The W
Views: 99059354
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.9.14 0303
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and Woman (Page 2)
This thread has 56 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(1893 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (75 total)
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#21 Posted on

    Originally posted by wordlife
    Well, my mother is a single mother and she is not allowed to take deductions that she would otherwise be allowed if she was still married to my father...For example, my mother cannot claim education credits for my brother and sister (which would total to 2,000 more back my mother would get)but she cannot take them b/c of the threshold.

    And the deductions that you are referring to (ie charity) would not matter b/c you could take those anyway even if you are single. The deductions I am referring to are education credits, rental real estate deduction, IRA deductions, etc. that married people get that the average single person cannot.



I'm sorry that your mother is not afforded some of the tax reliefs that married people have. However, I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that - independent of higher deduction thresholds - the federal government punishes ME for no other reason than that I am married. I do not have an IRA, I do not have children, and, up until recently, my wife and I rented an apartment.

In fact, I think you and I agree on what should be done. There should be the same set of fiscal standards for both married and unmarried couples (gay or otherwise). Your mom should be given the same tax reliefs a married couple with children should have, and I should be given the same treatment that an unwed couple has.

I'm trying to think of one non-religious reason why the federal government should have an interest on who is and isn't married- but I can't. Perhaps someone out there can enlighten me.
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3328 days
Last activity: 2612 days
#22 Posted on

    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft

      Originally posted by wordlife
      Well, my mother is a single mother and she is not allowed to take deductions that she would otherwise be allowed if she was still married to my father...For example, my mother cannot claim education credits for my brother and sister (which would total to 2,000 more back my mother would get)but she cannot take them b/c of the threshold.

      And the deductions that you are referring to (ie charity) would not matter b/c you could take those anyway even if you are single. The deductions I am referring to are education credits, rental real estate deduction, IRA deductions, etc. that married people get that the average single person cannot.



    I'm sorry that your mother is not afforded some of the tax reliefs that married people have. However, I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that - independent of higher deduction thresholds - the federal government punishes ME for no other reason than that I am married. I do not have an IRA, I do not have children, and, up until recently, my wife and I rented an apartment.

    In fact, I think you and I agree on what should be done. There should be the same set of fiscal standards for both married and unmarried couples (gay or otherwise). Your mom should be given the same tax reliefs a married couple with children should have, and I should be given the same treatment that an unwed couple has.

    I'm trying to think of one non-religious reason why the federal government should have an interest on who is and isn't married- but I can't. Perhaps someone out there can enlighten me.



Ok, yeah, I can see that.

I am an accountant whose specialization is tax. There never has been a reason as to why they do what they do (if you want, call your local Congressman and blame him b/c they write tax laws). The marriage thing is in the midst of being corrected.

I guess the gov'ts feeling is that they give you guys the deductions (a lot of people I have dealt with make out better b/c of the higher thresholds).
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#23 Posted on
In Canada, where gay marriages are now legal pending federal approval, the Vatican's campaign against such marriages have taken an interesting turn, in which a bishop has said Prime Minister Jean Chretien will burn in hellfire unless he opposes gay marriages.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Chretien is likely going to hell anyway, in the Politician's Wing. He might as well go in style.



All right, I'm enjoying Rhyno's "man-beast" gimmick: He keeps his hair long, wears full-body wrestling tights with a big "R" on the back and uses the "Rhino Gore" as his finishing move. Can't you imagine him watching the Discovery Channel one day while tossing around possible gimmicks and having one of those "Hey, wait a second!" epiphanies during a rhino segment?

To spruce things up, the WWF should give Undertaker and Kane last names -- like Undertaker and Kane O'Brien, the O'Brien Brothers -- just for comedy's sake. Hopefully the door's still open.

