PDA

View Full Version : What Is Marrige?



kittiepoetrygod
November 6th, 2001, 05:59 PM
I was wondering what your opinions on this are ... being as how some people say its only for men and women, and some say its for all and can back that statement up legally ... so what are you opinions/?

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 06:06 PM
MarriAge is an agreement between people to love and/or help eachother.

talamh
November 6th, 2001, 06:10 PM
i think it is homophobic and discriminatory that same sex marriage is illegal. What matters is love and committment - not gender.

The exclusivity of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is based on the religious view that sex is a sin that should only be experienced for the purpose of procreation. Society's view of sex has changed but the laws, as always, lag far behind.

Fortunately, because some people cared enough to take it to court, same sex partners are slowly being included in benefits packages and adoption. i really think it is just a matter of time before legal marriage of same sex partners is accepted.
bb talamh

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 06:20 PM
Same sex marriage in Canada

http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa021300a.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb.htm

(psst it has been done here)

Illuminatus
November 6th, 2001, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by kittiepoetrygod
I was wondering what your opinions on this are ... being as how some people say its only for men and women, and some say its for all and can back that statement up legally ... so what are you opinions/?

Marriage is a formal agreement between a man and a women which generally assumes terms of co-habitation and mutually exclusive mating privlidges. Additionally, some marriages contain other terms, including (but not limited to): consolidation of financial assets, special legal status (citizenship), and name changes. Marriage is often a basic prerequisite to having children and raising a family. Marriage has social implications, and is usually performed publicly before an assembly of family and friends. Wives and Husbands are often expected to behave a certain way, depending on the social climate. Finally, Marriage ceremonies are rooted in religious tradition, and for many are a primarily religoius ceremony, concecrating a pair of people in a union blessed by God(dess(s)(ess)).

Marriage can be any of these things, take or leave them as you please. For some it's strictly religious and social, for others it's political reasons or financial stability. Still others wed to have children. Oh yeah, and there's that love thing too. Some who marry for love exclusively have even dropped the whole gender-specific aspect of it, but have yet to gain the legal and financial benefits. Oh I forgot, some cultures allow multiple simultaneous marriages, or poligamy, where one man takes many wives. (one wife can also have many husband, I saw that on the discovery channel, but such cases are very rare)

- Ill

Illuminatus
November 6th, 2001, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
i think it is homophobic and discriminatory that same sex marriage is illegal. What matters is love and committment - not gender.

What about poligamy? Should that also be legal? Should they also get tax breaks and adoption privilidges? I mean in the whole US, not just California, nobody but crackpots live there.

kittiepoetrygod
November 6th, 2001, 09:28 PM
yes, i spelled it wrong.

Well, illum, will it hurt anyone or have a chance to produce defromed children in a homosexual marrige? I've noticed some people tend to talk about brothers marrying sisters when the subject of homosexual marrige is brought up... and this makes absoutly no sense, see the above sentance.

Who is it hurting if/WHEN gay people marry? Noone. Who is in danger of psychological effects on the person when/if they have gay sex? Noone, thus breaking the other tie to child molesting and pedophilia.

So why is homosexual marriage not also a formal agreement between to partners of the same sex? (It is as well)

As to the Californians, i forgot that all the people that disagreed with you are on drugs. But if thats the case, why would there be any anti-drug things in America?

mysticvik
November 6th, 2001, 09:44 PM
marriage is a piece of paper saying that two people have made a comitment to each other whether they love each other or not

Amethyst Rose
November 6th, 2001, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by mysticvik
marriage is a piece of paper saying that two people have made a comitment to each other whether they love each other or not

Good answer! :)

Maybe the question should be, "what SHOULD marriage be?"

flar7
November 7th, 2001, 12:09 AM
he said crackpot not crackhead. And was being funny at that.

I dont believe he meant anything hurtful at all, and you seem so share the same opinion. He didnt state anything against same sex marriages, just posted a definition and stated about some of the changes occurring.

The main prob. where I live, is that same sex partners want christian weddings, and its the ministers and deacons and such that wont allow that. So if we ever get legal same sex marriages all over the U.S.,( and I beilieve we will) There will still be problems.

The bible belt is slow to turn the other cheek on matters such as this. (I find this ironic)

I will admit that I am slightly homophobic(dont know why) and have difficulties in certain situations with my gay friends. Get tongue tied trying not to say the wrong thing. Luckily, they see past this. (I hope)

Danustouch
November 7th, 2001, 12:48 AM
Mawige. Mawige is what bwings us togevah twoday.....

(the princess bride).

Amethyst Rose
November 7th, 2001, 01:13 AM
LOL!! :lol: :D

That's great! hehe..... (My favorite movie, by the way).

flar7
November 7th, 2001, 03:14 AM
YEP, that was a good movie. And the minister and Andre had some of the funniest parts to me.

"What is my way?"

"You hide behind these rocks, and when he comes by you smash him from behind with a rock!"

"My way is not very sportsman like."

Illuminatus
November 7th, 2001, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by flar7
he said crackpot not crackhead. And was being funny at that.

I dont believe he meant anything hurtful at all, and you seem so share the same opinion. He didnt state anything against same sex marriages, just posted a definition and stated about some of the changes occurring.

It's okay. They can't defeat my arguments, so they put words into my mouth, and then attack those... never mind I never actually said any of the things they're talking about. So, the way I see it, I'm not really involved in the process at all.

Same sex marriages? Well, I don't have a problem with them. They're fine on the personal, sexual and social level. But getting full approval for legal and tax benefits... no, I'm sorry, that's not in the cards. The whole point of getting a tax break and privlidges and what not are based on the premise that the married couple are starting a family unit. Which gay couples cannot do (well, not with a whole lot of outside help).

- Ill

ReverendAJS
November 7th, 2001, 01:33 PM
I live in Massachusetts, and I know the law about marriage here, specificly same-sex marriages. No go. Hawaii and Vermont are the only states (that I'm aware of) in the union that are forward thinking enough to realize that same-sex marriages are not a threat to apple pie and Fourth of July and puppies and such. My gay friends (and we all have gay friends we go to with questions like this, don't we?) actually are against same-sex marriage for the most part, mostly because they think it's too much of a hastle. I'd love to hear the argument, however, from the homosexual point of view, that is for same-sex marriages. I quite honestly don't know what the potentioal benefits/risks would be. However I have made it know amongst my friends that I would be more than willing to perform same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, with the knowledge that it would be a symbolic union and not in any way legal. For most I think this would be enough. And if it isn't, Vermont is just a couple of hours drive away for me. So if somebody can tell me why two people of the same sex would be better off legally married, I would sure love to hear it.
Reverend aJS

Danustouch
November 7th, 2001, 01:49 PM
Yes, Illuminatus. However, a gay couple can feel the desire to start a family JUST as much as a heterosexual couple. So, if a gay couple decides to, and is able to adopt, they should get the same tax breaks..no? If we were going by that standard, then Heterosexual couples who are unable to biologically have a child, should not qualify for the tax breaks either. Yet...if you adopt a child, you should qualify for the same tax breaks as biological parents would. Another reason? Because there are children who NEED homes. And whether their adoptive parents are gay, bi, or straight, if they have a home, well..isnt' that a good thing???

