Good Lord
- Thread starter Cyclone62
- Start date
Believe me, the financial gain is not all that great. And do you have proof that that would happen? You can't honestly think that denying rights to people just so your taxes aren't raised is correct, do you?
Actually I just read recently about a San fran neighborhood up in arms because to many "straight" families were moving in and the homosexual "couples" wanted assuances that the neighborhood would not lose its gayness.
Kyle - my guess is you are pretty young. Nothing in the gay lobby has been done by a democratic process. Matter of fact, the gay marriage issue was handled by the democratic process and was rejected overwhelmingly.
Believe me, there is a significant monetary gain from being married. I've compared what I pay in taxes now versus what I would pay if married and it's several thousand dollars.
And I have no proof that it would happen just as you have no proof that it wouldn't happen. But it's possible.
I didn't say gays shouldn't get married I'm just pointing out that in a money-obsessed country, it may come into play. Just like how tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people each year but the government does nothing about it because of $$$.
Cy Gal - the founders never put the seperation in place. It was mentioned in a letter from I believe Jefferson, and the issue was the State butting into religion, not the other way around. This passage was then quoted out of context in a court case and has hung around ever since.
By the way everyone I am sorry for the multi posts today - just getting back online after being underwater at work for a while.
I would argue that this would not cause any change in taxation. Two male breadwinners would not reap many rewards from being married since they would most likely be in a higher tax bracket based on average wages for men. Two females in a marriage would not change the taxation b/c only one of them would get the "head of houshold status" and reap a marginal return on thier income tax. The thing I find mos striking about this post is that the same sex couples would not be the ones devalueing the sanctity of marriage but the heterosexual couples getting married for purely financial gain. I can see the original basis for the financial arguement but it just won't hold up.
Taxes will be raised when we have a Democrat in office with a Democratic congress, not when more people are married. (ask your parents when the last time was that they actually got a return from the government.)
Wierd...I'm a Republican but I don't see a problem with people that love eachother having the right to do as everyone else who loves eachother does. As long as they pay thier taxes:biggrin9gp: .
It depends who you are... if you are gay and married then you taxes will be lower. The typical argument made in favor of tax breaks for married couples is to assist in raising children. However, the same objective can be achieved just as easily with child tax credits. It also becomes very difficult to justify tax breaks for those without children.
I see what you are saying but your logic is a little flawed. Say 2 men marry. Man 1 pays $10,000 per year in taxes and Man 2 pays $10,000 per year as well. If they marry, they will not pay $20,000 in taxes...maybe they will only pay $18,000. So the government loses $2,000 here.
Trust me, the government will make up that difference somewhere by raising taxes.
Again, I know its not very popular to look at it from a purely financial standpoint...but it's necessary in the type of country we live in.
The reason for "Separation of Church and State", as you put it, was to prevent the government from establishing a state church, to prevent the government from taxing churches, and otherwise hindering free religious expression, as was happening in Great Britain at the time. It had absolutely nothing to do with preventing lawmakers from using religious principles to make decisions, or using religious principles as the basis for laws.
The majority of the founding fathers wanted to keep the government out of religion, not ban religion from government. Read and study what they wrote and you can come to no other conclusion. They prayed to God during their meetings. All federal lawmaking sessions, dating back to the Continental Congress, have been opened with prayer.
Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Unfortunately, they had no problem "denying rights".
EDIT: There was a brief period in the 1850's where the House and Senate did not have Chaplains.
Last edited:
When you're married your wife wants new furniture, the walls painted something other than white, and 'artwork' rather than your vintage cindy crawford poster - yellow swimsuit and all :sad9cd:...
that's justification enough :laugh8kb:
I'm young relative to people that are older than me. :wink0st: The democratic process includes more than just voting on an issue. In order to be successful one typically has to promote one's ideas through public discourse. Free and open dialoge is vital to a democracy, which is why freedom of speech is so jealously protected in the U.S.
I think the strategy of the gay rights movement has been flawed in some resepects, in that they tried to grab a lot quickly and this prompted a backlash. Currently the movement needs to change people's opinions and lay the groundwork for further change. I think that is the stage things have tended towards right now.
Man you really nailed the meaning of those posts. Give me a break! I'm pretty sure when he said the principles our country was founded on he was meaning the morals and values. Does it say in the original constitution that we should own slaves and discriminate against women? No, but since it didn't say NOT to then they must have meant to do it. That's some fuzzy logic.
On the second one, I can guarantee you he wasn't saying that everybody not like him should go home, but the people that cry and whine about how everything doesn't suit them perfectly should find another place to live. The MAJORITY of America doesn't matter, it's what the minority that cries the loudest wants that gets notices. We welcome everybody into our country with open arms, but you can't make everybody happy. If everything was exactly how one person wanted it, everybody would hate it, in which case we would become Cuba.
My response was a very pointed way of discrediting any "if you don't like something then leave" sentiment. You did qualify your statement in the original post, but it was there.
As far as the principles this country was founded upon, it is not difficult to be cynical and say one of those principles was that white property owners were superior to everyone else. The constitution even treats the slaves as 3/5ths of a person. Some principles prevelant at the founding of this country were/are in need of change.
Essentially the morals and values of the rich white men in power who condoned slavery. My point is that the fact that a moral view was prevalent at the founding of the country certainly does not make it correct, and we are better off abandoning many of them.
I have to disagree on this one. When you are creating the founding document of a country and explicitly stating many of the rights of people in that country and you don't provide rights for blacks and women then you are condoning discrimination against them.
You mean there are flaws in a document written over 200 years ago that make it hard to relate to present time? This couldn’t be possible with a book written over 1000 years ago, could it?
Again, the examples you are giving are valid ones but those are social issues...not religious ones Kyle. Social values changes, religious values don't (in general).
