Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

tmyers677 · 02-13-2005, 10:56 AM

Mule- Thanks for your response. I found it interesting that the dictionary actually defined it as between opposite sexes. It had never occured to me to look it up until now. Its also interesting that they have added a 2nd definition: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

Since the gay community is a "small but vocal minority" would the tax break that they would get be really expensive for the taxpayers. If that is really an issue, wouldn't doing away with tax breaks all together for marriage be in the taxpayers best interest. Or, how about this. It will completely cover the "gay marriage tax burden", we tax the shit out of divorces. Hell, that might balance the damn budget at the rate this country gets divorced.

Thanks for not giving the standard, "if gays can marry, then people are going to marry their pets too" arguement. As for marrying more then one person, the defintions mentioned both say A person, but while I would never do it, I think that if all parties involved are ok with it, then why not. It is their personal choice.

Your next arguement, I really just don't understand. Its agreed that sacrificial killings of others should be controlled by the government because in that case the actions will affect the safety and livelyhood of others. In this case, I don't understand where the threat to social health and wefare comes from. I don't think anyone gets hurt from marriage.

I hope this doesn't come off as an attack on you, just a response with my thoughts.

02-13-2005, 10:56 AM	#14 (permalink)
tmyers677 Upright	Mule- Thanks for your response. I found it interesting that the dictionary actually defined it as between opposite sexes. It had never occured to me to look it up until now. Its also interesting that they have added a 2nd definition: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. Since the gay community is a "small but vocal minority" would the tax break that they would get be really expensive for the taxpayers. If that is really an issue, wouldn't doing away with tax breaks all together for marriage be in the taxpayers best interest. Or, how about this. It will completely cover the "gay marriage tax burden", we tax the shit out of divorces. Hell, that might balance the damn budget at the rate this country gets divorced. Thanks for not giving the standard, "if gays can marry, then people are going to marry their pets too" arguement. As for marrying more then one person, the defintions mentioned both say A person, but while I would never do it, I think that if all parties involved are ok with it, then why not. It is their personal choice. Your next arguement, I really just don't understand. Its agreed that sacrificial killings of others should be controlled by the government because in that case the actions will affect the safety and livelyhood of others. In this case, I don't understand where the threat to social health and wefare comes from. I don't think anyone gets hurt from marriage. I hope this doesn't come off as an attack on you, just a response with my thoughts.