And another issue. What about men who discover or admit that they are gay later in life? And already have children from a previous, "HETERO" Sexual union? Should they deny themselves the love that they feel for a person of the same sex, so that they can qualify for the tax break?

In my opinion, there is no difference, whatsoever.

Myst
November 7th, 2001, 03:30 PM
Would someone be so kind as to mention exactly what tax breaks they are referring to, why these tax breaks are given, and why they feel these tax breaks should or should not be applied to whomever? And keep in mind that here at MW we have people from not only several states but several countries as well, so therefore we may not all understand exactly what you mean by "tax breaks" unless you clearly explain the above. :D

Danustouch
November 7th, 2001, 05:22 PM
Well, in the states, Taxes are higher for Single people, and people without children. Taxes lower, when there are two people per household, usually. Usually, one person claims "head of household", and the other individual as a "dependent". Thus, their taxes are lowered. The amount you pay in taxes, decreases, with each "dependent" you have. You claim your children as dependents, thus...your taxes are lowered again, for each child that you have.

Furthermore, in many situations, Tax rebates (the extra tax breaks the government throws to us like bones to a good dog), are also dependent on how many dependents you have.

There are also fuel and energy rebates available, for people supporting a family, and earning under a certain amount of wages, etc.

kittiepoetrygod
November 7th, 2001, 05:49 PM
So Illuminatus can call anyone a crackpot and be hurtful as long as he doesn't mean to hurt them. Ok! Thanks for clarifing the situation.

I'd always thought that marrige was for the advantage of the whole family, not for love. Until the 19 and 20th centuries, I'm pretty sure that was what they where for, not for love. So it wasn't always for a man and woman, necessarily, was it?

Illuminatus
November 7th, 2001, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Danustouch
Yes, Illuminatus. However, a gay couple can feel the desire to start a family JUST as much as a heterosexual couple. So, if a gay couple decides to, and is able to adopt, they should get the same tax breaks..no? If we were going by that standard, then Heterosexual couples who are unable to biologically have a child, should not qualify for the tax breaks either. Yet...if you adopt a child, you should qualify for the same tax breaks as biological parents would. Another reason? Because there are children who NEED homes. And whether their adoptive parents are gay, bi, or straight, if they have a home, well..isnt' that a good thing???

And another issue. What about men who discover or admit that they are gay later in life? And already have children from a previous, "HETERO" Sexual union? Should they deny themselves the love that they feel for a person of the same sex, so that they can qualify for the tax break?

In my opinion, there is no difference, whatsoever.

Well, I don't think that married couples should have ANY benefits over non-married citizens, period. Gay, straight or otherwise. The fact that married people got a LOT more from Dubya's "tax refund", and that married people with kids did even better, well that's unfair and biased if you ask me.

Marriage also has other benefits, but they're subtle. Combining two incomes into one joint account allows some financial agility that non-wedded couples aren't allowed to do. There are others, but preferred status for Adoption is one I approve of. I do not think that gay couples should be permitted to adopt.

And KPG: I said that everyone living in California was a crackpot. That comment was not directed to you, but the good citizens of California. If you do happen to live in California, then I will retract the comment and edit my posts.

- Ill

kittiepoetrygod
November 7th, 2001, 06:51 PM
I was born in Cali. I'm pretty sure that makes me a citazen, although i'll check.

Don't married couples get the others stuff when one dies?

Illuminatus
November 7th, 2001, 07:04 PM
I was born in Cali. I'm pretty sure that makes me a citazen, although i'll check.

My exact post:


What about poligamy? Should that also be legal? Should they also get tax breaks and adoption privilidges? I mean in the whole US, not just California, nobody but crackpots live there.

I implied that nobody but crackpots LIVE in California. You don't live in California, so I could not possibly be talking about you. Also, states don't have 'citizens'. Nations have citizens, and US states have 'residents'. And yes, everyone who lives in california is a crackpot. What other state would allow that crazy basketball player with the wacky hair and piercings to marry HIMSELF. I mean, come on.

Don't married couples get the others stuff when one dies?

Yes. That is one of the Legal implications of marriage. All posessions and assets automaticly default to the surviving spouse, unless a will explicitly dicates otherwise. Even then, most states have laws stating that a certain amount (like 30% or 50% or something) MUST be left to the spouse. There may be clauses that do the same for children. The point is, that if I were married to Pam Anderson and she died, she can't have a will that says "Oh I want to leave everything to my cousin Larry"... that's illegal.

mmm.... pam....

kittiepoetrygod
November 7th, 2001, 08:09 PM
Than is it fair to deny that to gay couples because of the reason something was made? They can add it to the wills or something, but they shouldn't have to do 30 sheets O paper work when hetero couples don't.

Kaylara
November 7th, 2001, 09:48 PM
Hetero couples do.

Kaylara

kittiepoetrygod
November 7th, 2001, 09:59 PM
What i meant was I think its unfair that if a gay couple had one partner die suddenly, had they been married the other partner would have gotton the other partner's stuff. If there hadn't been a will, who knows what would have happen. I think that gay couples should be allowed to have that safety factor.

Danustouch
November 8th, 2001, 12:23 AM
Illuminatus....if a man and a woman are married, the husband works, and the wife doesn't. Or if one partner makes SIGNIFICANTLY less than the other partner, and thus one partner is a claimed as a dependent (I mean, think of the term, dependent), why should they NOT get a little tax break? It's not easy to support another person in this day and age, as my husband will GLADLY tell you. It's hard enough for a person to survive alone, *Without* Bearing the majority of the responsibility for anothers health, and well being. Not to mention, one of the reasons (possibly) for a tax break for married couples, is that *most* single people aren't rushing out to buy a house, and thus paying property taxes. Many married couples, DO however.

Furthermore, a married couple with children should obviosly get a tax cut. They need all the financial breaks that they can get. Have you any clue how expensive it is to raise children these days?

And as for the gay adoption thing, I'm simply astounded. It sounded to me, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that you are saying that a gay person cannot be as good a parent, as a straight person. Or that a gay couple, could not provide as stable an environment for their children, as a straight one. Why is that? Are gays somehow morally, spiritually, financially, intelligently INHERENTLY differen't than straight people? Just because they choose a person of their own sex to have intercourse with? That is so rediculous to me. So..as I said..correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your "feelings" toward same sex partners raising children.

kittiepoetrygod
November 8th, 2001, 11:14 AM
Thats not always the case, with the husband working and the wife not. I think that normally, its the wifed's whim. My mom works full time and makes a decent hunk of pay. My dad works full time and is the President of some branch of a global company. My mom could not work, my dad could support us, but she works anyway. Why? She wants to. If you have a disability that inhibits you from working, please excuse me, but if you don't, if you wanted to work, you could. Period.

Danustouch
November 8th, 2001, 11:27 AM
Actually..YES I do have a physical disability, kittie.

Secondly, there are other reasons why a woman might not be able to work.

Lastly, Noone was saying that ALL wives are dependent on their husbands, and cannot work. I was SAYING that for those who can't, or don't....and if the husband needs to support her, it can be difficult to do in this day and age.

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by kittiepoetrygod
Thats not always the case, with the husband working and the wife not. I think that normally, its the wifed's whim. My mom works full time and makes a decent hunk of pay. My dad works full time and is the President of some branch of a global company. My mom could not work, my dad could support us, but she works anyway. Why? She wants to. If you have a disability that inhibits you from working, please excuse me, but if you don't, if you wanted to work, you could. Period.

Thank you for the view from the kid who's never had to try to find a job.

Xois
November 8th, 2001, 12:29 PM
I think marriage is an important institution insofaras it allows certain legal and financial things to take place...SS survior benifets, etc..

I also think, that as a ritualistic species, the act itself does define a certain amount of responsibility for both people...

The legal dimension is important for things like benifits and health care etc...and should be extended to same sex couples...

Life, Liberty and the PERSUIT of happiness...who am I to stand in the way...

as a side note: Adoption should be encouraged to anyone who wants to provide a loving home for children. Studies indicate that there is no "harm" in gays or lesbians raising children...

Too bad the rest of society is still living in the dark ages!!!

*sigh*

Xois

*who is, incedently, in a loving monogamous heterosexual relationship, even though she has been known to mow the grass on both sides of the fence*

Xois
November 8th, 2001, 12:32 PM
oh and here is a good example...If I ever had children with my present mate, he would stay home...(we have never discussed this...we don't play to have children) but unless something drastic changes, I have a better paying job (by like 25G) and MUCH better benifits... So it would only make pragmatic sense (I am a pragmatist at heart) for him to stay home...He hates "working for the man" anyway...He would be a GREAT stay at home dad...

But we, neither one of us, want children...so its reallly a moot point...

Danustouch
November 8th, 2001, 12:39 PM
hehehe..mow the grass, eh?

Illuminatus
November 8th, 2001, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Danustouch
Illuminatus....if a man and a woman are married, the husband works, and the wife doesn't. Or if one partner makes SIGNIFICANTLY less than the other partner, and thus one partner is a claimed as a dependent (I mean, think of the term, dependent), why should they NOT get a little tax break? It's not easy to support another person in this day and age, as my husband will GLADLY tell you. It's hard enough for a person to survive alone, *Without* Bearing the majority of the responsibility for anothers health, and well being. Not to mention, one of the reasons (possibly) for a tax break for married couples, is that *most* single people aren't rushing out to buy a house, and thus paying property taxes. Many married couples, DO however.

Furthermore, a married couple with children should obviosly get a tax cut. They need all the financial breaks that they can get. Have you any clue how expensive it is to raise children these days?



So.... basicly, your reasoning is, 'because they need it'. If you're going to support someone.. then support them. Don't petition the government for help. Why should Joe Married pay less money than Joe Single to buy a house? Because he NEEDS it more? I don't see it, but then again, I'm Joe Single. I don't need things as much as married people do? I'm going to have a family some day, why should I be penalized for actually trying to save up some money before that day comes! This argument is very much like our welfare discussion, which we dropped last august. Tax breaks for married couples and dependants is a socialist policy, like welfare you don't have to apply for.


And as for the gay adoption thing, I'm simply astounded. It sounded to me, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that you are saying that a gay person cannot be as good a parent, as a straight person. Or that a gay couple, could not provide as stable an environment for their children, as a straight one. Why is that? Are gays somehow morally, spiritually, financially, intelligently INHERENTLY differen't than straight people? Just because they choose a person of their own sex to have intercourse with? That is so rediculous to me. So..as I said..correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your "feelings" toward same sex partners raising children.

They can have as many children as they want. They can have children until they're blue in the face. But, they should have the damn children themselves, and not adopt. And yes, I don't think that a gay couple could provide a stable environment for raising children. Many bisexuals, particularly females, grow up either with no male role model or in an abusive situation. I don't see gay adoption doing anything other than exacerbating this scenario.

Also, it's a question of ratios. Two gay men cannot have a child together. Their ONLY option is to adopt. Which means that a disproportionately large number of homosexual men will apply for adoption, taking a lot of children away from a better, more stable and healthy family structure.

Children, particularly the young ones, get a very keen and deep-set sense for "what's normal" early in their lives. I don't see the need for children to grow up thinking "this is normal" when it, in my opinion, is in fact very ABnormal and deviant behavior. Goddess knows they get enough crap shoved into their brains from TV, the last thing we need is little Joey going off to first grade thinking he's supposed to kiss boys and dress like a girl.

- Illuminatus

Illuminatus
November 8th, 2001, 07:09 PM
I have a feeling this thread would belong better in that scarred and blistered battleground we refer to as 'Political Pagan'.

MistOfTheSea86
November 8th, 2001, 07:23 PM
I apologize Illuminatus but your post SERIOUSLY OFFENDED ME. How do you know how a gay couple can raise a child if YOU YOURSELF are not gay???? truthfully, how can you make such a wild accusation if YOU DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND???


You can say the same things about a straight couple. They have the same chances to be mentally unstable or raise their child in a bad enviroment. And being gay is not something you GET, you are born with it. I am pretty sure you KNOW what you feel and if guys attract you or not. Hey Guess what??? I am gay, and I was raised in the straightest mormon/catholic family. No gay influence Whatsoever.

Oh yeah and one more thing. Not all gay guys dress in drag, that was SUCH a horrible generalazation. I think people should try to understand something before making foolish accustions about it. And especially about something they don't feel.

Are you going to sit here and tell me I will be a bad father??? How can you, you can't. And it is Certaintly not DEVIANT behavior. If you can say that, then I can say the way you have sex is disgusting. Would you like that??? If I bashed everything that you believed in the future would you be happy???

