North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

They don't have the same rights. I was able to marry the woman I love. My neighbor down the street can't marry the man he loves

But like you he can marry a woman. You know I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I love three women is that also ok?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

But like you he can marry a woman. You know I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I love three women is that also ok?

The question should be rephrased as "I love three women, why isn't OK to marry them all?"

...the second and the third question then become "can firstdown handle three women" and "are there three women on the planet with low enough self-esteem to want to marry firstdown?"

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

The question should be rephrased as "I love three women, why isn't OK to marry them all?"

...the second and the third question then become "can firstdown handle three women" and "are there three women on the planet with low enough self-esteem to want to marry firstdown?"

edit not worth my time.

[NC_Skins]

TO show you that a degree doesn't mean you aren't ignorant, I present you this following FB exhange from a girl who just finished her bachelors degree in nursing.


Girl's FB status: Its so scarey to think about what will be the social norm and socially accepted in years to come. Start praying for your children now!


My response: Funny, people said the same thing when the topic of women's rights came about. /shrug

Girl's reply: Well to tell you the truth I would rather have my children growing up then...before we had any "rights" than I would now. Its just scarey to me...thats all I was saying.


If that doesn't make you facepalm, I don't know what will. She's rather undo all of women's rights just to see homosexuals denied the right to be married. If that isn't ignorance, then I'm clueless to what it is then.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

TO show you that a degree doesn't mean you aren't ignorant, I present you this following FB exhange from a girl who just finished her bachelors degree in nursing.


Girl's FB status: Its so scarey to think about what will be the social norm and socially accepted in years to come. Start praying for your children now!


My response: Funny, people said the same thing when the topic of women's rights came about. /shrug

Girl's reply: Well to tell you the truth I would rather have my children growing up then...before we had any "rights" than I would now. Its just scarey to me...thats all I was saying.


If that doesn't make you facepalm, I don't know what will. She's rather undo all of women's rights just to see homosexuals denied the right to be married. If that isn't ignorance, then I'm clueless to what it is then.

I'm not going to get into this any more, but I definitely had a few similar Facebook experiences with stuff like that. Love that people act like homosexuality is the ultimate sin. Had to call one of them out on Facebook for the divorce as well...

[skinsguy]

I think there is plenty enough ignorance to go around on both sides of the argument...I've already been witness to that in this thread by all the childish name calling.

Look, here's the thing, it comes down to simply this: state sponsored benefits. The state recognizing heterosexual marriage was mainly intended to encourage those married couples to procreate and populate. More population = more taxable income from future generations, at least in the government's eyes. The government can care less, or should care less, about the sanctity of marriage or who loves whom, so forth and so on. That isn't really the purpose of this.

My point is, the government is going about this the wrong way. You people who are still arguing hot and heavy in favor of gay marriage are still supporting discrimination, because you have flat out ignored those loving couples who have children together but are not married nor believe in marriage, yet have a loving home together. Should they be left out in the dark as well? Might I add that not all of the states in the union recognize a couple living together for so many years as being legally married. At least that isn't the case in NC. But, my point is, I have not heard any of the high and mighty here be a voice for any of those people either!

The thing is, the arugment has gone into a polarizing way where you're a homophobe if you don't agree with homosexuality, or your ignorant or whatever. You're just as ignorant for trying to down people's beliefs and belittling them in hopes of changing their views. That's a third grade way of going about doing things. It's just as intolerant. There would be absolutely no argument from either side if the government stayed out the marriage business like it should. If it was so gun-ho on giving benefits to couples who could procreate or wanting to adopt, then it should have just left it at that - benefits to those who are living together and have children together either through natural means or adoption. That way, nobody is left out. But, people will continue to argue and fight the wrong fight, and as long as it's about trying to convince somebody that their views are right or wrong, this country will never get passed this issue.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The thing is, the arugment has gone into a polarizing way where you're a homophobe if you don't agree with homosexuality, or your ignorant or whatever. You're just as ignorant for trying to down people's beliefs and belittling them in hopes of changing their views. That's a third grade way of going about doing things. It's just as intolerant.

