Gay marriage ban backers get unexpected support

[jmdrake]

What would I retract?:

This is what you wrote:



The last statement is false.

It is not false. Your use of big fonts means nothing.

If federal taxes were eliminated, then your statement would be less false. Social security - or at least spousal benefits - would also have to be eliminated (or made to be transferable with no or equal penalty to whomever the recipient desires: children, wife, homeless guy down the street). Another wrinkle in your lie are state adoptions laws:

Actually for most gays their taxes will go UP if gay marriage is legalized.

But here's why my statement is 100% true.

1) I already mentioned taxes and social security and the need for them to change. I did that before you falsely claimed I made a false statement. So anyone thinking clearly should know that's NOT what I'm talking about.

2) Further I'm talking about what's done through marriage. What the federal government has done is trappings added on top of marriage. Do you even know why the so called "marriage tax benefit" came about? It's because married people were being PENALIZED tax wise for being married! To try to fix the problem the federal government created it tampered with the tax code again in such a way that SOME married people are penalized and SOME benefit. Guess who is penalized? People who have similar incomes as their spouses. Who are people with the most disparate incomes? Men versus women. So homosexual couples, by definition, will be harmed by your so called help.

Why the hell would you state "all 50"? You cannot just contract your way through family planning issues. This is not unlike prenuptial agreements that often have no bearing on custody issues. The contracts do little-to-nothing and do not change state law or family court practices! "Prenuptial agreements in all U.S. states are not allowed to regulate issues relating to the children of the marriage, in particular, custody and access issues - Wikipedia."

Did you know that in states without gay marriage gays are sometimes forced to pay child support? That's because the state only cares about getting money out of people. So if a gay couple "looks" like a family, the state will "find" another "parent" to go after for money. Why? Because of the welfare state. Single moms (or dads) are more likely to cost the state money. But hey, you read something on Wikipedia so you know everything right?

If you want to be anti-gay, then be anti-gay. I don't care if you are a racist or a homophobe. What I find intolerable on a discussion board are liars. I see no interpretation that makes your statement true. Other posters have made this mistake. They pretend that because contracts can do most things, that they can do all things. I say "pretend" and not "assume" because you ought to know better. I.e., if you are ignorant you are willfully ignorant. There is no excuse.

Yep. Openly gay Justin Rainmondo is a lying ignorant homophobe. And you know everything because you read something on Wikipeia.

You can retract or go to the bucket. Your choice.

You know what you can do with your bucket.

 

[kylejack]

What is true equality? More government regulations? Why do you want that? Who cares about equality? Isn't it about liberty?

Well, I think people should be treated equally by their government without regard to their sex, race, sexuality, or religion. I don't care about the number of regulations, but rather the size and scope of government.

 

[kylejack]

What I'm saying is that gays can have a marriage ceremony performed and then contract for the legal benefits of marriage such as joint tenancy, the right to make medical decisions for each other and inheritance. There is a problem at the federal level due to taxes and social security. Income taxes and social security should be abolished or reformed. I'm not "playing games". I'm giving you facts. Please read this:

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks#axzz1wWkLNcev

Allowing gay couples to marry is a much simpler and direct solution, and doesn't force homosexuals to jump through hoops that straight people don't. I think you and I both know that income tax won't be abolished in our lifetimes, so it's easy for you, a person with the right to marry the one you love, to push for this route rather than allowing gays to be treated as straights are.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Please read this:

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks#axzz1wWkLNcev

I am not arguing goodness or badness of marriage whether gay or straight. This is about a similarity between marriage and a basket of hypothetical contracts that - were they to exist - could cost orders of magnitude more than a marriage license.

Your gay friend argues that marriage is different and that it is so much different as to be abhorrent:

Do gay guys really want to have half their incomes claimed by their spouses? With gay marriage comes gay alimony, and that is what is going to make “Gay Divorce Court” such a tawdry tale of twinks on the make and sugar daddies paying through the nose.

Marriage is not a civil institution but a religious-cultural tradition that the State has (so far) been forced to respect and recognize—and it is centered around procreation, which is not an issue most [not "all" -FH] homosexuals have to deal with.

Different. Not the same.

Why didn't your gay friend write that contracts can do all the things marriage can do?

Justin Rainmando, who is openly gay, has the same view of "gay marriage" as I do. Do you think he is a self hating lying homophobe?

There is no evidence that he supports the quote I dispute ("And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do"). He argues that the gay marriage is bad and does not suggest a way to replicate these bad things using your contracts.