I am sorry if this is rude.

StormChaser
November 8th, 2001, 07:28 PM
How old are you again?

Should gays, lesbians, bi-s be allowed tax breaks from marriage?
Yes they should. They should also be allowed the OTHER things that LEGAL marriage provides.

If i fall in love with a woman, and i want to spend the rest of my life together, living in the same house, and doing in general all the other things MANY couples do, excluding, or including, children.. yes you best I want all the tax bennys etc. Why shouldn't i get them because my partner happens to be a female?

MANY heterosexual MARRIED couples do NOT have children... AT ALL. My mother and her bf, are both divorce's with children from past marriages. They are both in their forties. they are getting married next year. Neither of them want more children. Both of their existing children have lives of their own and are not figures on their taxes at all.. Should they be denied the tax exemptions granted by state too?

If I fall in love with a woman, and wish to be commited legally to her on paper, i should. i should also be granted without question the other right of married couples.

My biggest one? When I die I would like my other half to be the deciding party on what happens to me, and my stuff. Same thing If i am ever incapacited or hospitalized. She would know better than my mother, my grandparents, what i would want her to do.
She would be my next of kin. All assets would go to her. No other family or anything could take what was OURS away from her. She would be protected by insurance should I die or be in an accident.

What if our relationship of years fell through. I would like the ability to take things to court and have matters settled legally, with conditions, than to be completely devoid of any amount of protection from her taking once again, what was "ours" and saying it was "hers".

In a marriage everything is "ours" nothing goes anywhere legally without the consent of the other should separation or divorce occur. I want that protection.

Should all the people who get drunk in vegas, as long as they are straight, be allowed to get married and the government sanction that and not a long standing, true devotion between two people committed to forever with each other?

Give me a break. People only say "what about the tax stuff"
when they are homophobic, or clueless to all the other things that come with marriage besides tax breaks that would amount to jack when you compare the number of people getting married daily, and how quite honestly, insignificant a number of marriages would occur due to allowing EVERYONE the right to be married.

USA has in it's doctrines the right to live in the pursuit of happyness. If marriage is desired to live in that pursuit. No one should be denied. Should multiple marriage be allowed. Ask the mormons and the muslims. I'll bet they'd be for it. But it would require rewriting the law a bit, but I'm sure it could be done without hurting YOUR wallet anymore.

Fact is, few, if any, get married for tax breaks. They do it out of tradition, necessity, and the protection and security that government sanctioned marriage provides.

~Storm Chaser

Sequoia
November 8th, 2001, 09:51 PM
They can have as many children as they want. They can have children until they're blue in the face. But, they should have the damn children themselves, and not adopt. And yes, I don't think that a gay couple could provide a stable environment for raising children. Many bisexuals, particularly females, grow up either with no male role model or in an abusive situation. I don't see gay adoption doing anything other than exacerbating this scenario.

Also, it's a question of ratios. Two gay men cannot have a child together. Their ONLY option is to adopt. Which means that a disproportionately large number of homosexual men will apply for adoption, taking a lot of children away from a better, more stable and healthy family structure.

Children, particularly the young ones, get a very keen and deep-set sense for "what's normal" early in their lives. I don't see the need for children to grow up thinking "this is normal" when it, in my opinion, is in fact very ABnormal and deviant behavior. Goddess knows they get enough crap shoved into their brains from TV, the last thing we need is little Joey going off to first grade thinking he's supposed to kiss boys and dress like a girl.

- Illuminatus



Illuminatus. This post sickens me. It may be your opinion, but it was rude, boarish, crude, extremely overgeneralizing, assaulting to the eyes, and a thousand other things.

I would not have lost respect for you had you been polite, or even thoughtful for once. Instead, I am aghast and disgusted by your blatent display of a lack of respect for others and an obvious lack of tact. This is not a personal assault. This is me being disgusted with you.


My opinion: anyone is free to have children, to raise them as they see fit (within logic, I mean, you don't beat your kid or anything), etc. Who the h*ll says that two men cannot be good parents? or two women? Who says that a man and a woman are superior? Who says ANY COMBINATION is superiour!? and who determines what "superior" is?

If two people are in love, and capable of responsibly raising and loving a child. . . then who the H*LL should get in their way? eh? you tell me that, you give me a GOD***MED GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT. And if you can give me a good, logical answer that is not based on homophobia or hatred towards those of other gender preference. . . then perhaps I will hold respect for you again. Because at this point, Illuminatus, you have lost my respect.

~Puma

SimplyStrange
November 8th, 2001, 10:08 PM
Ya' know, one of my good friends was raised a gay father and his partner, and he's one of the straightest guys I know. And not all gays are crossdressers, anyhow, so saying that little Joey is going to think it's right to dress like a girl isn't quite the truth. And, as you stated, they have this junk from TV being shoved in their brains as well...but once you think about it, the majority of the stuff on TV is pro-heterosexuality...

Frankly, I think that a child growing up with gay parents has just the same risk of having problems as a child with heterosexual parents...It's not the people, or their sexuality that makes a difference. It's their parenting...

Just my two cents

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 10:20 PM
Two things.

First, if you're going to get upset at Ill for "offending" you, I suggest you write a post in response that is inoffensive and not rude or pointed. Otherwise you're frankly not being any better then you seem to think he is.

Second, if there's any argument against gay couples having children it's that studies show children raised with one parent of each gender (as opposed to one parent of one gender) are usually more upstanding citizens. A girl or boy who has a man AND a woman as a role model is more likely to form good relationships in the future, according to those reports. I imagine there haven't been enough gay couples with children to perform a good study yet. So yes I think there is a valid point to saying that it's been shown that a parent of each gender for a child is better at the moment according to the reports that exist at this time. If you have a problem with that that's your prerogative but the point IS a valid one for discussion if nothing else.

MistOfTheSea86
November 8th, 2001, 10:29 PM
Are nothing but one sided statistics, and I apologize but I am not, niether is ay homosexual a statistic. Last time I checked. Many people who have killed their familes, WERE Heterosexual. Hmm interesting.

And I responded strongly, because I AM a homosexual and found it VERY difficult to keep a nice face when someone telling me something I do is Abnormal.

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
Are nothing but one sided statistics, and I apologize but I am not, niether is ay homosexual a statistic. Last time I checked. Many people who have killed their familes, WERE Heterosexual. Hmm interesting.

And I responded strongly, because I AM a homosexual and found it VERY difficult to keep a nice face when someone telling me something I do is Abnormal.

