its not the same at all. unlicensed doctors would hurt people with incompetent surgeries, whereas gay marriage has literally no effect on the straights. there is a reason doctors are licensed, because it matters that they are competent. marriage licences are meaningless and have no effect on me. once i lived with a girl i was dating. we were not married. had we been married, it would have made zero difference. it would have been a meaningless piece of paper as far as i was concerned. it wouldnt be sacred or magical, i would just had gotten it reversed with a divorce anyways. i dont need to have my relationships notarized by big brother. and thats great, congratulations to me and you for being straight, we get to reproduce, we rule. i just dont see where the government has anything to do with it. i am not for gay rights, i dont even like most gays, they are goofy and too into musical theater. i am just for less intrusive government. you want the government to endorse your relationship and not others, and i say i dont want my government to use my tax dollars to give a damn who you are dating. i understand, but what i am actually promoting is government indifference to marriage in general. i dont think my government should care who anyone is having sex with or dating. you say gay relationships dont deserve a government stamp of approval. i agree. i also think a straight relationship doesnt need a government stamp of approval. why is my government in the business of certifying relationships? why waste time and money? sabanfan, you are right, i missed your point. i can see how gays frolicking around is disgusting to you. a movie theater and restaurant that i frequent is in the chelsea (gay) neighborhood of new york, so i commonly see some disturbing activity. to me gays are like asparagus. i can look at it without any trouble, but if i got any more closely involved with it than that, i would vomit. merely seeing it doesnt bug me. i am no more offended by gays humping each other than dogs humping each other. HAHAHAHAH
OK, so you are promoting doing away with the idea of marriage altogether. I misunderstood. I would note that it whether the doctor or accountant or lawyer is licensed or not, you can still sue him or her if you are harmed. Giving that professional a license only means that they have past some tests or hurdles at some point in time, could be years and years ago, or could involve some favoritism depending on the licensing agency in order for them to have received that license. So it is possible using your claimed libertarianism on the marriage licensing issue to say the exact same thing about this feared big brother about other licensures. Having a license in many regards is a state revenue function, not a guarantee of competency. And even without a licensing process, you would still be able to seek damages should a person in a field harm you. Of course I am for licensing not because it guarantees safety or competency or helps big brother, I think there has to be a system of norms in society whether its in regards to the issue of marriage or licensing watch repairmen. This slipping of norms to the lowest common denominator under the guise of it doesn't bother or hurt me in anyway can only lead to anarchy in my opinion.
if the government starting handing out doctor licenses to idiots, and they went around doing surgeries, i understand how that hurts society. how does it hurt society if the government gives a marriage license to gays, or for that matter crocodiles? the whole thing is just so pointless! why do you get special rights because you are straight and and signed a document with the person who are currently having sex with? what if i hated a girl but we got married for tax purposes? is that wrong? should the government come to my house and make sure we really like each other? is it really relevant what sort of relationship we have? why should the government have anything to do with it? is it ok if a marriage is a total farce, as long as there is at least one penis and one vagina involved? i think if i was gay i would be justifiably pretty damn pissed if i missed out on some stupid marriage tax credit or whatever. i know why people are irrational about this topic. and it is the same reason they are irrational about tons of other things. its religion. it always is.
The idea that marriage and traditional family structures are pointless is certaily the popular thinking. As it anti-religion. From the editorial page of the NY Times to MTV, we are definitely testing centuries of normalcy. I guess that dude, I'm just not with it. I'm not cutting edge. I'm not deconstructing well enough I guess. Maybe we could live without any system of normalcy, where the only standard of decency is the last or least common denominator. As far as the tax code. You don't get a mortgage deduction if you rent an apartment You don't get the moving deduction unless you actually move and have a certain amount of moving expenses. You don't get the children deduction unless you actually have offspring. You don't get the marriage deduction unless you are actually married to a member of the opposite sex and have a marriage license. The tax code could easily be changed to give an apartment deduction, a best friend deduction, a roommate deduction, a pizza and beer deduction, any deduction you want to lobby for. All that can be done with destroying centuries old traditions of marriage. And the government does hand out doctor licenses to idiots.
you still misunderstand. i love traditional familes. i think the traditional 2 family household is by far the best way for things to work. why does it destroy anything if homos get to pair up and get the same stupid tax breaks you get? who stopped you from doing anything? my question to you is this: how does it hurt you for gays to get the same tax credits you get for being married? if gays can get married it has nothing to do with you. it doesnt destroy anyhting or change your life in any way. i dont think either of you deserve tax credits, but if anyone gets them, they should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. why do you deserve special rights? (again, i know your answers, at the end of the day, are based on an irrational faith in magical wizards)
What do you refer to by magical wizards? If that is some knock at religion, I'd direct you to numerous denominations who obviously champion gay marriages, starting with Episcopalians, Unitarians, Congregationalists. Homos, as you call them, can get a tax credit for their living arrangement just like any other group or interest can get a credit. By lobbying Congress. There are no shortage of credits out there for businesses and individuals. All can be done without completely rearranging the definition of marriage. You mention crocodiles, mops and other things I gather to equate as the same as one man and one woman. I know you are being overly dramatic to make your point, but any grouping of persons or things can become eligible for a tax credit. As simple as injecting it into a tax bill. I'm guessing at the heart of your position is a distaste for religious people who you see as much more ingnorant of your more enlightened position. An enlightened position no doubt crafted by pop culture, academia and other sources. I don't quarrel with the fact that the anti-religion position is en vogue in such quarters. Point is, you and homos can have a tax credit in of itself without changing the definition of marriage. But therein lies the problem, you and the homos know it can't be done at the ballot box or the legislative level. To be accomplished, it must be done unilaterally by the Federal Courts. Another branch of the Big Brother you profess to dislike. QUOTE]Originally posted by martin you still misunderstand. i love traditional familes. i think the traditional 2 family household is by far the best way for things to work. why does it destroy anything if homos get to pair up and get the same stupid tax breaks you get? who stopped you from doing anything? my question to you is this: how does it hurt you for gays to get the same tax credits you get for being married? if gays can get married it has nothing to do with you. it doesnt destroy anyhting or change your life in any way. i dont think either of you deserve tax credits, but if anyone gets them, they should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. why do you deserve special rights? (again, i know your answers, at the end of the day, are based on an irrational faith in magical wizards) [/QUOTE]
again i ask you, if homos can get married, how does that make you any less married? i asked this last time, but you didnt answer. i said: if gays can get married it has nothing to do with you. it doesnt destroy anyhting or change your life in any way. that is my question to you.
How does that affect me directly? Is that your question? Should all actions have to have a direct affect on any one individual at any one time or otherwise it is valid? How does allowing an apartment dweller to deduct his rent payment affect a mortgage owner? How would allowing someone who has watched instructional videos and pledged to act responsibily in return for an accounting, legal or physician license affect someone who went the traditional route, exams, school, testing, etc. to receiving the license? Once again, there are ways to accomplish what you seek to accomplish without changing the traditional, centuries old, definition of marriage. That it does not directly affect me, at this moment or at any particular moment, does not change the societal affect. Perhaps one day we will all live on our individual pods, self-sufficently, free from the evil of wizards and Big Brother, other than the Federal Courts which you apparently don't consider to be part of Big Brother. But until then, for every action their is an affect on society as a whole, whether felt immediately or long-term.
fine. so what is the negative affect on society of letting gays get married? are you ever going to answer? whats the negative?
The negative affect is that the family comprised of a man and a woman, ideally with the intention of procreating, perpetuates society. Our entire legal and social fabric is based upon that and has been for centuries. Experimentation is not necessarily always a good thing. Groups of individuals, in sets of pairs or multiples, irregardless of the sexual makeup of the group can make a nice support cirlce, but does not make a marriage. You can deconstruct to your academic heart's content, but that does not change the value of the traditional marriage. 2 guys and 3 women and for your benefit a crococdile could presumably pool resources and provide for each other. They can experiment in that manner to their heart's content, but that does not make a marriage. Finally considering it is advocates for the gay agenda such as yourself who are promoting the change, is it not typically the job of the promoter to sell the benefits of their wares? It is yourself who is promoting this issue. It is yourself who is promoting it as a change for the better. Why is that?
