Dumb Anti-Gay Arguments...

[Evil_K_Man]

Why do people always make this a religious debate.  The truth is it is about money.  GLBT want tax breaks.  Uncle Sam wants tax revenue.  Obviously, there is a conflict between GLBT and Uncle Sam as they are on opposing side.  GLBT wants to overhaul with some unclear definition called civil union.  Uncle Sam is afraid civil union will be taken advantage.  Uncle Sam can expect that marriage as an institution will support Uncle Sam in legal battle that certain marriages do not fit the construct of society as defined by traditions and so anyone trying to cheat Uncle Sam, you can't.  Since Uncle Sam is faced with unknown consequences with no benefit, Uncle Sam correct decision is to do nothing.  This is pure economics and decision science.

I disagree with your statement. Joint couples can end up paying more taxes on average than singles once their AGI hits a certain threshold compared to filing single or seperately (known as the "marriage penalty"), so although it is a valid argument, it doesn't hold much weight compared to other points as Uncle Sam would win out versus the gay couples.

This isn't a debate about economics, its a debate about equal rights. Religion is only involved because the government has involved itself with it by using marriage (a religious institution) to create its laws.

I know a lot of gay couples (since I live and work in SF now) and never have any of them talked about tax being a factor, they simply want to have the other 1000 legal rights that come with what a marriage has.

[HUNG TU LO]

Oh please. Gay people have been around for longer than you and I. They weren't going broke because of some tax penalty much like some people who choose to be single and/or childless or never married their whole life. What a crock!

How many gay people you know are being evicted out of cock-roach/mice infested, unkempt, broken down, high crime, gangsters, and drug neighborhoods, can't make the rent, can't find baby's daddy? The majority of gay people are from educated, middle-class, wealthy, privileged background! Please don't give me shit about how gay people are going broke because of the tax system. That's a slap in the face to real poor folks (who already get most of their taxes back anyway!?!?!?!?!!  ). It's already enough shit you people compare the plight of gays with African-American slave history and Civil Rights movement. Stop before my ears bleed.

[Evil_K_Man]

Sure those couples may, but they are in the negligible 1%, the majority they want the economic advantage that comes with marriage...the tax breaks, the health benefits, the access to social security, the access to retirement and etc...  It's ECONOMICS...An ybody says it's about equality as if it's some ideal...is misunderstandi ng because equality is about economics...ec onomic classes respect economic classes...and they look down on other classes...if a wealthy black-looking Czar came to America during the slavery era, they would respect him because he's no black slave, he's the Czar...he has wealth and power.

I'm saying don't make this into a religious debate about how God didn't make Adam and Steve...nobody cares about that old argument...wha t Adam and Steve wants is retirement access.

8v10, I think you are trying to rationalize this as a behavior that is driven by motitivation other than the need/want for equal rights. I doubt you know many gay couples (if any) and if you listen to their stories, you'll understand that they simply want to be treated equal.  Most of them will tell you that they want the right to take medical leave to care for a love one (like their partners) or be able to make decisions at their deathbeds, not once has anybody (not sure where you got the 1% but I'm assuming thats made up) have told me that they are doing this simply for money?

I don't agree with your statement above and feel that is quite an unfair assumption to make.  But if what you said was true, most gays would simply marry a person of the opposite sex to get all the tax benefit while doing their "gay" thing on the side), but none of that is happening, because ECONOMICS is not the objective.  Gays aren't out to cheat the government, in fact on average they make more money than most middle income Americans.  They don't need money, because they are well off already.

[Evil_K_Man]

Oh and I always loved hearing about the Adam and Steve story in church.  I use to laugh about it until I started learning about biology in school.  One day I heard the story and asked the sunday school teacher, if God made Eve out of Adam without the introduction of new genetics, wouldn't Eve technically be Steve since she would just be a clone of Adam?

The sunday school teacher was a bit baffled, but told me that I should not ask those type of questions and simply accept what she says.  I did...until now.