RVD is approaching the always-exciting "The crowd loves him, but he's not getting a major push yet" phase which helps makes wrestling so much fun. It only happens once every few years -- Stone Cold in '96, The Rock in '98, Shawn Michaels in '93 and so on. -- ESPN's Bill Simmons back in 2001
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3872 days
Last activity: 3817 days
#25 Posted on
(deleted by CRZ on 4.8.03 0222)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1282 days
Last activity: 48 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#26 Posted on

    Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Nobody's criticized Bush for basically coming out & calling homosexuality a sin?


Actually, if you look more closely at his quote, he was attacking the Christian groups against homosexual marriages.

They view homosexuality as a sin. The point of him somment was not that homosexuality was a sin, but that those that oppose that group BECAUSE they feel it is sinful should mind their own buisness, and their own sins first.

As far as homosexual couples raising kids, they already get a child tax credit. In my eyes, that is about the only benefit anyone should get from the government- no one needs anymore because they are married...





Still on the Shelf #17 - Pete, the P.O.'d Postal Worker
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 2 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
So is your view that Gay Couples and Straight Couples should have the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage - whatever you think those benefits and responsibilities should be?



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 39 days
Last activity: 39 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
Since this potential law is based entirely on Buch's pesonal belief that marriage is only for a man and a woman together, does that mean if we had a gay in the white house that it would suddenyl be right and constitutional? You can't govern based on your own personal beliefs...

Also, I am of the opinion that it would be pretty fucking embarassing to see a constitutional ammendment addressing this issue, like it's something this country's founding fathers overlooked when they wrote the original draft.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1282 days
Last activity: 48 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on
Well, in all likelihood, the founding fathers would agree with the intent of the ammendment, but would be too busy throwing stones at the sodomite to care.

Marriage should be a civil matter. Simple as that. No ammendment should be necessary...





Still on the Shelf #17 - Pete, the P.O.'d Postal Worker
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2201 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#30 Posted on
Even if it were stictly a civil matter, there are economic repercussions and considerations, hence the government's invovlement.

From a financial and legal standpoint, a recognized marriage (or civil union) takes two economic entities, and makes them one, larger economic entity. It's like a corporate merger. Both parties can use their credit separately or jointly, if need be, and can share in each other's benefits (which employers typically pay for and provide).

I think all the religious posturing is only half of the story. There's a stack on money at the heart of this issue (for some) as well.



And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 301 days
Last activity: 294 days
#31 Posted on


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Well, in all likelihood, the founding fathers would agree with the intent of the ammendment, but would be too busy throwing stones at the sodomite to care.


No point bringing up the "fathers"...remember they only wanted white male land owners to vote...

I have absolutely nothing against folks having a loving relationship for the rest of their lives. What I don't understand is why gay couples feel thay have to be "legitimized" by the government. You can't stay together unless you have some stupid legal document?

Or is it TRULY, as some believe, simply a way to pair up to force businesses to give family benefits?

What would keep say, a 50-year-old bachelor to enter into a business partnership with a fellow single male co-worker on a "non-contact" marriage "agreement" so they can get family rather than dual individual benefits? What would define a marriageable relationship? Do they have to even know each other? Do they have to live together? Can they get married over e-mail?





The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 39 days
Last activity: 39 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
But the motives behind the actions are irrelevant and really nobody's business. The issue is regarding the government's boundaries in deciding the legality of gay marriages.

If Rosa Parks refused to stand up on her infamous bus ride not because she thought the rules were wrong but because her back hurt, is she suddenly wrong and needing to give up her seat? Of course not. The reason they want the rules changed does not matter, what matters is that to outlaw these marriages is simply wrong. And shit, if you want to get into motives, than what are Bush's motives for wanting to outlaw it? Because he personally disagrees with the action? Please.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 301 days
Last activity: 294 days
#33 Posted on


    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    But the motives behind the actions are irrelevant and really nobody's business. The issue is regarding the government's boundaries in deciding the legality of gay marriages.



I don't care and evidently the President doesn't care about the relationship aspect. The problem comes in where the boundaries are drawn for people to be able to enter into marriages. How do you prove someone is a "couple"? Why can't there be a "triple"?

