Homosexual Marriages

[DracIV]

I might as well just list the reasons:

1) Marriage is a long-lasting tradition to cement the love between a man and wife

2) In many cultures (remember America is a mixed pot), children are only allowed in marriage.

3) Marriage helps to create a more stable environment for a child to be raised balanced.

4) There are really no reasons for the government to give gay marriages a tax break except for greed.

5) When marriage was required before children, the tax break was needed because marriage almost garunteed a child (large drain). Now it isn't needed anymore because having a child gives tax breaks, but it is just a tradition and there was no reason to remove it.

[mizelle59]

1) Homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. Wide-spread condemnation of these relationships did not appear until the 13th century when, big suprise!, certain religions stuck their nose in and declared them immoral.

2) And the way this is connected to gay marriages is?..

3) Again, how is this related to gay marriage?

4) There are really no reasons for the government to not give gay marraiges a tax break except for prejudice.

5) This..what? This just makes me feel like we should just get rid of tax breaks all together. That would probably actually be the better solution, as you yourself admitted they are no longer needed anyway.

[Anonymous]

As it turns out, in Ancient Greece, most upper-class men had homosexual relationships, and the people who created the US constitution loved Greece so much and based much of the government off of Greece's.

[DracIV]

With 2 & 3, gays don't *usually* get married to have kids.

And yes getting rid of the tax breaks might be a bit nice, but other people probably want to keep them. Flat tax 12%!

Anyway, there is nothing really wrong with gay marriage except an aversion to gay males held by a large portion of the male population and a general negative view held by the same people. The only thing I want to know is: why should the government acknowledge gay marriages? They are allowed, the government ain't stoppin a religious ceremony, but why should a gay person care what the government thinks about it and why should they want the government to acknowledge their marriage? Is it one or two people or all of them who say that?

[mizelle59]

Why should homosexuals expect the same tax breaks that straights get? Well, I feel it's a very good question when they ask why they shouldn't. And when the government replies that their personal religion condemns their group so therefore they won't get the same benefits, it sounds very suspicious.

This is supposed to be a free and equal country. We arrogantly condemn other countries who dare to show any sort of "keeping down" of a particular group, and then we do the same.

[DracIV]

Keeping down? lol. It isn't even a tax break, really, it just lets them do their taxes as if they were one person. Why would anyone care enough about something so minor to make it a major country issue? It's not like it has much of an effect at all. And it isn't religion that would "condemn" them, it would be the general cultural opinion of this country. Oh yeah, and no one said the country was equal. Humans are equal, countries ain't.

[RajginKisaragi]

Keeping down? lol. It isn't even a tax break, really, it just lets them do their taxes as if they were one person.

Stop talking. It's making you look stupid.

[DracIV]

Well, you've got some mighty fine comments yourself. Great contribution, aye. A few hundred double posts here and there. One or two thousand short, pointless posts to say something like "ditto" or make a personal comment. You've done some mighty fine things there, sir.

Anyway, I guess on the original topic that I can't find anything very swaying from anyone as to why to vote yes or why to vote no. The tax break ain't much, it may be a minority of the affected who care, and there isn't really a solid reason why they want it in the first place. Can anyone provide one or two solid reasons for either side? (everything before this has been "It's their right!" and "No it isn't." or "So?")

[RajginKisaragi]

Well, you've got some mighty fine comments yourself. Great contribution, aye. A few hundred double posts here and there. One or two thousand short, pointless posts to say something like "ditto" or make a personal comment. You've done some mighty fine things there, sir.

I'm sorry for agreeing with people. I'm also sorry that my comments make more sence then yours also.

[RajginKisaragi]

I might as well just list the reasons:

1) Marriage is a long-lasting tradition to cement the love between a man and wife

Not true. Look at celebrity marriages.

2) In many cultures (remember America is a mixed pot), children are only allowed in marriage.

This is true. And allowed.

3) Marriage helps to create a more stable environment for a child to be raised balanced.

HA! That's a joke! Then how come they like to get drunk and beat their kids?

4) There are really no reasons for the government to give #$* marriages a tax break except for greed.

Greed for who? The gay guys? FYI, whenever people get married, they loose money because they combine incomes into one. So it's the government that's greedy. And since that's the case, why doesn't the government let them marry?

5) When marriage was required before children,

Stop dwelling on the past.

but it is just a tradition and there was no reason to remove it.

Yes, but times change and so do people. Therefore, laws change with the people. That's happened for years.

[DracIV]

*cough* Double post again *cough*

Anyway, why should we change? There was never anything wrong with marriage, so why is someone trying to fix it? I have seen no strong reason for why we should change, but there are no strong reasons not to change except the absence of reason to change. Can you supply a good strong reason for why we should change except "We wanna have it."

[mizelle59]

Why are you shrugging it off as some stupid tax break? If it's really so inconsequential, then why can't we just give it to them?

[DracIV]

Because why should we give it to them? I keep asking for a solid reason. There aren't really any reasons why not to, but there aren't any reasons to do it besides "We wanna have it".

[Moogy]

Of course, the United States of America happens to be a democracy.

[DracIV]

And in a democracy the *majority* wins. If there are more gay people than straight, we're screwed population-wise in the future.