Not sure you are referring to me because I've used the term ignorant on a few occasions in here, but it wasn't for their views on homosexuality. It was for their inability to see that all people should have rights as human beings, and that these marriages affect them in absolutely no way whatsoever. So what do you call a guy who's mad at somebody for doing something that doesn't affect him whatsoever?

I could care less if people want to view homosexuality as a sin or what not. That's their choosing just as other religions choose to believe what they want.

However, when your religion interferes with others rights, it then becomes a problem.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not sure you are referring to me because I've used the term ignorant on a few occasions in here, but it wasn't for their views on homosexuality. It was for their inability to see that all people should have rights as human beings, and that these marriages affect them in absolutely no way whatsoever. So what do you call a guy who's mad at somebody for doing something that doesn't affect him whatsoever?

I could care less if people want to view homosexuality as a sin or what not. That's their choosing just as other religions choose to believe what they want.

However, when your religion interferes with others rights, it then becomes a problem.

That being said, skinsguy really does break it down to a pretty decent bottom-line. I think the problem is that it comes from a place of hate/intolerance from (most) people who oppose gay marriage. There are many, many intangible things in this whole argument, but the tangible one is also a VERY important one that skinsguy elaborated on.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not sure you are referring to me because I've used the term ignorant on a few occasions in here, but it wasn't for their views on homosexuality. It was for their inability to see that all people should have rights as human beings, and that these marriages affect them in absolutely no way whatsoever. So what do you call a guy who's mad at somebody for doing something that doesn't affect him whatsoever?

I could care less if people want to view homosexuality as a sin or what not. That's their choosing just as other religions choose to believe what they want.

However, when your religion interferes with others rights, it then becomes a problem.

The thing is, you're really arguing for the religious to compromise their beliefs by agreeing to vote for something they feel is sin. So then, the shoe is really on the other foot. Their religious beliefs are then interfered with, and I believe that is just as much as problem as you say the opposite way. Either way, someone's beliefs are going to be interfered with. That is why I said before, government should have never got into the "marriage" business to begin with. If those in government truly wanted a separation of church and state, they should have never messed with marriage.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I think there is plenty enough ignorance to go around on both sides of the argument...I've already been witness to that in this thread by all the childish name calling.

Look, here's the thing, it comes down to simply this: state sponsored benefits. The state recognizing heterosexual marriage was mainly intended to encourage those married couples to procreate and populate. More population = more taxable income from future generations, at least in the government's eyes. The government can care less, or should care less, about the sanctity of marriage or who loves whom, so forth and so on. That isn't really the purpose of this.

My point is, the government is going about this the wrong way. You people who are still arguing hot and heavy in favor of gay marriage are still supporting discrimination, because you have flat out ignored those loving couples who have children together but are not married nor believe in marriage, yet have a loving home together. Should they be left out in the dark as well? Might I add that not all of the states in the union recognize a couple living together for so many years as being legally married. At least that isn't the case in NC. But, my point is, I have not heard any of the high and mighty here be a voice for any of those people either!

The thing is, the arugment has gone into a polarizing way where you're a homophobe if you don't agree with homosexuality, or your ignorant or whatever. You're just as ignorant for trying to down people's beliefs and belittling them in hopes of changing their views. That's a third grade way of going about doing things. It's just as intolerant. There would be absolutely no argument from either side if the government stayed out the marriage business like it should. If it was so gun-ho on giving benefits to couples who could procreate or wanting to adopt, then it should have just left it at that - benefits to those who are living together and have children together either through natural means or adoption. That way, nobody is left out. But, people will continue to argue and fight the wrong fight, and as long as it's about trying to convince somebody that their views are right or wrong, this country will never get passed this issue.

I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:

a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure

With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.

If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:

a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure

With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.

If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.

