Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
Seamaiden said:
I think string-of-asterisks-guy doesn't like your OPINIONS, TBT. :)

Ah.. but NPOs enjoy that status after going through an extensive and rigorous qualification procedure. Then, they must show exactly how their monies are being spent. And that's just the beginning. A church is definitely not the same as an honest-to-goodness NPO. With an NPO it can take YEARS to gain such status. A church merely has to open up a storefront and hire a preacher, et voila, non-taxable status.

Something is amiss! Make a church go through the exact same process, with the exact same oversights, and they, too, can enjoy NPO status, as long as they follow their own protocol, goals, and guidelines that gained them NPO status in the first place.
:D
Click to expand...
Something is amiss. :roll: Your understanding of the role religion plays in this Judao/Christian society we have inherited, as well as your understanding of the role of the government, regarding religious tolerance, and the punitive function taxes play.


ACORN is a NPO. They support the messiah. Should they be taxed, too? (rhetorical)
 
B

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
Does it matter if they're taxed, if they end up paying nothing because of deductions and expenses? That's what all non-profits do, they spend everything they make, resulting in net income of $0. If you apply a 90% tax rate on that net income, you still end up with $0. So, tax away. Churches too. At least if churches are taxed, they won't be able to just hoard the money, they'll have to spend it on new buildings or new Bentleys for the cardinals or something, all of which would be good for the economy in one way or another.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
Bongulator said:
Does it matter if they're taxed, if they end up paying nothing because of deductions and expenses? That's what all non-profits do, they spend everything they make, resulting in net income of $0. If you apply a 90% tax rate on that net income, you still end up with $0. So, tax away. Churches too. At least if churches are taxed, they won't be able to just hoard the money, they'll have to spend it on new buildings or new Bentleys for the cardinals or something, all of which would be good for the economy in one way or another.
Click to expand...

You guys are pret-ty, pret-ty, lame.

Religion in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
First of all, why shouldn't gays be as miserable as the rest of us? Let them get married I say!! You'll be SORRY!!

Gay household example....

Bill: "hey, Aren't you ready yet? I laid out your clothes and the hendershotts will be here in an hour."
Ted: "I'll do it as soon as halftime arrives. Give me twenty minutes."

Bill: "Twenty minutes! Look, I didn't slave over a chicken Kiev and polish the fine silverware for you to watch football. Do I have to dress you now? Don't you respect and love me?"
Ted: "Of course I love you! I married you didn't I?" (this is a big faux pas, gay or not)

Bill bursts into tears and locks himself in the bathroom three minutes before the doorbell rings. The Hendershotts are annoyingly early.

Ted starts to think about why in the heck he got married!?!


================================================

All kidding aside, it's about money. Marriage is a financial as well as a social compact. To deny ANY citizen the ability to enter into these contracts is discrimination. There are all kinds of benefits to being married. If you want to keep gays out of marriage, then remove the perks from marriage. Since that is NOT going to happen, the only option is to allow same sex misery, er, I mean marriage.


out.


out.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
CrackerJax said:
First of all, why shouldn't gays be as miserable as the rest of us? Let them get married I say!! You'll be SORRY!!

Gay household example....

Bill: "hey, Aren't you ready yet? I laid out your clothes and the hendershotts will be here in an hour."
Ted: "I'll do it as soon as halftime arrives. Give me twenty minutes."

Bill: "Twenty minutes! Look, I didn't slave over a chicken Kiev and polish the fine silverware for you to watch football. Do I have to dress you now? Don't you respect and love me?"
Ted: "Of course I love you! I married you didn't I?" (this is a big faux pas, gay or not)

Bill bursts into tears and locks himself in the bathroom three minutes before the doorbell rings. The Hendershotts are annoyingly early.

Ted starts to think about why in the heck he got married!?!


================================================

All kidding aside, it's about money. Marriage is a financial as well as a social compact. To deny ANY citizen the ability to enter into these contracts is discrimination. There are all kinds of benefits to being married. If you want to keep gays out of marriage, then remove the perks from marriage. Since that is NOT going to happen, the only option is to allow same sex misery, er, I mean marriage.


out.


out.
Click to expand...
No discrimination. Gays can get married too. Just not to the same sex, just like the rest of us. A fact often overlooked. ( I should be able to have two wives. Siiike! One's enough.) :rolleyes:

If you have a prescription for pot, you can smoke it legally. If not, don't get caught. You can still smoke it, though. Seems discriminatory as well. We should get a referendum going.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Exactly my point. That's discrimination. A person should not be forced to go through such convoluted steps to get benefits.

Out.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
CrackerJax said:
Exactly my point. That's discrimination. A person should not be forced to go through such convoluted steps to get benefits.

Out.
Click to expand...
You use the word "benefits" interchangeably with the word "rights". That's wrong. That's the flaw in your argument.

"My neighbor works for the Post Office and gets a great benefit package. I want it too! I pay for the Post Office, too!"
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
Do we live in a society governed by fairness, or governed by we the people? If fairness is your answer, who's the arbiter? The Supreme Court? Obama? Bush?
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
It's about equality, not fairness. Sometimes equality must be meted out by the Government and or courts, when the MAJORITY of people are against a MINORITY. Civil Rights would be a good example. Were you against that?


out.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
CrackerJax said:
It's about equality, not fairness. Sometimes equality must be meted out by the Government and or courts, when the MAJORITY of people are against a MINORITY. Civil Rights would be a good example. Were you against that?


out.
Click to expand...
So now I'm a racist? :clap::lol:

Equality of outcome is your desire. Equality of opportunity already exists.

How about this...if the benefits associated with marriage are rights, why doesn't everybody, gay couples, straight couples, single straight dudes, gay 17 year old chicks, yada yada, everybody, already get those benefits, I mean, rights?

Why doesn't everybody, automatically, get a welfare check every month? Food stamps every month? Free medical care? Etc. etc. Because we're not yet a socialist society. If we keep turning our personal lives and personal decisions over to the courts and government to decide for all of us, as one voice, we're screwed.

People, voting people, can and do change their minds. Tyrants rarely do. As a new generation is born into a free society, they have the opportunity make their own rules, new rules, the rules that they let govern them. This is what we do. We vote.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/120241-gay-marriage-really-bigodeal-8.html

And, in this case, it's the minority against the majority. Who is making the issue out of it? What gives a minority group, because of their minority status, the right to dictate to the majority? This isn't about equality, or rights, it's about the Constitution. It's about a voting populous exercising their right to vote. And a minority in government demanding veto authority over that right.

What's next? Who does the next demand come from? Who do we, the American voter, kowtow to next?
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
ccodiane said:
So now I'm a racist? :clap::lol:

Equality of outcome is your desire. Equality of opportunity already exists.

How about this...if the benefits associated with marriage are rights, why doesn't everybody, gay couples, straight couples, single straight dudes, gay 17 year old chicks, yada yada, everybody, already get those benefits, I mean, rights?

Why doesn't everybody, automatically, get a welfare check every month? Food stamps every month? Free medical care? Etc. etc. Because we're not yet a socialist society. If we keep turning our personal lives and personal decisions over to the courts and government to decide for all of us, as one voice, we're screwed.

People, voting people, can and do change their minds. Tyrants rarely do. As a new generation is born into a free society, they have the opportunity make their own rules, new rules, the rules that they let govern them. This is what we do. We vote.
Click to expand...
LOL. i didn't call you a racist! You injected that in all by yourself. I merely asked a question.

As for food stamps and welfare, those are completely different issues from marriage. Apples and oranges my friend.

=============================================

As for the minority lobbying the majority to set things right, that's is how it is done in a Democracy. we are supposed to be about EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Banning a segment of the population from marriage is wrong any way you slice it.

By the way the Civil rights movement was exactly that. The MINORITY lobbying the MAJORITY.

out.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
CrackerJax said:
LOL. i didn't call you a racist! You injected that in all by yourself. I merely asked a question.

As for food stamps and welfare, those are completely different issues from marriage. Apples and oranges my friend.

=============================================

As for the minority lobbying the majority to set things right, that's is how it is done in a Democracy. we are supposed to be about EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Banning a segment of the population from marriage is wrong any way you slice it.

By the way the Civil rights movement was exactly that. The MINORITY lobbying the MAJORITY.

out.
Click to expand...
we are supposed to be about EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Banning a segment of the population from marriage is wrong any way you slice it.

So polygamists should be able to marry multiple wives? Children should be able to marry, if they want to? People can arrange marriages for others without the participants consent?

Do you drive? Why are you against clean air?;-)
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
The attempt to relate as synonymous the civil rights movement and the marriage issue is disingenuous. Apples and oranges my friend.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
ccodiane said:
we are supposed to be about EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Banning a segment of the population from marriage is wrong any way you slice it.

So polygamists should be able to marry multiple wives? Children should be able to marry, if they want to? People can arrange marriages for others without the participants consent?

Do you drive? Why are you against clean air?;-)
Click to expand...
There's a reason why there's an age of consent.

But sure, why not, if the State is going to let homosexuals marry, then should let polygamists marry.

Arranged marriages on the other hand are wrong.

That's not consent, but the discussion is about gays being allowed to marry. Personally I think that the sanctity of marriage needs to be preserved, because it was defined by the Unions.

The State can define its sanctioned unions as Civil Unions and leave religion to its definition of Marriage.

Nice, neat, everyone more or less gets what they want.

And if either side wants more, you can take a 10lb sledge hammer and drive it down on their skulls.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
There's a reason why there's an age of consent.

But sure, why not, if the State is going to let homosexuals marry, then should let polygamists marry.

Arranged marriages on the other hand are wrong.

That's not consent, but the discussion is about gays being allowed to marry. Personally I think that the sanctity of marriage needs to be preserved, because it was defined by the Unions.

The State can define its sanctioned unions as Civil Unions and leave religion to its definition of Marriage.

Nice, neat, everyone more or less gets what they want.

And if either side wants more, you can take a 10lb sledge hammer and drive it down on their skulls.
Click to expand...
In New Hampshire, with parental consent, females can marry at 13, males at 14.

Marriage laws | LII / Legal Information Institute

Many religious groups find it entirely acceptable to arrange marriages. If marriage privileges are given to gays, courtesy the courts, these dudes are next to get the privileges.

Top judges in key ruling on sharia marriage | UK news | The Observer

I'm all for civil unions, gay marriage even, enacted by state legislatures. Cool.

PS- I forgot about the polygamists!?!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/163128/united_states_supreme_court_declines.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top