I'm not suggesting they aren't one sided, but they do exist, and that is a fact. And I don't care why you responded strongly, that's your business, and Goddess knows I respond strongly all the time. :D

The comment on people who kill their families when their parents are heterosexual *was* interesting - but also goes back to your point about statistics being one sided or at least unreliable, therefore you saying that is no more reliable then what other things the report state. Not to mention, as I said, there's not exactly a lot of reports floating around based on homosexual couples, so that comment you made was pretty one sided in that way too.

MistOfTheSea86
November 8th, 2001, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Myst


I'm not suggesting they aren't one sided, but they do exist, and that is a fact. And I don't care why you responded strongly, that's your business, and Goddess knows I respond strongly all the time. :D

Yeah I know Myst... it is just, It really hurts me when people say that I am Abnormal...

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86


Yeah I know Myst... it is just, It really hurts me when people say that I am Abnormal...

I take pride in my abnormality :D

MistOfTheSea86
November 8th, 2001, 10:43 PM
In this case It bites for me... Ah well what can you do, you cant expect everyone to like who you are.

My abnormality is my pride most of the time...

Kaylara
November 8th, 2001, 10:48 PM
I take the word "abnormal" as a badge of honor. Who wants to be "normal" anyways?

Seriously though, I was raised with two hetersexual parents who did a really crappy job at it. I had to learn for myself what I believed and didn't believe. This is not a factor in me being bi-sexual at all. I've known quite a few people who were actually raised with a good stable hetero set of parents who are gay or bi. Sexual preference is a purely personal thing.

Kaylara

MistOfTheSea86
November 8th, 2001, 11:01 PM
as do I, but I have little lapses sometimes

MistOfTheSea86
November 8th, 2001, 11:03 PM
I apologize Illuminatus.

StormChaser
November 8th, 2001, 11:26 PM
I dont care what anyone says.

I'm bi. YOu can say thats abnormal, or a factor of something or whatever. Fact is. It's who I am now, and the sexual identitiy I've had since I was actually a little girl. And to heck with anyone who doesn't like it. They can stuff it up there yin yang and back again.

~Storm Chaser

Lavender
November 8th, 2001, 11:37 PM
So...what is marriage?

Saeryn
November 8th, 2001, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
In this case It bites for me... Ah well what can you do, you cant expect everyone to like who you are.

My abnormality is my pride most of the time...

Don't worry MOTS, you're not the only one in the boat of SS Abnormal.

I am a woman, and a married one at that. My husband I made a permanent decision not to have any children. Ever. We are happy with this decision because we feel it is right for *us*.

I have never wanted to be a mother--I dig kids but have never had any of my own nor do I want any. I like being the "cool, weird auntie" to my *very* cool, groovy nephews instead--heck, every family needs an eccentric Aunt & Uncle. My husband and I are comfortable with this.

I have had people say horrid things to me because I decided to never have children: "You're not a *real* woman--all *real* women want kids" , "What kind of woman are you? Do you hate kids or something?", "Selfish", "Why did you two get married if you don't want kids", "did you have a bad childhood, or something", and of course, "YOU'RE ABNORMAL".

Ya wanna know something? If doing what you feel is right for *you* makes you "abnormal"--so be it. If realizing that one single Life Path does NOT fit all makes you "abnormal"--fine. The important lesson to learn is that being true to yourself--whether you are hetero, gay, bi, trans, poly, pagan, parent, non-parent, etc.--and accepting *yourself*is the best thing you could do for *you*. When you love yourself for WHO YOU ARE, then you become more at peace with yourself as a person. That's when you learn that whatever negativity anyone else may throw at you no longer matters--nor should it matter.

I know it hurts when people are cruel and ignorant (boy, do I ever!), but when you learn to be at peace with yourself then the less it will bother you. Anyone who makes such nasty remarks to you are the ones who are truly insecure with themselves. Trust me on this one.

I've only been on this board for a short while, but Mist, you strike me as being a caring, frank, intelligent, and compassionate human being. *That's* important and *that's* what matters. :D

::looks around blinking and red-faced::

Er, um, the emotional Pisces will step off her soapbox now.

~~Saeryn

ReverendAJS
November 9th, 2001, 12:32 AM
Normally I love a good argument, but I really don't know what to say here. I think maybe I'll try to bring it back around to marriage in a minute, but first, in other news.....
I'm sorry that there are so many peole out there who have had such bad experiences with people regarding their sexual identity. I don't know anything about statistics or studies, and I make it a point personally to never take anything at face value that I have no first-hand knowledge of. So I don't know if heterosexual couples make better parents that homosexual couples, I don't know any homosexual couples with children, I think very few of us actually do, as these situations are still rare in our culture. All I know is that the homosexuals I know are some of the most tolerant and, indeed, interesting people I know. And I know that my homosexual friends would make great parents. I suppose there are bad homosexual parents just like there are bad heterosexual parents. Who knows? Does it affect you in your daily life? That's the only way I would judge a situation like this.
So what is marriage? It's lots of things to lots of people. (I usually don't think of that as a valid point, because usually it isn't. But I can't really see marriage as anything else) So if marriage is right for you, then go for it. But like I always say, the only descision that's right for you is your own.
Rev.

Xois
November 9th, 2001, 08:43 AM
you know...it hasn't really occured to me until now..but I am really beginning to think Ill is a troll...

I am not abnormal, I have a great relationship, AND i was not abused when a child, grew up with BOTH parents and I am bi...

And I am not an anomoly!

I see that Ill you are really able to make this assessment because you are gay, raised in a gay family, have gay relationships and raise children in gay relationships...

yeah, thats what I thought...we should all just mold our lives around what YOU think is normal...

thanks but no thanks...

Xois
November 9th, 2001, 08:45 AM
MOTS

Why the heck did YOU appologize?!

Xois
November 9th, 2001, 08:50 AM
Children, particularly the young ones, get a very keen and deep-set sense for "what's normal" early in their lives. I don't see the need for children to grow up thinking "this is normal" when it, in my opinion, is in fact very ABnormal and deviant behavior.

than don't raise YOUR children in that environment...

But leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.

You know, IF children end up "abnormal" its becuase of pressures from people LIKE YOU...who will teach their children to tease and mock other kids becuase they come from a different family......Have you ever considered that?! No, probably not...

But I still don't believe you...there is no evidence (and if there is, FROM A RELIBALE SOURCE, I would like ot see it.)

Myst
November 9th, 2001, 08:53 AM
SO

what is marriage?

MistOfTheSea86
November 9th, 2001, 09:28 AM
OFF TOPIC:

Because I did think my post may have been a bit rude. And I really dont want to start a big fued.

Back OT


What is marriage? I feel marriage is a beautiful union between two people, to symbolize love and partnership.:)

xjsjaglvr
November 9th, 2001, 11:05 AM
As there are millions of couples so to are there millions of definitions of marriage. Legal definitions, (and they vary form state to state and country to country) Religious definitions, (again various) and cultural (to numerous to mention). So I would have to say that marriage is what the couple, (and I will not try to define that one) say it is for them at that time. Just as couples change so do their definition of their marriage change. My marriage is pretty conventional, a bond between members of opposite sexes, legally performed by a minister in our state, monogamous. No pre-nuptual agreements, all property held in common. My wife does however use a hyphenated last name, though our daughter has just my last name.
Jag

Illuminatus
November 9th, 2001, 12:33 PM
MistOfTheSea86 said:

How do you know how a gay couple can raise a child if YOU YOURSELF are not gay???? truthfully, how can you make such a wild accusation if YOU DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND???

To MOTS:
Ah, but I do understand. I know a man with no legs can't ride a bicycle. By your logic, I would have to chop off my own legs before I came to this most obvious of conclusions. This situation is analagous - I do NOT need to create an unstable family structure in order to understand how it is done. I can drive home real quick and turn Jerry Springer to see that. The rest of your arguments are similarly flawed. OK, maybe Joey won't wear dresses, but he WILL think kissing boy is normal (it isn't).


I am sorry if this is rude.

It wasn't, it's OK.


I apologize Illuminatus.

No need, it's OK!!!

To Puma Hime:
Please, if you want to bash me in a PM or email, knock yourself out. But let's keep this discussion on topic! As for the questions you posed me in your message, well I've already answered them. Your reply makes it clear you didn't read my words. I said, that gay couples can have children until they're blue in the face. Go ahead, have 5, 10, 20, whatever. If they can find a third party willing to help them, they can go nuts. Whether it's David Crosby's sperm or a surrogate mother, it's fine. I just don't approve of that third party being THE US GOVERNMENT. That's not right. Also, as for losing your respect, well I never respected you to begin with, so I guess we're even now.

To MistOfTheSea86:
I said that homosexuality was deviant by nature. Look up deviant. I think you'll agree it applies. It doesn't say homosexuality is right or wrong, but implies instead that it is very much against mainstream acceptance. Abnormal... well, that's debatable. I'd say it's also abnormal, but it's slowly becoming less so, with every episode of Buffy. Abnormal, as a word, also has a sort of medical tone to it, whereas Deviant has more social implications, hence my choice.

Kaylara said:

Seriously though, I was raised with two hetersexual parents who did a really crappy job at it... This is not a factor in me being bi-sexual at all.

Actually, that is not true. You can't see it, because you are too close to it.. it's hard to seperate yourself from the surroundings from which you came, because they are so much a part of you. But your upbringing is VERY MUCH a factor in one's sense of sexual boundaries. Here, read this bible. JUST KIDDING!! But SO MANY homosexuals come from unstable family structures, too many to ignore.

To Xois:
Please keep the bashing in PM's.. I never said anyone was abnormal, and maybe I AM a troll, but let's keep On Topic shall we? And even though I myself am not gay, approximately 50% of my peeps claim to be bisexual. That's a lot. I love them all very much, but I'm never going to love them THAT way! I'm not bashing gays, I don't tease or belittle gays as you accuse me. I even go naked hot tubbing with them, so quit screaming "intolerance!" from the rooftops. However I AM questioning their competence as state-appointed guardians.

StormChaser:
Your arguments for same-sex marriages are compelling, particularly the part where you want to decide who your benefactors are in the case of your own death. However, if you are unmarried, and have no children, then you are free to leave your belongings and assets to anyone you damn well please. You CAN leave everything to your life-mate without marrying them. And you CAN make anyone.. ANYONE.. the benefactor of an insurance policy. Marriage, for anyone, LIMITS the possibilities of your will. Being single opens them.

Finally, why make it legal? If you've already stated your love for one another in a ceremony before the Goddess, well then, you've got the commitment part, the social part, the love part, and the religious aspects of the wedding right there.. boom. What more is the legal aspect going to benefit you?

As for tax breaks, as I stated above, I don't think wedded couples of ANY type should get them, gay straight or .. whatever.

Finally, nobody stated their opinion as to how poligamy should be treated in terms of marriage. I, of course, don't approve of it, but I'd like to hear what all of you think, especially you wacky polyamorous types!

- Illuminatus!

Sequoia
November 9th, 2001, 01:00 PM
OT: well, Illuminatus. . . if a gay man married say a lesbian woman (let's just make an example out of this, because it's prolly not that feasible, but let's do it anyway) and bought a house for themselves and their partners, and they did this so that each could raise a child, with their partner, yet also have parents of the opposite sex there. . . how would you react to that? NOW would they be better parents, simply because of someone of the opposite sex being in the same household? I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your logic. And I"m sorry you never had respect for me, I give respect to everyone until they do something to cause loss of it.

ON TOPIC: hmm. . . to me, marriage is a sacred union, it's what two people do when they love eachother and wish to be together for a very very long time. It's a way of officially stating what those couples already know. . . that they're bonded, in a very very special way.

polygamy. . . that's where more than two people are married, right? I know a "couple" of two women and a man. . . I love them all very dearly. It's a very obviously HAPPY arrangement, for all involved, and it works very well. It's a nice arrangement. When I first learned about it, I was a little shocked, but as I got used to it, I saw it was a very happy, healthy thing. So I think that, like any relationship, if everyone involved is happy and it's a healthy relationship, then why not?

Kaylara
November 9th, 2001, 01:56 PM
Clarification:

Polygamy- Man may have more than one wife.

Polyginy- Woman may have more than one husband.

Polyamory- Either partner can have other partners.

Kaylara

Illuminatus
November 9th, 2001, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Puma Hime
OT: well, Illuminatus. . . if a gay man married say a lesbian woman (let's just make an example out of this, because it's prolly not that feasible, but let's do it anyway) and bought a house for themselves and their partners, and they did this so that each could raise a child, with their partner, yet also have parents of the opposite sex there. . . how would you react to that?


OK, I think I'm COMPLETELY confused from your disjointed discription. If they are a wedded couple of the opposite sex, who did not participate in extramarital affairs, then sure, adopt away. And yes, having gay sex with your 'partner' with whom you are not married with would be an extramarital affairs.


polygamy. . . that's where more than two people are married, right? I know a "couple" of two women and a man. . . I love them all very dearly. It's a very obviously HAPPY arrangement, for all involved, and it works very well. It's a nice arrangement. When I first learned about it, I was a little shocked, but as I got used to it, I saw it was a very happy, healthy thing. So I think that, like any relationship, if everyone involved is happy and it's a healthy relationship, then why not?

