anyone else.

Most of the arguments against gay marriage in this country are based on morality and thus the linkage...

So anything goes as long as everyone is consenting even if the vast majority of a population may find it morally offensive? I drew the example of polygamy because it is less extreme than others. I can think of others that are more extreme. Isn't there a line somewhere?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:51 am

Diuretic wrote: No. But the line of prohibition shouldn't be drawn at the point where "the vast majority of a population may find it morally offensive."

Yes, the line always has to be drawn but populism shouldn't be holding the pencil.

LOL, OK then i have to ask. Who holds the pencil?:D