I dont think either of you guys are right. But i guess i think youre more wrong:

a) If youre subject to entitlements dont get married.

That is unless your spouse to be makes a lot of money relative to your income. Getting married in this situtation can cut your rate down significantly. Perhaps progressively in "half", but "progressively in half" isnt real in half

b) less population also means less revenue

A and B are arguable but i completely disagree with your last sentence.


Entitlement reform needs to change because it discourages marriage. 47% of us pay no income tax. 20 some percent pay a negative income tax (get money for showing up). 10-20% pay a negative income so high they effectively pay no payroll tax. If all these people were married they would loose out on a lot of loot.


Social security benefits straight up hook married people up. You never worked a day in your life, but your husband made tons and is subject to the full benefit amount? Cool, you get half of his straight up.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I dont think either of you guys are right. But i guess i think youre more wrong:

a) If youre subject to entitlements dont get married.

That is unless your spouse to be makes a lot of money relative to your income. Getting married in this situtation can cut your rate down significantly. Perhaps progressively in "half", but "progressively in half" isnt real in half

b) less population also means less revenue

A and B are arguable but i completely disagree with your last sentence.


Entitlement reform needs to change because it discourages marriage. 47% of us pay no income tax. 20 some percent pay a negative income tax (get money for showing up). 10-20% pay a negative income so high they effectively pay no payroll tax. If all these people were married they would loose out on a lot of loot.


Social security benefits straight up hook married people up. You never worked a day in your life, but your husband made tons and is subject to the full benefit amount? Cool, you get half of his straight up.

You should reconsider and reevaluate your thoughts. What part of what I said offends basic logic? Is it the fact that people who are single pay more in taxes than married people? You know, the tax law that requires two unmarried people to file separately and thus forfeit certain tax benefits afforded to married couples? Or is it the part where having less people means less spending on infrastructure, entitlement and various other general welfare such as student loans and educational grants?

Here's is a simple brain exercise that can help you sort out your thoughts. Ask yourself what would happen to this country's revenues and expenditures if:

a) You eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
b) You kill off 2.5% of all those over the age 65 and increase the infant mortality rate to 2.5%. Or if you wish just kill off 5% of the population.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

You should reconsider and reevaluate your thoughts.

Couldnt agree (in principle) more. I am always open to persuasion. I like to think my thoughts are dynamic and evolving (just like Obama's!).

What part of what I said offends basic logic?

I think this is rhetorical, but i think its a good time to point out that there is nothing that offends basic logic more so than tax law. Nothing.

Is it the fact that people who are single pay more in taxes than married people? You know, the tax law that requires two unmarried people to file separately and thus forfeit certain tax benefits afforded to married couples?

But that’s not really true. Sure the Bush tax cuts eliminated a lot of the Marriage Penalty, but a lot of it has come back and a lot of the penalty never went away, espicially for the higher and lower income earners .

Honestly it changes from year to year as to who benefits most from marriage; you or the government. Currently I would say the government would be worse off (less revenues) if everyone was able to file as single (singles pay less), all else equal.

The tax benefits afforded to married peoples doesn’t really have anything to do with income filing, its the ability to re-title things tax free. You cant give your gf all your money without creating a taxable event, but you can give your wife everything tax free. Also upon your death certain benefits exist for IRA elections and of course all assets can be passed to your wife to avoid the estate tax during her remaining lifetime.

Or is it the part where having less people means less spending on infrastructure, entitlement and various other general welfare such as student loans and educational grants?

I thought you were a liberal? Are you implying theres a negative return on the government creating these programs for people? Elizabeth Warren would be pissed if she heard you!

[quote]Here's is a simple brain exercise that can help you sort out your thoughts. [QUOTE]

Kind of like Brain Age? I SUCK at that game!!!

Ask yourself what would happen to this country's revenues and expenditures if:

a) You eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
b) You kill off 2.5% of all those over the age 65 and increase the infant mortality rate to 2.5%. Or if you wish just kill off 5% of the population.

a) If we eliminate the “tax breaks” are we also going to eliminate the marriage penalties? If both are eliminated then I think well see a net decrease in revenues.

b) Youre just plain wild!