That's very nice, but being "Happy" and in "Love" only two of many requirements for raising children. There are other, more important virtues, like "Stability" and "Discipline" and "Money". Love conquers all, but only in bad romantic comedies with Julia Roberts and/or Billy Crystal.

- Illuminatus

Kaylara
November 9th, 2001, 01:59 PM
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Kaylara

Myst
November 9th, 2001, 02:07 PM
That's an interesting point.

There are those of us who feel that having a ritual or symbolic marriage is just as appropriate as a legal marriage. Thus if I could not have a legal marriage I would still consider my ritual marriage very real and true. But then I say that as someone who is currently a "common law spouse" and as someone who is still considering a separate symbolic handfasting and legal wedding.

Other then tax breaks and your car insurance going down, what benefits are there to legal marriage that there aren't to symbolic/non-legal marriage? Incidentally, please consider the idea of common law marriage here and it's implications.

Xois
November 9th, 2001, 05:42 PM
Actually--

Polygyny is a man may have more than one wife--note the gyn

Polygamy- this is the gender neutral term, applies to both

polyandry is the woman having more than one husband


:D

Xois

flar7
November 9th, 2001, 09:47 PM
Valerie, is married, but not legally. Because of the way the laws are she cant be legally married without losing her health benefits.

And I dont care what kind of husband you are, it is hard to afford a wife with an annual hospital bill of about 80,000.00 and up. Not to mention the lung transplant she just had, that required a 60K deposit, + the total will be around 150K.

The laws are convoluted and difficult to take when it comes to marriage. They wont allow you to marry some girl and yet if you been living together for awhile they recognize it as a commonlaw marriage. But not with homosexuals? Strange. But thats the way our gov't works until you change it!

kittiepoetrygod
November 10th, 2001, 12:04 PM
I got my internet back after all the OT posts.

I heard that in Japan, they're developping ways to change the sex cells properties, and learning how to make eggs sperm and vice versa. So i think thats one of the last barriers in the anti-gay-marrige laws.

2 cents worth: If gays aren't allowed to get married because sex / marrige is to further the population, then I think that condoms, all forms of birth control, as they take away chances of getting pregnant during sex, and make laws disallowing impotent and post most-menospausal(sp?) people from allowing to be made also, as them having sex and being married ALSO disallows children to be made, which is the purpose of marrage and sex, right?

POINT: If one form of marrage is outlaws because the sex that might/will take away the possiblity of children, than all should. I think thats the most common reason why gay marrages aren't allowed, and its deffinatly one sided.

Myst
November 10th, 2001, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by kittiepoetrygod
If gays aren't allowed to get married because sex / marrige is to further the population, then I think that condoms, all forms of birth control, as they take away chances of getting pregnant during sex, and make laws disallowing impotent and post most-menospausal(sp?) people from allowing to be made also, as them having sex and being married ALSO disallows children to be made, which is the purpose of marrage and sex, right?

Huh? The point of marriage is not to have children - you can have children outside of marriage and there are other reasons to get married! The point of sex is also *not* just to make children, not in the least. And I don't think the inability to biologically have children is the reason why only marriages between a man and a woman are allowed in some places anyway.

And the sentence I quoted doesn't really make sense at all. What about condoms and birth control? And laws disallowing impotent/post-menopausal people to be "made" what? And I reiterate the first paragraph; marriage and sex are in no way, shape, or form, done solely for the purpose of having children.

Saeryn
November 10th, 2001, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Myst


Huh? The point of marriage is not to have children - you can have children outside of marriage and there are other reasons to get married! The point of sex is also *not* just to make children, not in the least. And I don't think the inability to biologically have children is the reason why only marriages between a man and a woman are allowed in some places anyway.

And the sentence I quoted doesn't really make sense at all. What about condoms and birth control? And laws disallowing impotent/post-menopausal people to be "made" what? And I reiterate the first paragraph; marriage and sex are in no way, shape, or form, done solely for the purpose of having children.

Myst, as someone who is married, has permanently decided not to have children, and had heard "why get married if you don't want to have kids" *way* too many times--I thank you for posting that! :D

There are many reasons/definitions for marriage--but having children is an option,*not* a requirement of matrimony.

Unfortanately many opposers of same-sex marriages often use the "but they can't procreate" as a platform to reinforce their views.


~~Saeryn
interesting thread

MistOfTheSea86
November 11th, 2001, 01:08 AM
But the thing is Illuminatus, You WOULD have to cut your legs off to completely understand a legless man . I think you may have been confused, Imagining what it would be like is one thing. But knowing is another... The emotional implications are very mysterious to someone whos legs aren't cut off. Get what I am saying?

And yes actually you are right. Homosexulity doesn't follow mainstream nature. But HEY, I feel normal doing it so :nyah: I mean everyone has their opinions about it, and I can't say yours are flawed. Even though I might think they are. HEHE.

And yes, enviroment can very well be a factor. but just because he thinks that kissing boys is normal... Doesn't mean he would do it. I am Pretty sure people know whether or not someone of the same sex attracts them. Scietifically speaking, it is genetic. There IS, or so I have heard, Something called the Gay Gene. Some gene in the y chromosome that attracts you to the same sex. This is all something I have heard, I dont know if it is true or not. Just thought it would bring up interesting conversation.

I was actually pondering this today. I mean think about it. Men and Woman are meant to procreate by nature, to create more of the human race. Wordly speaking, Homosexuality IS deviant to nature. Spiritually speaking, I like who I am and know I am homosexual for a reason. to know what it is like, to learn, to UNDERSTAND. I mean I can sit here being completely depressed because I am not following the "Nature" of things. But if people did that, would there be rights for women? Or freedom for blacks? You do what is in your heart I say. And if you are attracted to the same sex here here, follow your heart do what makes you happy. Dont let anyone else run your life but you.


OKAY FOLKS. No more talk of this, Time to get BACK ON TOPIC STARTING NOW. I WIll CREATE A NEW THREAD IN POLITCAL PAGAN ON THIS TOPIC. AL REPLYS PLEASE BE DIRECTED THERE.

StormChaser
November 11th, 2001, 02:27 AM
I think im gonna get a hystorectomy and go elope to vegas with my girlfriend.. she'll dress up in boys clothes.. and change her name to joseph...

no one will be the wiser..

Any one else wanna come?

Sequoia
November 11th, 2001, 03:51 AM
actually Saeryn and Myst - I think that what kittie was trying to do was say that if we're going to outlaw gays/lesbians/etc from being married on such subjects as "they cannot procreate" or something as one-sided as that, then why not extend it to others? I think that kittie was using it as an example, not as an actual thing to do. . . right, kittypoetrygod? just to show how silly it is. That would be like saying that straight people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they have too MANY children, and the world is OVERpopulated. I mean. . . . what about infertile couples? should they be treated like gays? it's just an example, of one part of one argument. But it shows just how rediculous and closed-minded the whole speal is.

:rolleyes: then again, when were laws really that logical? ^_~

StormChaser
November 11th, 2001, 04:30 AM
Im in agreement with Puma's assesment of the situation..
One would hope *i hope* that shes right..


~Sarah

sherry
November 11th, 2001, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Danustouch
Well, in the states, Taxes are higher for Single people, and people without children. Taxes lower, when there are two people per household, usually.

So no matter what you do somebody else gets your money!!If you are single the government takes it but if your married the husband does!! I have always been in the position that I made more than my husband. But it seems like he always had more STUFF than I did. Shoot I even had ex husband try for alamony so he "could live in the lifestyle he had become acustomed too" a quote from the divorce papers!!

Myst
November 11th, 2001, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Saeryn
Myst, as someone who is married, has permanently decided not to have children, and had heard "why get married if you don't want to have kids" *way* too many times--I thank you for posting that! :D

There are many reasons/definitions for marriage--but having children is an option,*not* a requirement of matrimony.


Agreed.

I just thought the implication that marriage and sex were for the sole purpose of making children was outlandish.

Sherry : Actually that's how it usually works for women when the man makes more. Puts me in mind of a coworker of my fiance who gives most of his pay to his ex - even tho she works in a grocery store full-time she had "grown accustomed to the lifestyle". He almost got shafted by that with his ex-girlfriend too, being as they'd lived together for a few years. So it works both ways. :-/

Others : You know, if you read Illuminatus' first post carefully he said he didn't have a problem with same-sex marriages at all. He *did* say he didn't agree that people in those marriages should get tax breaks (mind you he also said he didn't think marriages of a man and a woman should either) involved with having children. He may have also said he didn't think gay couples should have children. However, he did NOT say he had a problem with gay couples getting married because "the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate"!

Danustouch
November 12th, 2001, 11:08 AM
Okay....I thought about the question of whether or not married couples should get more tax breaks than single individuals, for a good part of this weekend.

When I said that one of the reasons that married couples may get more tax breaks, is because they are "MORE LIKELY" to buy a house, someone objected to that point, based on the theory that anyone could buy a house. I'm not an economist, but, I feel that if keeping the real-estate market up was not important for our economy, there wouldn't be so many government programs for firsttime home buyers.

As for the tax breaks which married couples receive, which single individuals dont....

The point was raised as to whether or not it was fair, being that if you CHOOSE to support another individual, you should be capable of supporting them without the governments help. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the interpretation i made on the post about this.

Well..here we get into the issue of economic stimulus. A married man or woman, may be able to financially support eachother, if they "tighten their belts", or even support a child. But...history has shown that during recessions, or other difficult financial times, people spend less money. They go out to eat less, they visit stores less, they don't buy cars, etc, etc, etc. So..even though couples might be able to support their families without tax breaks, they'd probably have little money left over to throw into the overall economy. It was just something I thought of last night, based on a news clip about George W. Bush's proposed economic stimulus package.

If you give couples and families tax breaks, you ensure, to some small degree, that they will go out and spend money elsewhere in our economy.

As for whether or not Single individuals deserve the same tax breaks, well...many single people are making well over what they would ever need to support themselves, or someone else (I do realize that there are those who are hardly making enough to support themselves, but...). They do not have quite as many financial responsibilities as a married couple, especially, a married couple with children, do.

And, as a clarification, Nowhere did I say nor imply, that it is my opinion that all married couples should have to deal with the assumption that they will procreate.

But...ratio's suggest, that Most married couples, do eventually have children. Even if not, most of them, buy a house. Usually, (we're talking about averages here)...one spouse makes more than the other, so one of the spouses winds up paying the lions share of the bills. Etc.

IMO..that's why the tax breaks are in effect. I think they are perfectly fair.

Illuminatus
November 12th, 2001, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by flar7
The laws are convoluted and difficult to take when it comes to marriage. They wont allow you to marry some girl and yet if you been living together for awhile they recognize it as a commonlaw marriage. But not with homosexuals? Strange. But thats the way our gov't works until you change it!

I agree.

Common law marriage is a legal loophole that should be closed, sealed and forgotten.

Illuminatus
November 12th, 2001, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by kittiepoetrygod
2 cents worth: If gays aren't allowed to get married because sex / marrige is to further the population, then I think that condoms, all forms of birth control, as they take away chances of getting pregnant during sex, and make laws disallowing impotent and post most-menospausal(sp?) people from allowing to be made also, as them having sex and being married ALSO disallows children to be made, which is the purpose of marrage and sex, right?

Having Children and Building a Family are not the same thing. They can intersect, but it's actually not necessary.

Illuminatus
November 12th, 2001, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
And yes, enviroment can very well be a factor. but just because he thinks that kissing boys is normal... Doesn't mean he would do it. I am Pretty sure people know whether or not someone of the same sex attracts them. Scietifically speaking, it is genetic. There IS, or so I have heard, Something called the Gay Gene. Some gene in the y chromosome that attracts you to the same sex. This is all something I have heard, I dont know if it is true or not. Just thought it would bring up interesting conversation.

Head over to Scientific Pagan, someone started a thread about this. Then you will understand the inherent fallacy of linking homosexuality to genetics.

Myst
November 12th, 2001, 02:04 PM
As for whether or not Single individuals deserve the same tax breaks, well...many single people are making well over what they would ever need to support themselves, or someone else (I do realize that there are those who are hardly making enough to support themselves, but...). They do not have quite as many financial responsibilities as a married couple, especially, a married couple with children, do.


Psst so are many married couples (making well over what they need), and there are many single parents as well. That also doesn't take into account non-married couples with children. I have to disagree that singles don't have as many financial responsibilities as married couples (again, singles can be living with a partner AND kids without being married, etc.).

(just playing devil's advocate)

Danustouch
November 12th, 2001, 02:08 PM
When I said singles..i meant singles without children. If taxes go down according to how many dependents one has, then a single person raising a child, would also be included in the tax breaks of which I speak. And obviosly, a single person raising a child, WOULD have more financial responsibilities than a Single, Childless person...in most cases :)

Myst
November 12th, 2001, 02:13 PM
Yup that's why I think things such as government benefits should be considered on a case by case basis. It might cost more to hire people to handle cases, but it would save a lot of money too, at least according to the people I know (ie. people collecting welfare, disability, or EI when they don't need to).

Danustouch
November 12th, 2001, 03:05 PM
Now..that is something I can agree with.