If the government cannot set boundaries in this case, where can it set boundaries? Why can't two men and two women form a bi-sexual four-way marriage? Where is the arbitrary boundary and who sets it?




The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 165 days
Last activity: 165 days
#34 Posted on
The arbitrary boundry is set by the society we live in. As being openly gay becomes more acceptable in our society, discriminating against gay people becomes less acceptable. If more and more people start practicing polygamy, it has a chance to become the norm for our society, and thus it becomes a bad thing to outlaw polygamy. Or sodomy, or racism, or guns, or abortions, or anything. So unless being anti-gay marriage starts rising in popularity, then eventually we'll have legal gay marriages.

Of course, the current administration is preparing to write some legislation to try and stem the tide of gay acceptability, so that it will be easier to deny things like gay marriages in the future even if their views have slipped clearly into the minority.

-Jag



Roxanne from The Real Cancun on being famous:
"I'd rather be known for [dancing topless with my twin sister] instead of being smart or something. There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 301 days
Last activity: 294 days
#35 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    The arbitrary boundry is set by the society we live in. As being openly gay becomes more acceptable in our society, discriminating against gay people becomes less acceptable. If more and more people start practicing polygamy, it has a chance to become the norm for our society, and thus it becomes a bad thing to outlaw polygamy. Or sodomy, or racism, or guns, or abortions, or anything. So unless being anti-gay marriage starts rising in popularity, then eventually we'll have legal gay marriages


This is a nice speech that addresses none of my concerns about the issue, which are:

1. What I don't understand is why gay couples feel thay have to be "legitimized" by the government. You can't stay together unless you have some stupid legal document?

and 2. What would keep say, a 50-year-old bachelor to enter into a business partnership with a fellow single male co-worker on a "non-contact" marriage "agreement" so they can get family rather than dual individual benefits? What would define a marriageable relationship? Do they have to even know each other? Do they have to live together? Can they get married over e-mail?

And NO it would NOT be decided by society, it will be decided by the legislature and the court system. Someone please answer my concerns, then I might change my mind.


(edited by Eddie Famous on 5.8.03 2335)


The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54


    What I don't understand is why gay couples feel thay have to be "legitimized" by the government. You can't stay together unless you have some stupid legal document?




    What would keep say, a 50-year-old bachelor to enter into a business partnership with a fellow single male co-worker on a "non-contact" marriage "agreement" so they can get family rather than dual individual benefits? What would define a marriageable relationship? Do they have to even know each other? Do they have to live together? Can they get married over e-mail?


I think both of these arguments, as others on the board have pointed out, can basically be argued against by applying them to straight people. Why do so many straight couples feel the need to 'legitimized' by marriage? It basically just comes down to personal choice; some couples live together for years, have kids, etc. without ever getting married and are perfectly happy. The point is that they always have the freedom to marry whenever they want, and gays just want the same thing.

To answer the second point, what's to stop a man and a woman from entering into this same arrangement? Or a man marrying a woman to get his green card, like Guy and Kelly on Cheers? There are plenty of loopholes in "normal" marriage as it is.






Colin Mochrie


Which 'Whose Line is it Anyway?' actor are you!?
brought to you by Quizilla
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 301 days
Last activity: 294 days
#37 Posted on


    Originally posted by Big Bad
    I think both of these arguments, as others on the board have pointed out, can basically be argued against by applying them to straight people. Why do so many straight couples feel the need to 'legitimized' by marriage? It basically just comes down to personal choice; some couples live together for years, have kids, etc. without ever getting married and are perfectly happy. The point is that they always have the freedom to marry whenever they want, and gays just want the same thing.



You can't apply it to straight people, as they already have the ability to be legally married (in most cases). We are talking about a different type of couple that currently in most states do not have the right to. It's a matter of getting something recognized against something that's already recognized. And guess what? YOU CANT ALWAYS MARRY WHO YOU WANT. Ask the Mormon church. And by diverting and pointing to straight couples, you still haven't answered my question number one. "Just Because" isn't a good enough answer.



