On June 25 2013 03:34 Focuspants wrote: I cant believe this is getting backlash. People hate supporting equality? Every time something like this happens I lose a little more faith in mankind.
It's 80 percent me. I'm all for equality. It is the way the world is moving and that's great. Just expressing my opinion on a highly contested issue.
It's not highly contested when it's basically just you disagreeing.
It's just me, because unlike all the rest of the sensible Christians or those who disagree with homosexuality and smartly chose to stay out of a thread inviting debate, - I chose to put myself out there.
On June 25 2013 04:22 valium wrote: Christians... meek? Oh boy, you are so far off it is amazing you can even function. Go pick up a history book or just look at the world today, Christians are the least meek of all religious people.
Do not mistake bashing Christians with people defending themselves against Christians. While I am not so naïve as to think people do not genuinely bash Christians, I am fairly certain most instances of "Christian bashing" is actually someone legitimately defending themselves against intolerance. One should not be tolerant of intolerance, that is referred to as apathy.
Bull. "Intolerance" is an arbitrary line. I have a few friends that are openly "racist" in a colloquial sense, and they're perfectly good people who have no problems being around other races.
It's overt and violent intolerance which is the problem, and even then the problem is not the prejudice, it's the actions which can precede from those views. It's the action, not what causes it, that's the problem. People can be as intolerant as they want, if they don't actively hurt someone else, they're welcome (though ignorantly so) to be racist.
Also, Christian bashing is par for the course in most Collegiate level Social science courses. Nothing too rough (and usually quite humorous actually), but it's there. Particularly Baptists. I tried getting away with a similar Muslim themed joke once and got crickets my freshman year.
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said.
The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies.
People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes.
Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.
The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers)
I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights.
This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
Yes those 2 are about rights. If, as you claim, the only difference between a homosexual couple that is married without legal status, and a heterosexual couple that is married with legal status, is the heterosexual gets a tax benefit, then the homosexual couple is being monetarily discriminated against.
I think it's pretty funny that if you have an argument or reasoning why you think homosexual marriage is wrong (in the legal sense, not social sense), that you still have to preface your argument with "I'm not a homophobe." Which makes the whole discussion disingenuous; the argument should stand for itself.
On June 25 2013 03:49 Qwyn wrote: You can insult the Bible and the books of the disciples all you want, that's fine by me. But for millions of Christians, the Bible IS the final authority on homosexuality.
I suppose I can respect your opinion on that. But then you've got to respect my opinion that your opinion is, to put it mildly, very silly, and that I want nothing to do with someone having that opinion.
You exist. I exist. As part of a social contract and being rational human beings, we mutually agree to not kill each other over something as small as our opinions on an issue. I can respect you calling my opinion silly, and I'll just ignore you calling me silly.
As for wanting nothing to do with me, I heard TL+ has a nice ignore feature that you can use.
Same from me: kudos for keeping it cool.
Personally, my issue with religiously motivated "disagreement with the gay lifestyle" is that it often is not just a disagreement is it? Many religious people, like roman catholics, muslims, ... , are required to believe that gay people do not have access to heaven and shall instead suffer eternal torment. For a matter they have no choice in what so ever (people who still think being gay is a choice are just ignorant).
Disagreement is one thing. Believing it is just to be tortured for something you can't help is something completely different.
On June 25 2013 04:08 Zaqwe wrote: I don't understand what homophilia has to to with esports. Maybe the banner should link to an explanation?
What about BDSM or other sexual deviancies? The horse mascot in a gimp mask should be next.
Unless you have a BDSM wedding, no one is going to know what you do in your bedroom. However, that is more of a challenge for folks or are gay, as they need to do all the other stuff in life.
Also, horse armor, duh.
What about Naturists? Naked horse banner plz
This is going to shock you, but: The horse has been naked all this time..
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said.
The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies.
People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes.
Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.
The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers)
I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights.
This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
I work in the legal field and deal with these issues all the time. You are wrong. The only way to be 100% sure you will have visitation rights is to be married or an immediate family member. Anything else is subject to the rules and practices of the medical institution. The same goes for inheritance(without a will) and survivorship benefits.
Don't act like an expert in a field you are not. Rights are conveyed through marriage that are strong than any other family member, both beyond death and through the life of the person. No set of independent contracts can equal the strength of the rights conveyed when two people marry.
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities?
Don't you realize how absurd that is?
I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with."
The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion.
They are analogous; It's the very same reason Gov't doesn't allow federal funding for creating stem cells from embryos. Because it would be "wrong" for taxpayer money to be used on something that isn't universally agreed upon.
I'm not saying I agree with the argument; but it's definitely something to think about.
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said.
The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies.
People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes.
Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.
The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers)
I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights.
This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk.
Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right.
The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc.
Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places.
On June 25 2013 04:08 Zaqwe wrote: I don't understand what homophilia has to to with esports. Maybe the banner should link to an explanation?
What about BDSM or other sexual deviancies? The horse mascot in a gimp mask should be next.
Unless you have a BDSM wedding, no one is going to know what you do in your bedroom. However, that is more of a challenge for folks or are gay, as they need to do all the other stuff in life.
Also, horse armor, duh.
What about Naturists? Naked horse banner plz
This is going to shock you, but: The horse has been naked all this time..
I thought it was made of water! My reality is shattered.
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities?
Don't you realize how absurd that is?
I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with."
The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion.
They are analogous; It's the very same reason Gov't doesn't allow federal funding for creating stem cells from embryos. Because it would be "wrong" for taxpayer money to be used on something that isn't universally agreed upon.
I'm not saying I agree with the argument; but it's definitely something to think about.
So it's wrong for the president to be black then because the KKK doesn't agree, therefore the entirety of the united states of america is not universally agreeing upon something? The federal government stepped in and did the right thing and desegregated schools across all states. The federal government did the right thing and abolished slavery.
This is a human rights issue, so I couldn't give a rats ass what the "majority" thinks.
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said.
The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies.
People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes.
Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.
The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers)
I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights.
This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
Yes those 2 are about rights. If, as you claim, the only difference between a homosexual couple that is married without legal status, and a heterosexual couple that is married with legal status, is the heterosexual gets a tax benefit, then the homosexual couple is being monetarily discriminated against.
Are potato farmers being discriminated against because they don't qualify for corn subsidies?
Are potato farmer's rights being violated by corn subsidies they don't qualify for?
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities?
Don't you realize how absurd that is?
I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with."
The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion.
They are analogous; It's the very same reason Gov't doesn't allow federal funding for creating stem cells from embryos. Because it would be "wrong" for taxpayer money to be used on something that isn't universally agreed upon.
I'm not saying I agree with the argument; but it's definitely something to think about.
If thats the reason than something is really, really wrong. Nothing is really universally agreed upon, its more or less the reason why we have democracy in the first place.
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said.
The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies.
People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes.
Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.
The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers)
I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights.
This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk.
Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right.
The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc.
Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places.
Changing it from "rights" to "privileges" means nothing. Why can't they have those privilege anyway ? Homosexual couple can also forms families.
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote: As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it. I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get. But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights.
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples.
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said.
The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies.
People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes.
Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.
The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers)
I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights.
This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk.
Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right.
The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc.
Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places.
Also let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things.
If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual.
EPT
