Thread: Gay Marriage - a possible solution for all sides

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Actually the gay marriage issue is about none of the above. It's about money. And how much companies and the government will have to pay out in insurance, SSI, and SS benefits.

If that's the issue, then why should companies or the government subsidize marriage of any sort?

Come to think of it, why should a single person like myself have to pay more taxes proportionately for filing single while various couples get tax incentives to marry?

If money really is the issue, then marriage should be entirely separate from government, and businesses should be spared having to fork out extra money for them as well.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

If that's the issue, then why should companies or the government subsidize marriage of any sort?

Come to think of it, why should a single person like myself have to pay more taxes proportionately for filing single while various couples get tax incentives to marry?

If money really is the issue, then marriage should be entirely separate from government, and businesses should be spared having to fork out extra money for them as well.

Do you REALLY think it's about morality when presidents and congressmen are fucking young women and men in the closets and restrooms?

Damnation!

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Do you REALLY think it's about morality when presidents and congressmen are fucking young women and men in the closets and restrooms?

Damnation!

Oh I agree on that. What I'm saying is that the voters against gay marriage usually seem to vote according to what they see as morality.

The politicians who capitalize on this don't have any semblance of morality.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Oh I agree on that. What I'm saying is that the voters against gay marriage usually seem to vote according to what they see as morality.

The politicians who capitalize on this don't have any semblance of morality.

And of course ALL the liberals on here want to subsidize immorality any place it is, the workplace, the bathroom, the cathedral, the schoolhouse, the Oval Office.

Damn what a funny cluster fuck of blind people!

Originally Posted by Sunshine

And of course ALL the liberals on here want to subsidize immorality any place it is, the workplace, the bathroom, the cathedral, the schoolhouse, the Oval Office.

Damn what a funny cluster fuck of blind people!

You'll have to explain that one...

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

So, WE should change for the sake of sick individuals like the fags/dykes of this world? That's liberalism for you. They should NOT be allowed to marry, and they should keep their er 'relations' well-hidden in the bloody closets from whence they came. Why should we subsidise immorality and unnatural acts?

....at least you're honest and upfront about your fascism.... That's more than I can say about most prejudiced people....

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

If that's the issue, then why should companies or the government subsidize marriage of any sort?

Come to think of it, why should a single person like myself have to pay more taxes proportionately for filing single while various couples get tax incentives to marry?

If money really is the issue, then marriage should be entirely separate from government, and businesses should be spared having to fork out extra money for them as well.

Good points!

Originally Posted by Sunshine

And of course ALL the liberals on here want to subsidize immorality any place it is, the workplace, the bathroom, the cathedral, the schoolhouse, the Oval Office.

Damn what a funny cluster fuck of blind people!

Are you trying to sound ridiculous?

Good try!:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

My good man, EVERYONE is prejudiced about someone or something. They are just afraid to be themselves, thanks to so many rules that will not allow it. At least we fascists tell you to be open about your prejudices. We simply want order, and we will do anything to get it.

Well, honestly, I guess you could say I'm prejudiced against fascists.

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

I cannot fathom why it is deemed a prejudice to be with one's own kind. Do you not have in your beloved 'States many ethnic enclaves? Would you not therefore suggest that those who choose to live in such enclaves are themselves prejudiced? Do you not see the hypocrisy when people such as myself decry the very existence of such enclaves when those who live in them would label me 'prejudiced'? You do not see the irony?

There is certainly classism and racism in America. I'll say this much... You're correct that everyone has prejudice. What matters is how you deal with it.

Instead of embracing it, I prefer to transcend it. Admittedly, I'm not always successful at it, but that doesn't mean I should stop trying. Why you would choose to embrace prejudice is what puzzles me....

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Good points!

thanks

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

So, WE should change for the sake of sick individuals like the fags/dykes of this world? That's liberalism for you. They should NOT be allowed to marry, and they should keep their er 'relations' well-hidden in the bloody closets from whence they came. Why should we subsidise immorality and unnatural acts?

"subsidise immorality and unnatural acts"...?

You mean like legalized prostitution, invetro fertilization, and heart transplants?

The thing is that what is 'immoral' has changed. Woman wearing pants, for example. Working on Sunday, eating pork, and a whole host of others I could list.

Rock and roll music was at one time thought be be the devil's music...

These things aren't immoral. Immorality begins where civility ends.

Forcing your will upon someone, is immoral. Denying people the right to pursue what makes them happy, is immoral.

Two people deciding they want to spend their lives together is not immoral, even if they are mixed races or of the same sex.

Did you listen to "Zach Wahls" speech?

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

So, WE should change for the sake of sick individuals like the fags/dykes of this world? That's liberalism for you. They should NOT be allowed to marry, and they should keep their er 'relations' well-hidden in the bloody closets from whence they came. Why should we subsidise immorality and unnatural acts?

Gay people have always existed, and they always will.
It is time for ALL of us to recognize that gay relationships are not threatening to heterosexual relationships, that gay people are no more a threat to our children as heterosexual people, and that heterosexual people have no right and no reason to continue imposing their discrimination on gay people.

Get use to it.

Originally Posted by wrxsti

I will lose the inherent sense of superiority I feel due to my heterosexuality.

Still a homophobic response.

Got and non-homophobic and secular reason against gay marriage?

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

Ah, but WHY are you prejudiced against fascists? We are moral, and we seek order, however we manage to gain it. If we most destroy those who seek to create chaos and disorder, then so be it. Does this not eventually lead to peace and harmony?

Sure, domination can lead to peace, but that's basically the same goal of radical Islamists. I prefer peace through freedom rather than through oppressive order.

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

Would you not seek to be on the winning side? Classism and racism are winning, hands down. As the old adage goes, if you cannot beat it, then join it. I choose to embrace order, and my prejudices allow for an easy way to keep that order.

That only works if you're the majority. I wouldn't say racism is winning though. Western Society is still far less racist today than it was just a few decades ago. Classism might be worse, but it's hard to say.

Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck

I believe in capital punishment. This seems to make me a prejudiced fella simply because liberals are themselves aware that by far the majority of crimes are committed by Blacks. I need not even mention Blacks in my desire to destroy crime via the use of force, yet liberals would immediately harp that I am a racist. So, they use the race card to hide a simple fact from the public, whereas a fascist like myself would have the facts out there for the people to see for themselves the Truth. This would suggest the liberals have the odd agenda of protecting criminals, whereas mine would be that of destroying them. Which of us has the greater good in mind? Hmmm? My prejudiced self, or the prejudiced liberals?

While I would agree with you that support for capital punishment is not inherently racist, most people against the death penalty are more concerned about protecting the falsely accused than actual criminals.