gay marriage

[cualltaigh]

Moral righteousness is not on my to-do list. I say thumbs down to gay marriage. Not because I hate teh gheys, but because I have no reason to give a fuck about gay people and their rights or lack thereof. I'm not a crusader. It's worth it to me not to have gay marriage just to avoid the extra expenditures if gays became eligible for Social Security survivor benefits.

So your driving concern is that OASI fund payments to spouses/survivors, currently running at ~4.1% of (2011) annual benefits paid will increase proportionally with the inclusion of the LGBT community back up to the 2010 level of ~4.2%?

Which, if covered by an increase in receipts rather than redistribution of expenditures, would increase your annual gross tax contributions by around $1.50?

[NeilG]

Why must I be trolling just because I don't share your values?

True. We can tell you're trolling because you typed something.

[PDA]

As a christian I do not dissagree with gay marriage.

I do not think gay people should have different legal rights than any other human.

[captainbirdseye]

I have a problem with gay people getting married in a church or other religious place that has a problem with gay marriage. As a non-religious person I didn't get married in a church, I'm an atheist, it's not for me. I don't see why religions should be forced to change their stance on the issue, while I support gay civil marriages 100% there should be a seperation of church and state for this.

[Holy Moment]

I hope that throat slashing will never be an acceptable sexual orientation.

Well, it's a sadomascochist and thus a huge part of the gay culture.

[PDA]

I have a problem with gay people getting married in a church or other religious place that has a problem with gay marriage. As a non-religious person I didn't get married in a church, I'm an atheist, it's not for me. I don't see why religions should be forced to change their stance on the issue, while I support gay civil marriages 100% there should be a seperation of church and state for this.

I agree.
It shouldn't be something that is forced on religious organizations if the leader and or congregation of that particular place of worship disagrees with it.

But saying that if one church chooses to be different from others and accept Gay marriages then that is their right also.

I think the debate does get blurred when it isnt seperated:

1)Legally married = one thing

2)Married in a church = something else

[alex]

i forgot to mention, the law as it is over here in NZ does not pertain to churches- they can choose to marry who they like. a lot of the catholic churches have said they wont marry gay people, which is fine. this is about expanding peoples rights not forcing people into doing things.

[ermghoti]

I'm fine with gay marriage, if a voting population or a legislature enacts a law, dandy. The people arguing against it are bigots, and their arguments are shitty.

I also think it's not inherently discriminatory not to have gay marriage. Marriage is a prehistoric social contract developed to address the biological and societal differences between men and women, and a way to establish the paternity of heirs. Really, in a world with DNA testing and birth control, marriage serves little public interest, and is mainly a way to share health insurance between couples.

Arguing against gay marriage: bigotry.

Installing gay marriage by judicial fiat: overstepping the division of powers (in the US).

[franginho]

Read an interesting article about the issue and how it is dealt with in the US France and Germany.
Main point was, people are seeing that the "traditional" family is not the norm anymore and they would like to preserve it (for what ever reason or value they see in it). The allowing of gay marriage usually comes with the rights such as pension rights, a say in medical issues and most important adoption rights and that just brushes those folks the wrong way (see JNP). Other issue for some might be immigration etc. heck I don't know what people come up with.

I think people should be happy and if marriage gives them that, let them have it.


Let people do what the heck they want unless it deprives somebody else of their freedom it is fine by me.

[Devil]

Nope, I think you're trolling for trolling's sake.

To answer your question, I'm indifferent when it comes to Karma. Samsara and Karma are a part of the Buddhist doctrine however, so they are a part of my religious study.


Edit: I don't think you care either way honestly. You just enjoy stirring up members who are socially liberal.

Except you're wrong and I'm being honest. I don't care to the point where I go out and protest against gay marriage. I really don't care where people stick their penii. But if it were completely my choice, I would say no to gay marriage.

Do I know it's going to stir people up when I say that? Yes, but it doesn't change my answer. I'd give my honest opinion whether people loved it or hated it.

[Diesel_tke]

I my experience, most people who don't want gay marriage don't know how to seperate their religious opinions from their legal opinions. And when you point that out, they feel backed into a corner and argue that law is based on God's laws or the 10 commandments or something like that. "In God we trust" gets thrown in the mix. Stuff like that.

I called in on a radio recently about this issue. The radio speaker was arguing against gay marage based on those same points. He was calling on his Christianity as justification. He challenged any Christian to call in and justify gay marriage. So I called in, told him that I'm a Christian and also agree with gay marriage. He tried to back me into a religious corner. I simply explained to him that I think it should be legal to Marry whoever you want, and that you should use your religion or morals to dictate if YOU would marry a gay, but not what another person would do based on their morals, values, or religion.

He was stumped, and said thanks for the opinion, then hung up on me. He dropped the issue on the air after that.

So far the Devil is the only person that I have heard argue that someone should be denied the ability to marry just so that we can justify denying them Socaial Security. That's an interesting arguement. But since there are more heterosexual marriages then gay, I would think that the better cost saving measure would be to allow gay marriage and deny hetero marriage.

[Devil]

So your driving concern is that OASI fund payments to spouses/survivors, currently running at ~4.1% of (2011) annual benefits paid will increase proportionally with the inclusion of the LGBT community back up to the 2010 level of ~4.2%?

Which, if covered by an increase in receipts rather than redistribution of expenditures, would increase your annual gross tax contributions by around $1.50?

It's not a driving concern. It's just enough of a concern for me. I tend to fall into the fuck 'em, their problems are not my problems camp anyway.

[Devil]

But since there are more heterosexual marriages then gay, I would think that the better cost saving measure would be to allow gay marriage and deny hetero marriage.

I would be in agreement with no government recognized marriage for anyone and no social security survivor benefits for anyone. Then I could keep more of the money I earn.

[Diesel_tke]

I would be in agreement with no government recognized marriage for anyone and no social security survivor benefits for anyone. Then I could keep more of the money I earn.

Yeah, that would work fine for that aspect, or if both individuals worked. I personally like the idea that if I die, and my wife had been a homemaker, all my money I paid into the governemt would go to my wife rather than just getting eaten by the government machine.

[Devil]

Yeah, that would work fine for that aspect, or if both individuals worked. I personally like the idea that if I die, and my wife had been a homemaker, all my money I paid into the governemt would go to my wife rather than just getting eaten by the government machine.

I'm not suggesting that the government should keep your money. I'm suggesting that you shouldn't give it to them in the first place. Then if you die and your wife starves, it's your fault.