[Evil_K_Man]

Oh please. Gay people have been around for longer than you and I. They weren't going broke because of some tax penalty much like some people who choose to be single and/or childless or never married their whole life. What a crock!

How many gay people you know are being evicted out of cock-roach/mice infested, unkempt, broken down, high crime, gangsters, and drug neighborhoods, can't make the rent, can't find baby's daddy? The majority of gay people are from educated, middle-class, wealthy, privileged background! Please don't give me shit about how gay people are going broke because of the tax system. That's a slap in the face to real poor folks (who already get most of their taxes back anyway!?!?!?!?!!  ). It's already enough shit you people compare the plight of gays with African-American slave history and Civil Rights movement. Stop before my ears bleed.

Uhhhh....okay. ...I'm not sure if you are refuting 8v10 with the first part of your response about economics or whether you are refuting my positon with the last part? but whatever....ok ay, sure....

[bulbasaur]

Medical decisions for the incapacitated.  It's not all about economics.  You wrong...as usual. 

In many states, the spouse has the first right to make medical decisions for incapacitated (for adults).  Gay couples are not afforded this right because their union is not recognized by the state.  You can argue that they can make a legal advance directive, but that simply shows the inequality.  Jim Crow Laws are illegal. 

You wrote, "Do I want them to have same benefits?  Why not.  Should marriage be changed?  No." Hyprocisy?  Yes. 

BTW, you are being insensitive.  Even if what you say is true, which it is not, it is insensitive. 

EKM, I'm not being insensitive.  I acknowledge their lifestyle as a valid lifestyle in a free society.  I love my family members who are gay just the same before I knew and I would never ever think they are invalid.  Having gay family member has really soften my heart to be honest and really given me new perspective.  Do I want them to have same benefits?  Why not.  Should marriage be changed?  No.  At the end of the day it still economics and I don't care what anybody say because equality is measured in dollars in plenty of reports I've read.  Until it's not measured in dollar or a proxy of dollars (education), then I'll stop saying so.

To think about...what facet of life is not measured in dollar or a proxy of it?  I don't know...maybe love?  Even intelligence is measured in access to knowledge which requires access to resource (a proxy to dollars hence economics).
 

[Believe_N_Me]

Medical decisions for the incapacitated.  It's not all about economics.  You wrong...as usual. 

In many states, the spouse has the first right to make medical decisions for incapacitated (for adults).  Gay couples are not afforded this right because their union is not recognized by the state.  You can argue that they can make a legal advance directive, but that simply shows the inequality.  Jim Crow Laws are illegal. 

You wrote, "Do I want them to have same benefits?  Why not.  Should marriage be changed?  No." Hyprocisy?  Yes. 

BTW, you are being insensitive.  Even if what you say is true, which it is not, it is insensitive. 

Even siblings don't get the rights under FLCA so chill out.  Marriage excludes ANYBODY who isn't married and "yes" this includes couples who only cohabitate.

Marriage doesn't need to be redefined. Everybody else seems to understand and what they do is get Power of Attorney. There are different ones. Google it up. You're good at reading so I'm sure it won't be difficult for you to understand. However, you somehow can't or don't want to understand "marriage".

[bulbasaur]

You wrote, "You're good at reading so I'm sure it won't be difficult for you to understand."  Unfortunately, you are not good at reading, and it is difficult for you to understand.  Tell me again, was it 2/3 or 3/5?  If you can't get the facts correct, what makes you think that your views are correct?   

Even siblings don't get the rights under FLCA so chill out.  Marriage excludes ANYBODY who isn't married and "yes" this includes couples who only cohabitate.

Marriage doesn't need to be redefined. Everybody else seems to understand and what they do is get Power of Attorney. There are different ones. Google it up. You're good at reading so I'm sure it won't be difficult for you to understand. However, you somehow can't or don't want to understand "marriage".

[bulbasaur]

For those who keep whining that this isn't about civil rights....See Arizona. 

[bulbasaur]

Critical thinking really does matter. 

You wrote, "Inequality is not Jim Crow."  Let's stop here.  Are you saying that Jim Crow laws didn't create inequality?   