    Originally posted by Big Bad
    To answer the second point, what's to stop a man and a woman from entering into this same arrangement? Or a man marrying a woman to get his green card, like Guy and Kelly on Cheers? There are plenty of loopholes in "normal" marriage as it is.


Absolutely, so why should we add several thousand more? Your post again, doesn't answer my second question. How would a marriageable relationship be defined?



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1236 days
Last activity: 1033 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    And shit, if you want to get into motives, than what are Bush's motives for wanting to outlaw it? Because he personally disagrees with the action? Please.

One theory: it's an angle to get more Black Republican voters.



Father: “You see, son, we live in a liberal democratic society. The Democrats created sexual harassment law, which tells us what we can and cannot say in the workplace, and what we can and cannot do in the workplace.”

Kyle: “But isn’t that fascism?

Father: “No, because we don’t call it fascism.”
- South Park
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 39 days
Last activity: 39 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by Eddie Famous

      Originally posted by Big Bad
      I think both of these arguments, as others on the board have pointed out, can basically be argued against by applying them to straight people. Why do so many straight couples feel the need to 'legitimized' by marriage? It basically just comes down to personal choice; some couples live together for years, have kids, etc. without ever getting married and are perfectly happy. The point is that they always have the freedom to marry whenever they want, and gays just want the same thing.



    You can't apply it to straight people, as they already have the ability to be legally married (in most cases). We are talking about a different type of couple that currently in most states do not have the right to. It's a matter of getting something recognized against something that's already recognized. And guess what? YOU CANT ALWAYS MARRY WHO YOU WANT. Ask the Mormon church. And by diverting and pointing to straight couples, you still haven't answered my question number one. "Just Because" isn't a good enough answer.



      Originally posted by Big Bad
      To answer the second point, what's to stop a man and a woman from entering into this same arrangement? Or a man marrying a woman to get his green card, like Guy and Kelly on Cheers? There are plenty of loopholes in "normal" marriage as it is.


    Absolutely, so why should we add several thousand more? Your post again, doesn't answer my second question. How would a marriageable relationship be defined?



If straight people don't have to answer these questions, why should gays?

Again, it is none of your business why anyone feels the need to be recognized as a couple by the government. They feel like they do, so they should be able to.

As for the "triples instead of couples" crap you rambled about earlier, the government has long recognized couples but not "triples." Gays just want that same recognition. Straight people don't get to marry in "triples" either, you know.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2797 days
Last activity: 2639 days
AIM:  
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
This thread is getting rather interesting, if I do say so.

I'm not convinced here either, Bucs. Eddie's made some pretty interesting arguments. We could say that EVERYONE has the same rights, i.e., anyone can get married to a person of the opposite sex. I mean, as a heterosexual male, I'm not allowed to marry a dude either.

Furthermore, why NOT polygamy/polyandry? Your argument seems to be "well, duh... marriage means two people, not three!" But traditionally, marriage also means a man and a woman.

I'm not trying to come down on either side of the issue, here, but it's valid to make the "slippery slope" argument, IMHO. The only logic I've seen in favor of gay marriage is "if gay people want to get married, who are we to say no?" I admit to finding that argument kind of attractive, but if we apply it to everyone (as we should), then we are compelled to honor ANY sort of marriage agreement. Even, as they say, man on dog. I don't equate homosexuality with bestiality, but I don't have an objective reason for that.



"Georgie Porgie, he might buy the whole league, but he doesn't have enough money to buy fear to put in my heart."
Pedro Martinez
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Denver to vote on Anti-Stress Initiative
Next thread: Gay HS Redux: Lawsuit Filed
Previous thread: More Politics
(1893 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Yesm they should have done something. Does that reasoning also apply to here?
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and Woman (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.148 seconds.