The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow

Well, you COULD be married to a woman.

In Massachusetts or Connecticut.

Yes, Connecticut, as of today:)

Doesn't Vermont also marry same sex folks?




Edited, Nov 12th 2008 6:17pm by Elinda

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/entertainment/newsid_7724000/7724426.stm

I'm pretty sure George Micheal was probably shagging one or more of the dancers in his video's.

So,gbaji, if the government only gives you tax breaks/benefits to marriage because a child is a benefit to the republic, (And that is your argument right? Or did I get it wrong?), then why wouldn't a fertility test be mandatory before marriage?

If the government's mindset is that child production is the reason for tax breaks for married couples, why would they give up any tax monies/benefits to sterile couples who can't produce children?

What, exactly then, is the reasoning behind allowing sterile couples to marry, but not homosexuals? Because, in most cases, heterosexual couples aren't sterile? Well, so what? What is the reasoning behind giving those vaunted tax breaks to them?

And, homosexuals can reproduce. Surrogate mothers, sperm donors, etc all make this highly possible. But, I think I've heard you argue against that by saying, it's not the same because both members of the marriage aren't producing the child.

Well, that just brings us right back to infertile heterosexual couples again, doesn't it? So, are marriages, or at least the tax breaks for that particular child, invalid when a heterosexual couple uses a surrogate, or sperm donor, or *gasp* adopts?


I just can't seem to accept your idea that a gay marriage shouldn't be subsidized because the couple is unable to produce a child just by themselves, when it's obvious that it is the government's policy to still subsidize marriages between people who can't have children just by themselves.

Unless you're against those marriages being subsidized too..then that's fine, you have a somewhat valid point against gay/sterile marriages.

And seriously, you and I both know that 99% of the people and politicians against gay marriage are not against it because they're against subsidizing a marriage that can't produce children. It's simple bigotry.

To those people, deep down, homosexuals are just ****, ****** and dykes that don't fit in with their idea of normal and they're scared it's gonna infect their children like some kind of disease. If you allow gays to marry, then you normalize it. You make homosexuality no different from heterosexuality, and some people are scared of that for some reason.

And I really hope to god no one is going to bring up the slippery slope argument, as if the marriage between two sentient, and here's a good buzzword: legal adult, women or men is analogous to marrying a toaster or a dog.

To answer the first question (which I've already answered a couple times, but I understand if you didn't read everything first), the answer is that it would cost us a huge amount of time and effort to do this and fertility tests aren't incredibly accurate. Um... We *do* restrict marriage among heterosexual couples to those who are at least 2nd cousins or farther apart biologically. Why do you think that is...?


And to the second? Because it's not about funding children, but encouraging them to be born to two people who are married. We want to encourage biological parents to marry. Period. While there are other varying degrees of "good" and "bad" ways for children to be raised, that's not the focus here.

If you just provide benefits when a child is born, then you have to provide the same benefits whether that child is born to a couple or a single person, or whether the person or people applying for the benefits are the biological parents of the child or not. There's a whole slew of complexity and additional edge cases created if you do that.

We do already provide tax benefits and numerous programs aimed directly at children. But those all apply *after* a child is born. The marriage benefits apply beforehand, and for a very specific reason.

I have a few cousins that I never met til I was much older (17+). Some of them are very attractive. One of them I met while in highschool and she was in one of my programming classes. I would help her with programs, and later came to find out she was my cousin. It was odd seeing a girl you were attracted to in highschool walk out of the door of your great grandfater's house during a reunion, and find out she is actually your cousin. But that's what happens when you are not exposed to family members as a child and meet them later in life.

I do have a few cousins that are only related to me through marriage, but I grew up with them and it would be awkward, socially, if I treated them as anything other than family.

Not yet! Sickle cell anemia is a motherfu...

Just kidding. Tee hee!

Totem