You objected:

That's nice. Now find a map of one state that doesn't recognize a will if the beneficiary of the will is gay. Find me a map of one state that doesn't recognize a durable power of attorney or a durable power of attorney for healthcare if the attorney in fact is gay. Find me a map of one state that won't let two people buy property under joint tenancy with the right of survivorship if the people are gay. Find me a map of one state where it illegal for insurance companies to allow people to put non-married relatives on a health insurance policy.

Yet these are not the claims I made. My claim is that the statement below is false:

Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do.

Another reason you are wrong above: immigration. Opposite sex partners spouses who are not citizens have a path to citizenship. "Contracts" can't do this in "all 50 states".

Another non-Federal reason you are wrong: testifying against a spouse. If you are not married, you may lose the "marital confidence privilege".


That said, I have enjoyed somewhat our time arguing but your obstinance and refusal to acknowledge facts is unacceptable. Gay marriage may be the worst thing since straight marriage. That was not the debate. You have lied, defended that lie, and repeated that lie. You are not worthy of attention. Have fun in the bucket.

 

[jmdrake]

Allowing gay couples to marry is a much simpler and direct solution, and doesn't force homosexuals to jump through hoops that straight people don't. I think you and I both know that income tax won't be abolished in our lifetimes, so it's easy for you, a person with the right to marry the one you love, to push for this route rather than allowing gays to be treated as straights are.

Well it certainly won't happen as long as people ignorantly go for "simple solutions" that just make problems worse. But hey, if you want to increase taxes on gullible gay people don't let me stop you.

 

[jmdrake]

I am not arguing goodness or badness of marriage whether gay or straight. This is about a similarity between marriage and a basket of hypothetical contracts that - were they to exist - could cost orders of magnitude more than a marriage license.

They aren't "hypothetical contracts". Not unless you think wills, trusts, powers of attorney etc are just figments of my imagination. If you think that, you're an idiot.

Your gay friend argues that marriage is different and that it is so much different as to be abhorrent:

You don't understand the argument he's making. He's saying people are different and that the "gay marriage" movement simply doesn't recognize this. He's also saying that the government has screwed up marriage. More government in marriage will just screw it up more. Regardless of whether you agree with his argument or not, you can't claim he's a homophobe.

Different. Not the same.

Why didn't your gay friend write that contracts can do all the things marriage can do?

Did it ever cross your mind that he might not want that? Regardless, I don't know Justin Romaindo personally so I'm not exactly his "friend" any more than I'm a "friend" of Ron Paul. I would bet though that he at least has a will and a durable power of attorney for healthcare. I would bet that because he seems intelligent. That's something that's good to have whether or not you are romantically involved with anyone.

There is no evidence that he supports the quote I dispute ("And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do"). He argues that the gay marriage is bad and does not suggest a way to replicate these bad things using your contracts.

And I didn't offer his blog as evidence of that. I offered his blog as evidence that people who disagree with your stupid assertions aren't necessarily "lying homophobes". It was my gay marriage supporting family law professor that taught me how you can duplicate the same rights of marriage (and note that's different from federal marriage "benefits") through contracts. Now I don't know if you have a reading comprehension deficit or if you are just being obtuse. But again, federal marriage "benefits" (penalties in the case of taxes) and marriage "rights" are two separate things.

You objected:

Yet these are not the claims I made. My claim is that the statement below is false:

Except your "claim" was based on what I initially said. And my in my initial claim I had already carved out federal marriage benefits from the discussion of contract marriage rights. I've pointed this fact to you repeatedly. So at this point you are a blatant liar.

Another reason you are wrong above: immigration. Opposite sex partners spouses who are not citizens have a path to citizenship. "Contracts" can't do this in "all 50 states".

Currently states do not decide immigration law. The federal government does. Take that up with the federal government. That's yet another federal benefit and not a contract right.

Another non-Federal reason you are wrong: testifying against a spouse. If you are not married, you may lose the "marital confidence privilege".

Then become your gay partners priest and be done with it.

That said, I have enjoyed somewhat our time arguing but your obstinance and refusal to acknowledge facts is unacceptable. Gay marriage may be the worst thing since straight marriage. That was not the debate. You have lied, defended that lie, and repeated that lie. You are not worthy of attention. Have fun in the bucket.

Sorry, but you have no bucket to put me in except your hollow brain. And I'd be happy not to be there. Enjoy your ignorance.