Fair enough on the contractual part of it.Originally Posted by .blank cd
What about sister, mother, brother ect..... theyre consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?
Why do you keep asking these questions but won't answer mine.
What about homosexuals, they're consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?
People still follow these guidlines to keep the peace so to speak. If laws keep getting passed going against the bible people will start to not trust faith. If the bible was disproved then there would be chaos because people wouldn't care about the possible consequences of their actions. people try to live their life according to religion that's why their so eager to not pass equl rights for gays. In the eye of a religious man gays are not an equal. The issue I have is, people who are gay do not choose it (some idiots excitement) their born with the abnormality. So how can they help that their more attracted towards the same sex as apposed to the opposite sex? Should they be strung up for death? They do not affect anyones well being. You don't have to watch the have intercourse. Just my two pennies.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
I agree with most, except that people don't care about consequences to their actions unless they believe in the bible.
Religion has no place in the government or law making, as mentioned, divorce should be illegal and many other things. What about war? Porn? There's loads of things that would go against religion if it boiled down to it that law makers don't mind signing or taking part in. The biggest reason I'm sure is they think it's gross.
I dont want to prevent gay people from being legally married. I would prefer to do so in a way that also accommodates religious tradition. Our government has no business upholding religious "laws", in the eyes of the law... marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and gay people should be allowed that right.
I do not want to prevent gay people from being legally married but At the same time, i respect the church's right to refuse wedding them. In any situation, i value freedom. I do not agree with being gay, i think being gay is a choice... ect ect ect but i still respect their freedom and rights.
I agree with you
I dont know if i would go as far as to say the world would be chaos without religion............ historically.... religion has been the driving force behind most of the chaos we have experienced.
Gotcha
Why do married couples get government benefits to begin with? explain the designed purpose of this please.
I know so without religion to fall back on they would be killing in the name of greed aka money. We already know this to be true, but there are people who are nieve to think god (if he exists) would want us killing each other over a piece of paper that is stamped with a public figure so to speak. If you take away religion, you're taking away the majority of peoples reason for living and doing good. If those same people where to realize it isn't tru they would have no other (nice) way of saying gay marriage is just plain out gross. I've also noticed more people are apposed to gay men the women. Why is that? I also don't believe being gay is a choice. Some, sure. I'm not talking about that one girl who fucked the neighborhood and got mad at men for taking a free ride on her magical poney and now she wants nothing to do with men. So she becomes a carpet muncher and declares herself gay, thos are the : fake: gays. I'm talking about the flammer, who talks, acts, and dresses like a girl/boy and are 100% gay. They didn't have a choice to whome they would be attracted to. So if they want to marry another gay person why not? We have no shot with a gay girl (long term marriage) so why not allow them to be happy. These matters are not even important and yet america waste time arguing and wasting money for nothing. If they love being gay then thats what they will be no one can force them to like the opposite sex without break their rights as an american.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
This is a good question. My gf now fiancé wants to get married simply for these benefits. Even though I'm opposed against marriage and religion. Marriage is a binding contract under god correct? Not the goverment. So why do we get goverment benefits ? How does me and my fiancé being married going to in return help the government.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
I dont agree. I do not need religion to know right from wrong. A lot of people have morals and values without having any use for religion. Myself and Blank are two examples.
You're just a few people who dont. The majority of people do though. 100% of some countries live solemnly to praise god. Without god they would be lost. No religion, no pope. No one person ruling over others in the name of god. For some countries no god means no rules at all.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
If religion is the only thing holding the world together......... then god help us all.
FF&C is utilized mainly in law enforcement and judgments, not civil unions.
As for its application in records of marriage, it has precedent. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage certificates issued in other states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.
Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws (9 states) and constitutional amendments (30 states) that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. That's a LOT more than half of the states expressly addressing gay marriage.
Nine states have allowed gay marriage - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Do you think that Washington, DC, and these 9 states should overrule the state amendments of over 30 states? What kind of "United STATES" is that?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
It is mostly benefits written into the tax code. This is a big deal for federal employees also. If DOMA is repealed ghey would receive federal insurance and survivor benefits.
Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.
Actually, voters had to pass the constitutional amendment. I don't recall anything being on the ballot asking what religious affiliation a person was.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
But why?
Different situation. Secular business, owners are just religious.
There are other documented cases where this has happened though - that one in OK (Voss Lighting) was publicized. It is easy for a business to cover up though.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Marriage is not a right; therefore, gay marriage cannot be a right either. There is no legal statement saying that marriage is a right in the Constitution or the Amendments.
People who are gay do have a choice - the same choice that straight people have. Straight people do not have to sleep with another, neither do gay people. They are not forced to do anything; they choose their behavior - the same a s straight people.
Gay and straight people have the same rights. There is no difference, except that some states have chosen to not allow a specific behavior to receive a marriage license. That specific behavior does not have "rights", as it is not a condition, such as a disability. To treat people as though they were disabled or handicapped just because they choose to be gay, is wrong.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Simple. The government wants people to get married and have more kids, so that they have a larger tax base.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Why does any couple receive benefits?
If the government offers benefits to married couples, why should it matter the type of couple? Is the benefit a reward for procreating? i honestly dont understand it.
You were told if you do bad and don't get into hevan your soul would burn in hell for all eternity. I do believe majority of church goers believe this. Look at all the riots and chaos that gets caused over religion. Now imagine those same people finding out there is no god.
A good bit of people will probably fuck some shit up. Lol
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
That's my opinion, but is that on paper?
or...... hear me out......
people will have a lot of stress and anxiety removed from their lives and will become more peaceful and loving individuals once they realize that life is about finding fulfillment and enjoying yourself rather than living out a test in which the end result is being rewarded the opportunity to escape an eternity of torture so that you can spend an eternity as a servant instead.
Then I guess you will have to come up with another reason. Even my wife, who is dead fast against gay marriage, admits she is only opposed because of religion. I cant come up with a single other reason to be against it.
Because politicians are always looking to carve out a little tax break for someone they like. I would love to see a flat tax instituted and ZERO deductions for a personal return.
You believe being gay is a choice, I do not. I believe it is some kind of genetic or brain chemistry abnormality.
BTW, I dont believe being gay is 'normal', but I dont think it is a reason to deny gays the basic institutions and benefits that a straight couple has.
If only everyone thought that lol I'm sure united states would be fine, but tell that to india and all the other, countries praying 80% of their day. Their whole life revolves around god.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
Ok, so now on to the solution.
Federal:
The Federal government should not be involved in marriage at all. It is not a Federally stated right, and it is managed by the states. The Federal government should not have a DOMA - period. It has no business in this area. The Federal government should recognize all marriages, and extend federal tax benefits to all married couples, whether or not they are traditional or same-sex. It's simple really.
State:
States should be allowed to decide who they will issue a marriage license to. If they want to block same-sex marriage, that's fine. Others will allow it. A couple can simply go to a state that allows them to get married and do so. It happened for years between GA and AL when minors would go to AL to get married. It's not a new thing. If a gay couple goes to Washington DC and gets married, and comes back to GA, they are still married, and will get their federal tax benefits, but they won't get the state tax benefits.
Competition:
States that are gay marriage friendly will attract more gay couples. It's pretty basic. Most of the gay couples that I have met, make good money, and are valued as good taxpayers. States that attract these individual will be better off. States that do not grant benefits to gay married couples will find that they lose these individuals and their tax money over time.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I would be happy with a flat SALES tax to replace what we have now. I dont like income tax. If im going through hard times, i can cut back and save, which would lower my taxes. If im wealthy and buying corvettes, im paying more taxes. It balances its self out.
The reason i think it would never happen............. because the government absolutely loathes privacy.
Why do they and why should they extend marriage benefits to anyone? what is the return on this "investment"?
Other than that, i support that idea completely.
I don't know.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I could live with that.
Why should voters have to have a reason? In order to change a constitutional amendment, it has to be voted on. It was, and GA passed DOMA. It's that simple. "Reason" is not required.
It's currently the law, and if it is to be changed legally, then it will need to pass another vote - and those voters will not be required to have a reason either for repealing the amendment or for passing another.
You "believe" that, yet you don't think that those with religious beliefs should use their beliefs when they vote. Interesting.
There is zero evidence that being gay is an abnormality - I have already shown that on this forum before.
Furthermore, even if being gay was genetic, performing gay acts is not an unconscious and uncontrollable behavior.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I would love to see the fairtax, but thats not happening anytime soon. A flat income tax, even a progressive one, will allow a far more stable tax system. It will also start to crumble the very powerful tax preparation industry.
People that pay in equally to SS, yet are gay, are not currently entitled to the money that their spouse paid in, when their spouse dies. That's just one of 1,138 reasons that the Federal government should not care if it is traditional or same-sex, as long as they are married.
The ROI is that you create more stability in society. Married people tend to end up in court less - especially for stupid stuff.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Long term, you would probably see more states repeal their amendments on their own, in an effort to keep gay couples from relocating to other states.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
The 2011 proposal addressed a lot of the issues that I saw with the 2005 proposal. With more work, it may have a possibility of being a future system.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
What if a gay couple get married in california and then moves to georgia?
Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?- NO
Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?- YES
If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?- YES
Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not? - NO
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I posted this months, if not a year ago. I believe we were in agreement.
Marriage is a states rights issue, it should be decided per state since they are the ones issuing the marriage licenses.
Religion has NOTHING to do with it, religious ceremonies are not binding.
Sexual preference is NOT a civil right.
We should not be providing tax breaks or credits to people with families, regardless of sexuality.
/convo
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Posting Permissions
