YouTube account canceled

[RichardR]

Well in that case why worry about the gays? They aren't the ones looking to soak the government for "entitlements". There is a HUUUUUUGE, mostly hetero, portion of America that is sinking this ship. The option of queers filing joint tax returns isn't going to be what sinks this boat. Hell, they might even redecorate it for free so at least we can all sink in style.

You do realized that you justified waste, fraud & abuse by pointing at other (worse) waste, fraud & abuse.

[RichardR]

when I got married it was a fact that there would be no making babies. Should I have not been allowed to marry?

Can people marry for reasons other than to have kids?

Sure, within the guidelines, no inter-marriage of blood relations, etc.

Which again all go back to procreation & raising progedy, just because some people married for money or title doesn't change it's original reason for existing or it's main purpose.

Not even sure why this is even in question, it should had been obvious.

[daddyo]

post 271 from RichardR

 

Exactly which part? I don't see it.

[Mike.357]

Sure, within the guidelines, no inter-marriage of blood relations, etc.
 

 

the reason you give then does not disqualify gays from marrying.

[Mike.357]

Exactly which part? I don't see it.

 

 

you seem to be acting obtuse.

[TMF]

[quote data-cid='995467' name='RichardR' timestamp='1373234412' post='995467'][quote data-cid='995452' name='TMF' timestamp='1373232990']



You do realized that you justified waste, fraud & abuse by pointing at other (worse) waste, fraud & abuse.[/quote]

So, gay marriage is waste fraud and abuse but straight marriage isn't.

Do you see why people like me can't figure out the logic?

[mikegideon]

Logic? 

 

[TMF]

Logic?

I wonder if they believe that if Jesus was here right now he'd be like, "Yep, you guys totally get the message."

[RichardR]

the reason you give then does not disqualify gays from marrying.

In the past it did, Mike are you being purposely obtuse or is there genuine confusion on your end?

[RichardR]

So, gay marriage is waste fraud and abuse but straight marriage isn't.

Do you see why people like me can't figure out the logic?

You can't figure out why society would try to ease the enormous financial burden of both having/raising children for married couples? But would be reluctant to toss tax dollars at same-sex couples simply co-habitating?

You can't see the logic in that?

[TMF]

You can't figure out why society would try to ease the enormous financial burden of both having/raising children for married couples? But would be reluctant to toss tax dollars at same-sex couples simply co-habitating?


You can't see the logic in that?

So, you were just reference waste/abuse/fraud, right? But you support traditional marriages getting tax breaks?

So if a traditional couple gets those very tax breaks, but don't have children, would that not make them guilty of defrauding the system and what it was set up for? If so, we're back to my original point: HOW WOULD THAT MAKE IT ANY DIFFERENT THAN GAY MARRIAGES???

[Mike.357]

In the past it did, Mike are you being purposely obtuse or is there genuine confusion on your end?

 

 

I would answer it must be genuine confusion.   I do not see how procreation is a valid reason for marriage benefits in the form of tax breaks.  And why those procreation benefits would then be a reason why gays can't marry.  And if those tax breaks are valid reasons then why didn't the .gov have a problem with me marrying.

[RichardR]

So, you were just reference waste/abuse/fraud, right? But you support traditional marriages getting tax breaks?

So if a traditional couple gets those very tax breaks, but don't have children, would that not make them guilty of defrauding the system and what it was set up for? If so, we're back to my original point: HOW WOULD THAT MAKE IT ANY DIFFERENT THAN GAY MARRIAGES???

There is the potential for procreation & progeny in traditional marriages, whether they are planned or not, zero potential in same-sex relationships for procreation/progeny.

You should have had this conversation with your father as a pre-teen, if you had you wouldn't be so confused with how all of this reproductive stuff works.

[daddyo]

you seem to be acting obtuse.

 

Unless you can point it out to me, it's not there.

 

And just because you don't like something doesn't make it invalid.

Edited July 7, 2013 by daddyo

[Mike.357]

Unless you can point it out to me, it's not there.

 

And just because you don't like something doesn't make it invalid.

 

 

You last sentence is a good one.  You don't like gays or gay marriage.

[daddyo]

You last sentence is a good one.  You don't like gays or gay marriage.

 

So, then it's not there. Thanks for admitting it.

 

You apparently don't think much of traditional marriage or people of faith, so I guess we're even.

 

It's people who can't help but insult, mock and generally act like 5 year olds about it who incline me to think negatively about gay marriage.

Edited July 7, 2013 by daddyo

[Mike.357]

So, then it's not there. Thanks for admitting it.

 

You apparently don't think much of traditional marriage or people of faith, so I guess we're even.

