Marriage Debate

thaiboxerken said:
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133517,00.html

You can always do a bit of math on your own. For 2 people filing jointly, 50K = 6770 of taxes. A single person making 50K pays 9165. It pays to be married.
Click to expand...

Now, compare two people, each making 50k, and compare their taxes if married, and their taxes if single. Does it still pay to be married?


Then, compare my checkbook before and after I got married. It does not pay to be married.:)
 
Meadmaker said:
Now, compare two people, each making 50k, and compare their taxes if married, and their taxes if single. Does it still pay to be married?
Click to expand...

It's the same tax, if they file seperately. Thus, married people don't pay more than single counterparts, but they can get a break if they happen to fall into certain positions, such as a single-income married family vs a single-income unmarried couple.
 
I stand corrected. I read the link on the marriage penalty, and I didn't realize how much the tax cut of 2001 had affected the marriage penalty at anything other than very high incomes.

Thanks, George. Looks like there is a tax break, after all.
 
Terry said:
Why is what you want more important than what I want?
Click to expand...

Because, Amigo, he's clinging to his bigotry, his traditions, his history, or rather, his view of same. It's a blinding light he wants to shine on everyone, yet it leaves little of the shadows that exist for everyone.

Personally, I would rather live outside the shadows myself. I'd rather what I do be done in the open, without shame. I'd rather be obligated to live a moral life openly, rather than an amoral life in shadows. Seems a better way to go.

Problem is that the shadows exist, whether we want them or not, and they don't go away because you shine a more powerful light on things. It just highlights the contrasts. We've all got our dark areas in our lives. I don't see how this is one of them.

You want to live honestly, openly, without shame. Why in the hell should you be ashamed of whom you love? The short answer, and probably the most accurate one, is you shouldn't. What you do has harmed no one, least of all Huntster. And, should it happen that the State finally allows you legal recognition of your estate, no one is harmed. If anything, we finally recognize what is and quit playing these childish games. We recognize people for who and what they are, rather than what we want them to be. Which works better for a society?
 
Huntster said:
I read what you asked. I gave you my answer.

It's what will be harmed by allowing SSM, and that is the current and historical legal definition of marriage.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm a stickler for definitions, but come on, we're not talking about wehter "lime" and "lemon" mean the same thing, we're talking about the lives of millions of people. We're talking about the lives of millions of people who will have access to the same things you do if we elgalize same sex mrriages. The best arguement you can make against legalizing it is that the poor word might have its feelings hurt?
 
Upchurch said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
The Prohibition of 1918-1936 had absolutely nothing to do with driving and or minors.

It was a constitutional amendment to prohibit the stuff, and there was another constitutional amendment to undo the intitial, stupid, political, legal, and futile attempt to rid the nation of alcohol.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A constitutional amendment designed to regulate non-destructive behavior didn't work because there was no good reason to do it. But, I suppose you don't see the parallel
Click to expand...

I most certainly do:

The use of alcohol, whether one is an alcoholic or not, is a private matter when one indulges in privacy, yet becomes prohibitive or subject to regulation when the public interest is affected.

Yet, the federal government has continued to refuse to apply the same principle to the use of marijuana, even though several states have decriminalized various levels of marijuana use.

Finally, the federal government has applied that principle to homosexual activity, and has forced the states to do likewise.

Now, with regard to "parallels", can we both "see" that?

And yet the homosexual community is not satisfied. They demand that the legal definition of marriage be changed so that it also applies to them.
 
thaiboxerken said:
...As far as financial benefits, have you compared driver's insurance between single and married people?
Click to expand...

No slippery slope?

Marriage isn't good enough? You will then want government to force the private insurance corporations to ignore actuary tables in order to provide "consitutionally guaranteed" premium insurance rates?

Why am I not surprised?
 
Roadtoad said:
Originally Posted by Terry :
Why is what you want more important than what I want?
Click to expand...
Because, Amigo, he's clinging to his bigotry, his traditions, his history, or rather, his view of same....
Click to expand...

Sí, tonto. Busco mis mejores intereses, justo como Terry es.

Personally, I would rather live outside the shadows myself. I'd rather what I do be done in the open, without shame. I'd rather be obligated to live a moral life openly, rather than an amoral life in shadows. Seems a better way to go.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? "If it feels good, do it?"

I thought the hippy era was dead; ya' know............cultural suicide.

From Califruity are ya'?

Problem is that the shadows exist, whether we want them or not...
Click to expand...

So does pitch black darkness.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
I read what you asked. I gave you my answer.

It's what will be harmed by allowing SSM, and that is the current and historical legal definition of marriage.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm a stickler for definitions, but come on, we're not talking about wehter "lime" and "lemon" mean the same thing, we're talking about the lives of millions of people....
Click to expand...

Yes; mine and yours, everybody on this forum, as well as everybody else in the United States (not just gays, in case you haven't figured that out yet......)

...The best arguement you can make against legalizing it is that the poor word might have its feelings hurt?
Click to expand...

Not the poor word, the poor and battered culture that has already been violated so thoroughly by liberal demands.
 
Huntster said:
No slippery slope?
Click to expand...

None at all.

Marriage isn't good enough?
Click to expand...

Not simply just the label, no.

You will then want government to force the private insurance corporations to ignore actuary tables in order to provide "consitutionally guaranteed" premium insurance rates?
Click to expand...

Who said that? I sure didn't.

Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

Because it's the strawman you've built.
 
Okay, I'm done with this.

I'm sick of the condescension inherent in the responses from people like Huntster, and I tired of seeing the same basic arguments made ad nauseum.

Just so I've made myself clear on this: There is NO justifiable reason as to why gays and lesbians cannot marry those they choose. None. Tradition be damned.

I will repeat what I keep saying: How can people like Richard Roberts (Oral's son), who dumped his wife for "the newer model," continue to say that SSM is wrong? Where is HIS support for marriage? How can Sandi Patti (gospel singer) say it's wrong when for years, she had an affair with a married man, and when her husband said he was willing to do what it took to save the marriage, she began crying about "abuse?" These people's support for marriage went straight into the toilet when things got inconvenient.

Contrast that with gays and lesbians who remain faithful partners for life, who endure continued hardship from society, and even in illness and death, have to fight for the most basic right of being able to attend to the final duties of a spouse. Seems to me there are more gays who are actually married as opposed to a lot of those who are speaking out against SSM.

I'm sick of this continued bleat that there's something wrong with this, when those who have this right given without question abuse it. Enough is enough. I'm done with this fight.
 
Huntster said:
I most certainly do:

The use of alcohol, whether one is an alcoholic or not, is a private matter when one indulges in privacy, yet becomes prohibitive or subject to regulation when the public interest is affected.
Click to expand...
Nope, you missed the point entirely.

Let's get straight to the heart of it: What about homosexual behavior is destructive to themselves and/or others?
 
Huntster said:
Yes; mine and yours, everybody on this forum, as well as everybody else in the United States (not just gays, in case you haven't figured that out yet......)



Not the poor word, the poor and battered culture that has already been violated so thoroughly by liberal demands.
Click to expand...
Violated by what? Equal rights for women, and equal rights for minorities?

Even so, explain, in detail, how society is harmed by the recognition of same sex marriages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom