Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[Phatscotty]

Is this really what you believe motivates the pro-gay marriage legalization movement? Tax incentives? Nothing about freedom whatsoever? What should gay Americans do for their country instead of asking for freedom?

This is totally different from your other arguments, and if you really believed it, you would have brought it up at the beginning. You're attempting to change the conversation now, because your previous points have been shot down. It's not gonna work here. Just concede, Scotty.

I just want to hear what you have to say.

So...starting over.....what else will a marriage certificate change?

[Woodruff]

Is this really what you believe motivates the pro-gay marriage legalization movement? Tax incentives? Nothing about freedom whatsoever? What should gay Americans do for their country instead of asking for freedom?

This is totally different from your other arguments, and if you really believed it, you would have brought it up at the beginning. You're attempting to change the conversation now, because your previous points have been shot down. It's not gonna work here. Just concede, Scotty.

I just want to hear what you have to say. I'm not even acknowledging you speculation or answering my question with a question.

What else will a marriage certificate change?

Legitimacy.

[Phatscotty]

A lesson here for anyone: a debate should never be about winning points, but about searching for the best answer to a question which can be answered in more than one way. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you are brave enough to admit it when you are.

There is nothing wrong with answering a simple question either. Are you almost done with all this side bullshit?

[Woodruff]

Is this really what you believe motivates the pro-gay marriage legalization movement? Tax incentives? Nothing about freedom whatsoever? What should gay Americans do for their country instead of asking for freedom?

This is totally different from your other arguments, and if you really believed it, you would have brought it up at the beginning. You're attempting to change the conversation now, because your previous points have been shot down. It's not gonna work here. Just concede, Scotty.

I just want to hear what you have to say. I'm not even acknowledging you speculation or answering my question with a question.

What else will a marriage certificate change?

Legitimacy.

Haha! No joke...not two minutes after I made this post, Phatscotty walled me to say "You are foed". What a fucking coward.

[Woodruff]

A lesson here for anyone: a debate should never be about winning points, but about searching for the best answer to a question which can be answered in more than one way. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you are brave enough to admit it when you are.

There is nothing wrong with answering a simple question either. Are you almost done with all this side bullshit?

Do you have a response to my answer to the question, coward?

[rdsrds2120]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

Scotty, one of two things is applicable here. Respond to which one's true:

A) Why are you asking a question you already know the answer to?

B) How do you not have any idea, after countless pages in this thread, and even doing a quick mental checklist of the benefits married couples (of any sexuality) vs. the benefits any couples who don't have it (of any sexuality)?

-rd

Edit: Let's stay away from name calling. I mean, come on, really guys?

[GreecePwns]

Is this really what you believe motivates the pro-gay marriage legalization movement? Tax incentives? Nothing about freedom whatsoever? What should gay Americans do for their country instead of asking for freedom?

This is totally different from your other arguments, and if you really believed it, you would have brought it up at the beginning. You're attempting to change the conversation now, because your previous points have been shot down. It's not gonna work here. Just concede, Scotty.

I just want to hear what you have to say.

So...starting over.....what else will a marriage certificate change?

Legitimacy, as Woodruff said. Materially? Nothing, but what is your point in bringing that up?

1. A marriage certificate, in the eyes of the law, only legitimizes the marriage legally and gives tax incentives.
2. ___________________
3. Therefore, gays should not be given the right to marry.

It's your responsibility for filling in the blank.

[Woodruff]

Edit: Let's stay away from name calling. I mean, come on, really guys?

And let the trolling roll, of course. <rolling eyes>

[Woodruff]

Is this really what you believe motivates the pro-gay marriage legalization movement? Tax incentives? Nothing about freedom whatsoever? What should gay Americans do for their country instead of asking for freedom?

This is totally different from your other arguments, and if you really believed it, you would have brought it up at the beginning. You're attempting to change the conversation now, because your previous points have been shot down. It's not gonna work here. Just concede, Scotty.

I just want to hear what you have to say.

So...starting over.....what else will a marriage certificate change?

Legitimacy, as Woodruff said. Materially? Nothing, but what is your point in bringing that up?

1. A marriage certificate, in the eyes of the law, only legitimizes the marriage legally and gives tax incentives.
2. ___________________
3. Therefore, gays should not be given the right to marry.

It's your responsibility for filling in the blank.

I don't look at what Woodruff says.
Why are you so hard to talk to?
If you don't have any answers, just say so. It's not a big deal

You appear to be the one without any answers.

EDIT: Gosh, Phatscotty...why'd you delete your response?

[GreecePwns]

If you think I didn't answer your question (twice in there, actually), then countered with a response, you're not reading what I wrote.

"only legitimizes the marriage legally and gives tax incentives." There's my answer, though there are other benefits such as hospital visitation, etc.

Now answer my question, please. If you don't have any answers, just say so, it's not a big deal.

[Phatscotty]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

Scotty, one of two things is applicable here. Respond to which one's true:

A) Why are you asking a question you already know the answer to?

B) How do you not have any idea, after countless pages in this thread, and even doing a quick mental checklist of the benefits married couples (of any sexuality) vs. the benefits any couples who don't have it (of any sexuality)?

-rd

Edit: Let's stay away from name calling. I mean, come on, really guys?

Because I want to hear what Greece says, just like I only wanted to hear what Nag said in the "incident". Why don't you guys just calm the f*ck down? Geez

[Phatscotty]

If you think I didn't answer your question (twice in there, actually), then countered with a response, you're not reading what I wrote.

"only legitimizes the marriage legally and gives tax incentives." There's my answer, though there are other benefits such as hospital visitation, etc.

Now answer my question, please. If you don't have any answers, just say so, it's not a big deal.

Yeah okay I saw your answer that you got from Woodruff. Sorry, it was cluttered with a bunch of other stuff.

so, legitimacy... Why do lovers need a piece of paper to know that they love their partner?

[Woodruff]

If you think I didn't answer your question (twice in there, actually), then countered with a response, you're not reading what I wrote.

"only legitimizes the marriage legally and gives tax incentives." There's my answer, though there are other benefits such as hospital visitation, etc.

Now answer my question, please. If you don't have any answers, just say so, it's not a big deal.

Yeah okay I saw your answer that you got from Woodruff. Sorry, it was cluttered with a bunch of other stuff.

so, legitimacy... Why do lovers need a piece of paper to know that they love their partner?

Why does anyone? You seem to be suggesting that the entire idea of marriage be eliminated.

[GreecePwns]

They don't. I won't go into that anymore, because I did with that post. You have yet to explain what these quesitons have to do with your opposition to allowing gays to marry. It sounds more like you want the entire institution of marriage to be ended.

[Phatscotty]

If you think I didn't answer your question (twice in there, actually), then countered with a response, you're not reading what I wrote.

"only legitimizes the marriage legally and gives tax incentives." There's my answer, though there are other benefits such as hospital visitation, etc.

Now answer my question, please. If you don't have any answers, just say so, it's not a big deal.

So, you label a bunch of benefits.....

I don't know what your question is anymore. What is it

[Phatscotty]

They don't. I won't go into that anymore, because I did with that post. You have yet to explain what these quesitons have to do with your opposition to allowing gays to marry. It sounds more like you want the entire institution of marriage to be ended.

they don't have anything to do with my position. I was just asking questions...

[GreecePwns]

My question is: why did you post this?

It's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Guess where the position "I want my benefits" stands on that one....

What does it prove? You said marriage certificates only change benefits received. So why do we give marriage certificates to straight couples and not gay ones? Why should we only give them to straight ones and not gay ones, if the only thing that certificates change is benefits received?

Your statements in the last page or so would come from someone who believes that marriage should be eliminated. But that is not your stance, as you've shown throughout the thread.

So my question, again, is: why are you bringing this point up?

I put forth the possibility that you've seen the positions you've put forth previously shot down, and are resorting to something else in order to avoid conceding the debate. Which is why I said there's nothing wrong with conceding. I will take it back if you actually have a point in bringing this up.

[Roussallier]

There is no right and wrong, there's just power and weakness. Look at armed conflict, whatever side wins become the good guys. If they're overthrown later than they become evil. Gay marriage is breaking its way through to social, political, and moral acceptance. In a few decades everyone protesting "in defense of marriage" will look just as retarded as protestors against equal rights, women's suffrage, or race mixing.

Oh, and as far as State's rights... Remember what happens every time we let States decide moral issues? After the Civil War and emancipation States continued to enforce state law prejudiced against minorities until the mid-20th century.

Last point, if you jacked off to lesbian porn more than once - you can't oppose gay marriage. It doesn't work that way, you don't masturbate to something and then deny it equal rights.

[Phatscotty]

My question is: why did you post this?

It's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Guess where the position "I want my benefits" stands on that one....

What does it prove? You said marriage certificates only change benefits received. So why do we give marriage certificates to straight couples and not gay ones? Why should we only give them to straight ones and not gay ones, if the only thing that certificates change is benefits received?

Your statements in the last page or so would come from someone who believes that marriage should be eliminated. But that is not your stance, as you've shown throughout the thread.

So my question, again, is: why are you bringing this point up?

I put forth the possibility that you've seen the positions you've put forth previously shot down, and are resorting to something else in order to avoid conceding the debate. Which is why I said there's nothing wrong with conceding. I will take it back if you actually have a point in bringing this up.

There is nothing to concede. I have held from early on that the government should not be involved in any marriage. Redefining marriage will further cement the redistributionary system of benefits that any REAL conservative, REAL Libertarian, any person who REALLY cares about our debt and deficit and entitlement society, should be against redistribution as well. This bloodthirsty campaign to take the money people earn and give it to someone who did not earn it is going TOO FAR. There is also a moral aspect to those who ACTUALLY believe in smaller government, less government involvement in our lives. Straight people, gay people, purple people etc... should not need a license from a government to get married. The main reason you need a license is to participate in the tax system to get into the loophole game, for better or worse.

It's not that I oppose gay marriage, as I've said a few times if a church want's to marry a gay couple, fine, great, dandy. NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I have argued a few times marriage is an ecclesiastical issue and also that it is one that society should collectively decide. Not because of any other principles of mine, but because of recognition of what kind of issue marriage is.

I have added at other times that I understand why the government has given benefits to married people who have children. It makes sense to support a strong family structure and to encourage married people to stay together. The reality of that though is now a strong family unit is becoming a thing of the past, where as many have pointed out the divorce rates and how marriage is a joke anyways.

That is not a reason to broaden the definition of marriage, but it is a reason why marriage should be an ecclesiastical issue, as it always has been. Basically, since we took God out and put government in, of course marriage isn't what is used to be. The institution is being weakened even further. It's only recently (historically speaking) since the government got involved with licensing, and it is showing us a great reason why the government should not be involved in marriage.

Ultimately, this all ties in to my belief, and most peoples belief, that all the loopholes in the tax code should be eliminated. Corporate, Individual, all of it. NO MORE LOOPHOLES, CREDITS, PENALTIES, WRITE OFFS. DONE.

Also, I think the issue of gay marriage is going to lead to gay adoption issues in the future.
Maybe you can see better where I am coming from.

[Woodruff]

There is nothing to concede. I have held from early on that the government should not be involved in any marriage.

That's really not true at all. In fact, in at least one other thread, you are specifically arguing in favor of traditional marriage. You even started a thread about it.

Supporting gay marriage further cements the redistributionary system of benefits that any REAL conservative, REAL Libertarian, any person who REALLY cares about our debt and deficit and entitlement society, should be against redistribution as well.

What does any of that have to do with you? You definitely don't appear to be any of those things.

There is also a moral aspect to those who ACTUALLY believe in smaller government, less government involvement in our lives.

You demonstrably don't believe in smaller nor less government in our lives. In fact, you demonstrably believe in larger, more government in our lives. You have actively campaigned for it, in fact.

I have added at other times that I understand why the government has given benefits to married people who have children, and divorced people who have children, and anyone who has children. It makes sense to support a strong family structure and to encourage married people to stay together.

All of which are things that gay people can do, of course. Oh, except for that pesky "can't get married" thing. Nice catch-22.

That is not a reason to broaden the definition of marriage, but it is a reason why marriage should be an ecclesiastical issue, as it always has been.

No, it has not "always has been"...why aren't you railing about justices of the peace performing marriages then?

Maybe you can see better where I am coming from.

Absolutely. You're coming from The Dark Ages.

[nietzsche]

omg someone is gonna use that last part as a signature...

[bedub1]

My question is: why did you post this?

It's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Guess where the position "I want my benefits" stands on that one....

What does it prove? You said marriage certificates only change benefits received. So why do we give marriage certificates to straight couples and not gay ones? Why should we only give them to straight ones and not gay ones, if the only thing that certificates change is benefits received?

Your statements in the last page or so would come from someone who believes that marriage should be eliminated. But that is not your stance, as you've shown throughout the thread.

So my question, again, is: why are you bringing this point up?

I put forth the possibility that you've seen the positions you've put forth previously shot down, and are resorting to something else in order to avoid conceding the debate. Which is why I said there's nothing wrong with conceding. I will take it back if you actually have a point in bringing this up.

There is nothing to concede. I have held from early on that the government should not be involved in any marriage. Redefining marriage will further cement the redistributionary system of benefits that any REAL conservative, REAL Libertarian, any person who REALLY cares about our debt and deficit and entitlement society, should be against redistribution as well. This bloodthirsty campaign to take the money people earn and give it to someone who did not earn it is going TOO FAR. There is also a moral aspect to those who ACTUALLY believe in smaller government, less government involvement in our lives. Straight people, gay people, purple people etc... should not need a license from a government to get married. The main reason you need a license is to participate in the tax system to get into the loophole game, for better or worse.

It's not that I oppose gay marriage, as I've said a few times if a church want's to marry a gay couple, fine, great, dandy. NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I have argued a few times marriage is an ecclesiastical issue and also that it is one that society should collectively decide. Not because of any other principles of mine, but because of recognition of what kind of issue marriage is.

I have added at other times that I understand why the government has given benefits to married people who have children. It makes sense to support a strong family structure and to encourage married people to stay together. The reality of that though is now a strong family unit is becoming a thing of the past, where as many have pointed out the divorce rates and how marriage is a joke anyways.

That is not a reason to broaden the definition of marriage, but it is a reason why marriage should be an ecclesiastical issue, as it always has been. Basically, since we took God out and put government in, of course marriage isn't what is used to be. The institution is being weakened even further. It's only recently (historically speaking) since the government got involved with licensing, and it is showing us a great reason why the government should not be involved in marriage.

Ultimately, this all ties in to my belief, and most peoples belief, that all the loopholes in the tax code should be eliminated. Corporate, Individual, all of it. NO MORE LOOPHOLES, CREDITS, PENALTIES, WRITE OFFS. DONE.

Also, I think the issue of gay marriage is going to lead to gay adoption issues in the future.
Maybe you can see better where I am coming from.

21:35:48 ‹bedub1› i see marriage as 2 seperate things. 1 is you and your partner getting up in front of your friends and pledging your love/devotion etc to each other. this is often times a religious ceremony
21:36:24 ‹bedub1› the 2nd is the government paperwork aspect, where there are rights given to each individual. (inheritance, ability to visit in the hospital, taxes, insurance etc)
21:36:52 ‹bedub1› I agree government shouldn't be invovled in marriage. marriage is for public, paperwork is for the government
21:37:19 ‹bedub1› there is no such thing as the redistribution of weath/beneifts. it has nothing to do with marriage/government paperwork
21:38:59 * bedub1 quit (timeout)
21:39:18 ‹bedub1› the government hasn't done anything to weaken marriage. married people have weaked marriage by getting married too soon, too young, without enough experience. they have gotten divorced etc. it's not gay people that have destroyed marriage, it's straight people
21:40:06 ‹bedub1› i agree all tax loopholes should be removed. no more credits for children or anything. but that doesn't have anything to do with the rights when people get married
21:40:33 ‹bedub1› you are trying to argue against 1 thing by arguing against something else, and the two aren't related
21:41:16 ‹bedub1› it's a non-sequitor, if I know what that word means
21:44:00 ‹bedub1› you can't use arguments against redistribution of weath as an attack against gay marriage

[PLAYER57832]

It's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Guess where the position "I want my benefits" stands on that one....

Am I the only one finding it EXTREMELY ironic that someone who advocates doing away with most government, personal responsibility and keeping the government out of anything but social issues is now quoting JFK?

[PLAYER57832]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

Security. For some people, knowing they have more than just a whim to back up their relationship is important.

Medical choice The ability to make medical decisions automaticlaly for a loved one, without having to draw up a lot of complicated legal documents.. and without having to be sure those documents are available and recognized in all states.

Children.. the ability to make legal decisions for children you are raising, even if not biologically yours.

Morality...I believe you were among those claiming the moral priority of heterosexual marriage. Why should homosexuals be denied that as well.... except that it does not fit YOUR moral definition.

Inheritance.. Note this is NOT a "government benefit". It is, instead, something taken for granted by hetersexual married individuals -- the ability to pass on ownership of a house, small estate gains, money that the individual has EARNED without having to pay taxes and fees that no heterosexual couple has to pay.

OH, YEAH... and those "benefits". You really put your foot in your mouth there, because the truth is that most low income women actually LOSE money by marrying. Higher income women can gain, but that's not anything from the government.

[Neoteny]

I meant the second part. What does gay marriage have to do with, "I want my benefits?" Are you implying that gays only want to marry for the tax benefits?

what else will a marriage certificate change?

God, you're an ignorant tool.

great answer.

There is no need for you to budge into the middle of my conversations with other people, and you don't have to reply to me at all either, because you are foed for being an ignorant tool.

I cry.

But seriously, I hope the rot you call an ideology metastasizes into something that removes you from the forum. I don't need to converse with you directly to notice that the hatred, lies and fear-mongering that you spew are representative of the intellectual dregs of humanity. Your casual disregard of empathy is not only the likely root of your atrocious politics, but a sign of an unrelenting sociopathy that I wish only existed in movies, and almost makes me wish there was a hell in which you should writhe eternally. So, keep waving your flag, scum, it makes it easier to avoid you.