 

It's people who can't help but insult, mock and generally act like 5 year olds about it who incline me to think negatively about gay marriage.

 

 

you have totally confused me, with  "So, then it's not there".

 

traditional marriage is fine.  I have no problem with it.  But I do not see any valid reason to stop gay people from marrying.  As for faith I have lots of faith really.  I believe there is a God(s), but I don't believe that God is the man in the sky. ( Man in the sky is for lack of a better description.)

[RichardR]

you have totally confused me, with "So, then it's not there".

traditional marriage is fine. I have no problem with it. But I do not see any valid reason to stop gay people from marrying. As for faith I have lots of faith really. I believe there is a God(s), but I don't believe that God is the man in the sky. ( Man in the sky is for lack of a better description.)

Nothing prohibits gay couples from "marrying", nothing ever has prohibited them from having gay marriage ceromonies, what is at issue is whether or not those gay marriages are officially recognized & the benefits of recognized marriages being bestowed.

Suggesting that it is "hateful" for folks to oppose the perversion of a millenia of tradition is intellectually dishonest, I should have not expected otherwise though. Edited July 8, 2013 by RichardR

[Mike.357]

Nothing prohibits gay couples from "marrying", nothing ever has prohibited them from having gay marriage ceromonies, what is at issue is whether or not those gay marriages are officially recognized & the benefits of recognized marriages being bestowed.

Suggesting that it is "hateful" for folks to oppose the perversion of a millenia of tradition is intellectually dishonest, I should have not expected otherwise though.

 

saying nothing prohibits gays from marrying is totally laughable.  To be clear in definition, in my world getting married means one partner for life and it is recognized by the .gov.

I am pretty sure when most people say "married" they mean a legal recognized marriage, not some farce of a service that hold no legal weight.

 

You last sentence is a nice attempt to take a shot.   I can appreciate that.

[leroy]

Nothing prohibits gay couples from "marrying", nothing ever has prohibited them from having gay marriage ceromonies, what is at issue is whether or not those gay marriages are officially recognized & the benefits of recognized marriages being bestowed. ....

 

As i remember this whole thing on DOMA; it seems to me that a couple of very well to do gays were doing their "estate planning".  They discovered that the inheritance tax for the state wuz pretty hefty (...$300k if i remember right...).   They sued.  Worked the suit thru the court system until it got to the supremes.  The supremes struck DOMA down as we've discussed. 

 

At the end of the day, as has been said several times before, the two lesbos from New York got this whole thing going. ...check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

 

 

Poor folks and pop culture jhadists dont have the dollars to mount monumental lawsuits.   The "gay" community owes these two coots a debt of gratitude for having the dollars to see this thing thru to it's end.  I would guess this whole thing cost into the seven figures range.  The inheritance must be stupedous.  By the way, these two married in canada and moved to new york state.  New York as we all know recognizes "gay" marriage.

 

Remember the words of the great "Godfather" Rahm; he said the other day "...gays are the new jews of fundraising...".  That's why this is a hot topic.  It's about the money, man; nothin more.

 

leroy

Edited July 8, 2013 by leroy

[RichardR]

You last sentence is a nice attempt to take a shot. I can appreciate that.

It wasn't an attempt at anything, like many other folks I'm sick & tired of the lazy, purposeful intellectual dishonesty coming in the form of "bigot/homophobe/racist" insinuations every time a disagreement occurs when having a discussion on certain issues, especially when those issues carry with them the issuance of tax-dollars or "protected status" to specific, special interest, voting blocks.

Not in complete lock-step with XYorZ subversive special interest group's agenda? You're automatically labeled as a "hater" of some sort, because there is no other rational reason for anyone to have an objection.

Take comfort in knowing that you're not the only one guilty of it, it's infected the public discourse in this nation like a plague, a poisonous & liberty stiffling "thou shall not object or disagree" neo-blasphemous politically correct disease that should had been stomped out as soon as it reared it's ugly head.

It is a cancer & I fear that the damage it is causing is irreversable.

[Mike.357]

I am not guilty of anything you insinuate Richard.  My opinions are my own, they are not based on XYor Z'z special interests.  I don't walk in lock step with anyone.

[RichardR]

I am not guilty of anything you insinuate Richard. My opinions are my own, they are not based on XYor Z'z special interests. I don't walk in lock step with anyone.

You last sentence is a good one. You don't like gays or gay marriage.

.

[Mike.357]

well you have lost me with that post.

 

I am not sure how that proves your point.

[G27]

I wonder if all the folks who are against homosexuality based on it being a sin also extend the same consideration / action towards all biblically defined sin. 

 

 

Anyone?