This is about as absurd as you claiming that 17th century people thought the world was flat.  Add one more to the dumb argument....

Critical thinking matters when you dissect complex issue.

Inequality is not Jim Crow.  Inequality is not discrimination .  There is no such thing as equality...it's like infinity.  It's a concept that is real in our mind, but never achievable.

Reason why reform has not been made in this because it is economics.  There is no economic advantage for Uncle Sam to spend billions for a small group of people when there are alternatives to resolve the same issue.  They have bigger things to deal with like immigration reform.

[jon_jon]

In the word's of Uganda's President....

THEY'RE DISGUSTING!

It's a choice, and if they learned it, they can unlearn it...

Uganda's scientists have proven with science that gays are not inborn genetically gay.

In other recent news the Egyptian Army has found a cure for AIDs. 

[Believe_N_Me]

For those who keep whining that this isn't about civil rights....See Arizona. 

You're not qualified to discuss Arizona because you don't even understand the marriage process. You think having your marriage officiated by a monkey means it's legit and legally binding by the state. 

Most of the time, you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND the argument and underlying causes.

I highly doubt marriage is the "pillar" of our community given the ability exit gracefully (or not) via a divorce.

You can define marriage which ever way you want, if your religion or culture defines it as one man, one woman, than so be it. NO ONE is out to redefine the "christian" definition of marriage, but when the government creates laws that are bias off the views of one group, that is where we have a problem. Look around you, 17 states  (includuing DC) now recognize same sex marriage with other states recognizing them so long as they are performed in those states, DOMA is unconstitution al...see what happens when you build your laws around the disposition of one group and expect everybody to follow it?

I swear of all the PHers in here, was I the only one who took highschool government classes? I mean I took the AP version, but the regular classes couldn't have been that bad?

Newsflash, it's not a Christian religious issue at all. The Hmong define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

And btw, marriage is a "pillar" of many societies and has been for centuries. That's why the government always has a way of sticking its nose into the business of marriage because it recognizes how it affects society. And people like you ARE OUT TO REDEFINE THE DEFINITION which is the REAL REASON why there's all this controversy.

[bulbasaur]

And, you aren't qualified because you think 2/3 equals 3/5.   

I'll concede that your outrageous argument is correct, if you can explain this 2/3 Compromise you wrote about earlier. 

If you can't get your facts right, what makes you believe that your conclusions are correct? 

You're not qualified to discuss Arizona because you don't even understand the marriage process. You think having your marriage officiated by a monkey means it's legit and legally binding by the state. 

Most of the time, you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND the argument and underlying causes.

Newsflash, it's not a Christian religious issue at all. The Hmong define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

And btw, marriage is a "pillar" of many societies and has been for centuries. That's why the government always has a way of sticking its nose into the business of marriage because it recognizes how it affects society. And people like you ARE OUT TO REDEFINE THE DEFINITION which is the REAL REASON why there's all this controversy.

[Believe_N_Me]

How about let's just return to common sense.

I don't know of any wildlife conservation organization that keeps two males for the purpose of saving an endangered species. Let me know when the last two female polar bears on earth can propagate their species and prevent total extinction.

Let's put it this way. If there ever comes a day when earth is going to be annihilated by an asteroid and human beings have one capsule to lodge into outer space to save our species, nobody is going to send two males or two females in that capsule. They are going to send one male and one female.

[Evil_K_Man]

Newsflash, it's not a Christian religious issue at all. The Hmong define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

And btw, marriage is a "pillar" of many societies and has been for centuries. That's why the government always has a way of sticking its nose into the business of marriage because it recognizes how it affects society. And people like you ARE OUT TO REDEFINE THE DEFINITION which is the REAL REASON why there's all this controversy.

Are you even Hmong? Its defined as a union between one man and MULTIPLE women....(i.e. polygamy)...  the majority of hmongs (westernized) may not practice it, but its still recognized...l ook at General Vang Pao and the many wives he had.