You never said anything before about killing off just the most unable persons. I wont answer that, but if I was able to “just kill off 5% of the population”, which was representative of both the most able and productive persons and those infirm, I think we would be worse off. Maybe im just a glass half full type dude.

You saying all these things makes me curious where you stand on illegal immigration? Are you for DREAM act?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:

a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure

With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.

If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.

Right, but you're missing the point I was making. The point is, unmarried, single people are likely to not have children, which means there is no generation of new tax payers. That is what the government was looking at. Also, less population less expenditure = less population, less taxes, (income, sales, personal property, etc) being paid back into the state. The government wanted to encourage what it felt like were stable unions (married couples who could biological procreate) in order to keep a steady flow of generations of tax payers, and to keep the population up. It's possible that by now, there is not a need to have such a high population, and maybe the government should revisit its tax and benefits breaks for married couples with children, but I believe this is where it all comes from. After all, if it was simply a case of the government wanting to side with one religion or another, then what benefit would it be getting from that? That's what people fail to think about.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

My point is, the government is going about this the wrong way. You people who are still arguing hot and heavy in favor of gay marriage are still supporting discrimination, because you have flat out ignored those loving couples who have children together but are not married nor believe in marriage, yet have a loving home together. Should they be left out in the dark as well? Might I add that not all of the states in the union recognize a couple living together for so many years as being legally married. At least that isn't the case in NC. But, my point is, I have not heard any of the high and mighty here be a voice for any of those people either!

The thing is, the arugment has gone into a polarizing way where you're a homophobe if you don't agree with homosexuality, or your ignorant or whatever. You're just as ignorant for trying to down people's beliefs and belittling them in hopes of changing their views. That's a third grade way of going about doing things. It's just as intolerant. There would be absolutely no argument from either side if the government stayed out the marriage business like it should. If it was so gun-ho on giving benefits to couples who could procreate or wanting to adopt, then it should have just left it at that - benefits to those who are living together and have children together either through natural means or adoption. That way, nobody is left out. But, people will continue to argue and fight the wrong fight, and as long as it's about trying to convince somebody that their views are right or wrong, this country will never get passed this issue.

Very well said. I took out the first part though because its not really state sponsored benefits, at least in my research and opinion.

I tried a while back to see why government, and in particular the federal government, became involved in marriage in the first place. As best as I can tell it deals with basic record keeping by individual states followed by federal law for property/ownership rights relating to women (back when women didn’t have many rights) and for federal taxation of income and property. And finally for welfare entitlements starting in the 30’s.

Im nearly certain initial “dependency” type elections (your spouse is on your employer’s healthcare plan) all initially originated by goodwill from private corporations, much like how some corporations are starting to offer dependency rights for gay couples now-a-days. However, at some point initial goodwill morphed into public policy and became enforceable via federal law.

So now you have certain “rights” but more appropriately these things should be called certain laws/restrictions and penalties governing traditional marriage.

So to me the issue isn’t that gay people cant get married to the person they love, its that in order to be subjected to certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties we have to get married. But on top of that marriage is defined in a way to specifically exclude certain people/groups.

Ive mentioned here before that I think gays being denied the ability to have marriage laws imposed on their relationships is the biggest civil rights issue of our day. However, I think im changing my opinion. We should all have the right to elect “Traditional Marriage” laws be imposed on any type of relationship we are involved in with another competent adult(s). We should also be free to not elect those “rights”

Skinsguy you are so right in the unfairness couples face who choose not to wed which deny them from certain rules imposed on their relationship. Everyone should be able to elect the same set of rules for their relationship. It should be without restriction but otherwise left as it is now; as a purely contractual legal matter.

The only issue with all this is that the certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties all need to be modified. They were created for a specific set of principals and if those principles change you need to change these certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties.