Arnold 2008???

Why don't you just answer the questions and quit dodging the issues.
My questions have not been answered. Most likely they won't be
either. Why ?because you can't come up with a good answer to reinforce
your argument. You may as well resort to name calling. You are
already half way there. Typical response for somebody that is losing a
debate.

Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

OK how about incest. Say a Father marrying his 18 year old daughter?
Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

Hey Mike,

I have been a musician since 1976. You like gorillas?
Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

A schoolmate of mine referred lovingly to NYC as the most exciting English
speaking city to live in. My retort (having lived there and had the good
sense to depart to more civilized areas) was "They speak English in NYC?"

 

Therein lies the base of the problem. Why should *ANYBODY* get
additional legal benefits because they are married?

Marriage is a choice, not an affliction (unless you marry the wrong
person) and shouldn't warrant "special" privileges over someone who is
not married. Not for tax breaks... Not for health care... Not for
income (eg: Military pay and benefits)...

Rather than grant "special" privileges to homosexuals who marry (the same
privileges non-homosexuals enjoy now) *ALL* special privileges should be
removed.

For the record:

Yes, I am married.
No, I am not homosexual.

 

Loss of tax revenue. In most cases, a married couple pays less taxes than
the same individuals would if filing seperately...

 

this is a misleading stateement at best - while some couples pay less, mostly those where the wife
(usually) earns substantially less money than the husband (usually), more than 40 million people pay
higher taxes because they're married. Instead of making up my own rebuttal here are two websites I
found that have useful discussions of this topic: (google "marriage penalty income tax")

http://www.concordcoalition.org/federal_budget/marriagepenalty.html

"The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that more than 20 million married couples pay higher
taxes than they would if they were single, giving rise to a marriage penalty. [avg = $1,380 higher]"



http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html

"Uncle Sam's so-called "marriage penalty" impacts over 40% of married couples, boosting annual taxes
for these couples. The penalty can be steep, especially for two-income couples where both incomes
are fairly equal. When both incomes are combined, many couples are pushed into the next tax
bracket, triggering higher taxes on April 15th.

If one spouse makes substantially more than the other, there may be no penalty attached. In fact,
modest changes in a married couple's tax rate could earn those couples with only one "breadwinner" a
marriage bonus in the form of reduced taxes. However, more and more households are two-income
families, meaning the marriage penalty may be taking a larger bite out of disposable income."

Here's how the marriage penalty works:

Married Couple Individual
Adjusted Gros Income
$100,000 $50,000

Minus exemptions and standard deductions
-$12,500 -$6,950

Taxable income
$87,500 $43,050

Federal tax
$19,002 $8,766 ($17,532 for two individuals)

Marriage penalty
$1,470 (that's 8% more than they'd pay if they weren't married)


I have no factual basis for this statement, but I would expect that the "marriage penalty" would
disproportionately affect gay couples.

 

OK how about an 18 year old man and his father marrying? What do you
think? You think we can get some consenting here? Not only is this a
gay relationship but, now you have incest as well. Would this be
covered under the gay marriage law if it were to pass? I mean they
are a gay couple after all. Can you admit that there is something
terribly wrong with this situation? How would would feel if a gay
incest organization formed and demanded they shall be recognized as
viable alternative lifestyle and be allowed to marry? I mean their
argument would be there are gay animals in the wild and there is
incest in wild animals as well. Why is it gays get to get married and
we cannot?

Lots of things are common doesn't make them right. Murders are common
too.

What if we lower the age of consent than? What is the proper age for a
child to consent?

Perhaps they are aware that anybody that votes for this will never get
reelected due to the fact that a majority of Americans from all walks
of life and religions support the ban. I am all for a civil union that
will acomplish the full legal benefits of marriage Unfortunatley, many
leaders in the Gay community are not. Why is that?

Yea so what it is over 200 years old. So is it obselete?

Ok how about a Man marrying his 18 year old daughter? You know two
consenting adults? Got cha! Who's next.
Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

Two consenting adults my friend. Can't use the consent excuse now. 20
years ago nobody would have figured gays would attempt to get legally
married. Once the gays get their marriage licenses than everybody is
gonna want those same benefits that married people are getting. It
will be a free for all. Why don't you demonstrate that this could
never happen? Why don't you tell us this won't have a negative effect
on our society while you are at it.
Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

Glad you brought up the Romans. What happened to Rome?

Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

As states by another, "Circular reasoning is a ... fallacy of logic."

The offspring have a greatly increased chance of birth defects.

Josh Rosenbluth

 

I am still waiting for you to supply a logical reason for not having
same-sex marriage. So far, you have 1) claimed marriage is for
procreation and 2) marriage is between a man and a woman. The former is
rejected because we allow the elderly and infertile to marry. The
latter is circular reasoning.

Josh Rosenbluth

 

How about we use the previous drug laws prior to Nixon? Or the drug
laws prior to FDR? Oooops, sorry, you're canadian, you haven't had to
deal with our changing drug laws. Laws are constantly refined and
changed, and many of us would prefer the drug laws prior to Nixon.

Too bad, since you just missed a good reason to counter your "Children
are the reason for Marriage" that points out your delima in being wrong.

Not weak, since you convieniently snipped out the whole gist of the
arguement above. I'll repost it just to refresh your memory.

----- BEGIN QUOTE -----

And how does classifying a marriage to be ONLY between a man and a woman
ensure children get the best chance early in life? I can show you many
instances where a couple shouldn't be allowed to raise their kids, but
they are married. Marriage doesn't guarantee a damn thing.

Common-law marriage is outlawed in many of the states of the US.
Virginia doesn't even recognize common-law marriages from other states,
thanks to the religious right (Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Oral
Roberts, et al).

No, the thing called marriage is all about property, and has been since
the beginning. Women were the property of the men, and marriage was
about transferring that property from the father to the husband. Babies
can happen without marriage, and often does.

And children are not going to result unintentionally if my wife an I
have a wild night of sex (since she's no long able to have kids). Just
another strawman arguement.
----- END QUOTE -----

No, it's not misleading. Only a married couple have a legal foundation
on splitting assets in a breakup. Only a married couple have a legal
foundation on retaining assets if one should die. One doesn't have to
be married to have sex or live together (and common-law is not law, it's
actually disputed in many states and is illegal), but without the
marriage, they don't have the benefits of legal rights of property.

I'm sorry, but you've just lost all respect claiming political
correctness. This has nothing to do with political correctness, it has
all to do with gays receiving the same benefits of marriage as my wife
and I get, INCLUDING the marriage penalty taxes.

--
Odinn

'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

 

Well at least they will be insured.
Regards
Michael H. Fell

 

So, if we can justify not having men marry gorillas (informed consent)
or men marrying 10-year olds (informed consent) and fathers marrying
their adult daughters (birth defects), how can you justify not allowing
same-sex, adult couples from marrying (other than by using fallacious
circular reasoning)?

Josh Rosenbluth

 

Sure, you are not.

 

SNIP

Indeed, you have YET to answer my questions. Face it YOU are
wrong...dead wrong.

They have been AND not just answered but rebutted using the
same book you think is so important.

Because he and many others are tired of repeating
themselves.

Indeed you are acting like that. SHOW ME CHAPTER AND
VERSE...SHOW ME! You can't because it isn't there. Don't
bother with the Leviticus argument it only applies to the
Levites who were the keepers of the temples...


--
Nefarious Necroloigist 42nd Degree
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<3 )3~~ <3 )3~~ <3 )3~ <3 )3~

 

SNIP

Well, geneticlly speaking, NOTHING. Now we have been raised
socially to find this wrong. In man societies it was a
common practice for brothers and sisters to
marry...mentioned in the bible iirc.

Yeah, you fell alright...your arguments are pathetic,
ill-informed and as bright as a burnt out light bulb.

--
Nefarious Necroloigist 42nd Degree
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<3 )3~~ <3 )3~~ <3 )3~ <3 )3~

 

Here in Canada, shacking up results in splitting of assets, just like
what happens to married people when breaking up. Just happened to the
couple across the street from me.

You and I may be misunderstanding each other's positions then. I
think it is perfectly possible for the state to grant gays all the
rights you mentioned - without redefining what marriage is.

Since there are other options, all that's being asked by many people
on my side of the argument is: Don't change the definition of
marriage. Because the change is unnecessary, it's basically a very
reasonable position.

In fact, earlier on in the debate, I've heard that even many gays were
saying this idea of messing with the institution of marriage was a
ridiculous notion.

--
Instead of swerving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

I think the same is true for certain states here in the U.S.

- Kurt