for you shallow catholics out there, God loves everyone. for the rest, i think homosexuals should have the same rights as we heterosexuals.

Sorry for jumping on the bandwagon there and making a tediously lost post with quotes in it. I almost never do that, but for fundies I can make an occasional exception.

quote:

What do married homosexuals produce, that two single homosexuals do not?

Who says relationships need to be productive to society? Isn't one of the things America is about is the "pursuit of happiness"? Does happiness have to be productive?

quote:

The clock is ticking comrade. The only way you've been able to make gay marriage legal is for judges to specifically go around the will of the people. Every single time a gay marriage referedum is voted on, its shot down. Every single time! You're not justing losing the war for the public's votes, you're getting slaughtered.

Should the public have a say in the way people live their lives, if that lifestyle isn't harming anyone? And don't say homosexuality is harming people, you know full well it isn't.

quote:

No, this is a perfect analogy for the tax money put aside for marriage benefits. Again, what does a homosexual couple contribute the the tax pot that two single homosexuals do not?

Homes for children that may be adopted for one thing. Or, through artificial insemination with a third party involved, biological children.

quote:

So far, so good...

If someone considered your lifestyle to be incorrect and wanted to prevent you from obtaining certain rights that others have, I doubt you'd be very happy about it. Just because your ideology states that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean everyone agrees.

quote:

Contribute or rob the economy? How would gay couples make up for what they take in marriage benefits?

And how exactly do heteros make up for what they take in marriage benefits? More kids to contribute to overpopulation?

quote:

Do you understand economics?!? Why should the government give someone something they don't need and get nothing in return?

Uhhhh...because the purpose of the government is to serve the people?

quote:

No, wrongful discrimination pertains to something someone cannot change.

I'd tell you to go ask any of your gay friends if that's something they could change, but presumably you wouldn't have any.

quote:

Gay marriage will keeping the economy running? Haha! Please, enlighten me as to why.

Money will be spent on marriage liscenses and of course, weddings.

quote:

Don't forget AIDS. Wouldn't want the gay population crippled before they got to take the vow, now would we?

You really are sick. You could just as easily die from AIDS.

quote:

Ah, no they don't. If its not a law, its not a right.

How do you figure? When the bill of rights was written, those rights weren't yet laws. People used reasoning to decide which rights should be protected, though it is mentioned in the constitution that those AREN'T THE ONLY RIGHTS THAT EXIST.

quote:

So does a man and 12 woman or a person and an animal. Why not a person and a non living object?

That argument would be totally valid except for the tiny flaw that it MAKES ZERO SENSE.

quote:

I'm standing up for the American voter's will. Welcome to the republic.

If the American people voted to outlaw religion in schools, would you suppport the "voter's will"?

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
That's all well and good that you only see homosexuals as people who reap the benefits of things that only heterosexuals do. For example, work, pay taxes, buying products, etcetera. Oh yeah. Totally.

What do married homosexuals produce, that two single homosexuals do not?

quote:

Oh yes, the lot of homosexuals are right in any newspaper or website when they're active about something. And not every group provides information about what they will do, you do things that are not recorded; same with homosexuals.

We're not talking about lobbying strategies, which are kept secret, we're talking about voting referendums, which are all public? Why wouldn't homosexual lobbyists want the public to know about their referendums (besides the obvious fact the public would shot them down)?

quote:

Yeah, you're right. And that's why homosexuals, the "three percent", the outcasts, the plagued, the immoral, the biblical sinners are going to win over a Christian country.

The clock is ticking comrade. The only way you've been able to make gay marriage legal is for judges to specifically go around the will of the people. Every single time a gay marriage referedum is voted on, its shot down. Every single time! You're not justing losing the war for the public's votes, you're getting slaughtered.

quote:

I would not be happy, but you are not talking about a similar situation. You're talking about people who do not put in any money taking it out. However, there are fewer homosexuals that don't file taxes than those that do. So how would you feel to be putting money into something like, say, social security and never get any of it?

No, this is a perfect analogy for the tax money put aside for marriage benefits. Again, what does a homosexual couple contribute the the tax pot that two single homosexuals do not?

quote:

So 3 percent is now higher than 5 percent? Wow, and all this time I thought I was a smarty pants. Thanks for being so generous.

The phrase "thick headed" comes to mind. We're talking about gay marriage from a fiscal standpoint. Which would be more generous; to say gays are at 5% (which they really are) and to count up even more money that they're going to suck out, or to say gays are at 3% and make it look like they're taking out less money? I was being generous, for the sake of statistical safety, and said that they would take out less money than they really would. Or is that just over your head?

quote:

That's odd. Your source shows percentages from Great Britain...

Lies, lies, and damned lies. Did you read the source, or were you trying to find ways for stats to fit your ideology?

quote:

Oh, and the US Census was based on couples. Not actual homosexuals. And mind you how many closeted homosexuals there are. And the children that have not discovered their sexual orientation. There are too many variables to pin it down within a percent.

This is census taking, you have to give it a percent, and 5% is pretty good. And they didn't just use couples, but they did take them into account, placing homosexual couples living together in the US at 595,000.

quote:

It shows.

'preciate it. It helps to get once and awhile and see what the majority of people want. You should try it.

quote:

Here is what I understand you're saying: "Gays don't deserve marriage or marital benefits because they are homosexual and that is wrong.

So far, so good...

quote:

And if they want to pay taxes

Haha, who wants to pay taxes?

quote:

and contribute to the american economy,

Contribute or rob the economy? How would gay couples make up for what they take in marriage benefits?

quote:

We'll just segregate them when it comes to marital benefits."

Do you understand economics?!? Why should the government give someone something they don't need and get nothing in return?

quote:

That is what I see as discrimination and wrong.

No, wrongful discrimination pertains to something someone cannot change.

quote:

Interesting...

Might I remind you, the HRC is not a conservative group, its a pro gay marriage lobbying group.

quote:

You being such a political and governmental whiz should no it isn't that simple. Thanks for trying though.

No, its perfect. What's wrong with. You shot down others ideas on compromise, yet offer none yourself.

quote:

Ha! I knew it! You are a piece of work, you know that?! Your calculations don't prove a thing!

Where, pray tell, did my calculations go wrong?

quote:

Yes, absolutely horrible. But what I found more disturbing was your disregard for their citizenship, honesty and overall, their humanity.

Disregarding their citizenship? Hav you lost it? When have I ever advocated revoking their citizenship?

quote:

And that's why we have two branches dealing with money, nickJ.

*Looks around* NickJ?

quote:

One takes taxes, the other will spend it. And somehow we always manage to come up pretty damn short of the mula, now don't we, reactionary?

Certainly we do, but what you're trying to do now is throw more weight on a sinking ship.

quote:

Gee, that sounds familiar.

Yeah, it happened in the Weimer Republic.

quote:

Something like "Oh, there are far more whites than blacks-let's make the blacks have bad swimming pools and water fountains, have to sit in the back of the bus, and let's allow private businesses to reject black customers. Because whites have the rights-we were here first after all!" Har har har, congressman.

Once again, issues that were not put to a national vote. Why are you so afraid of the American voter?

quote:

Or, let's just say for kicks, keeping the economy going... That's not all that valuable.

Gay marriage will keeping the economy running? Haha! Please, enlighten me as to why.

quote:

Sure.while gay men die by queer bashings or with tubes stuck in and out of orifices.

Don't forget AIDS. Wouldn't want the gay population crippled before they got to take the vow, now would we?

quote:

****! Me neither. Oh I guess your point was proven. But just for fun, let's take away marriages all together, taxes, and a democracy. 'cause, well, they aren't mentioned either.

Democracy: Article One, Section Two
Taxes: Amendment 16
Marriage: Marriage in the Constitution

quote:

gays have every right to live just as much as a straight person,

Ah, no they don't. If its not a law, its not a right.

quote:

they have the ability to be married

So does a man and 12 woman or a person and an animal. Why not a person and a non living object?

quote:

And so do you. And yet, how is your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness being taken away by homosexuals being married? huh?

I'm standing up for the American voter's will. Welcome to the republic.

quote:

You strike me as the brown crayon of the box.

You strike me as not being the fastest bowling ball at the alley.

Oops...not talking about reproductive abilities...my bad.

Well, in that case, explain how homosexual couples wouldn't also be producers. Last time I checked, they paid taxes, too.

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
I've told you countless times what is wrong with this. In this case, heterosexual couples serve as consumers and producers. Homosexual couples serve only as consumers. That's the problem.

So, we shouldn't allow impotent men and barren women to marry? That sounds very much like social Darwinism- the notion that only those who can reproduce together can marry.

Way too many of these threads...

Incidently, Ohio's anti same-sex marriage law also takes away protection from victems of domestic violence.

See http://www.motherjones.com

quote:

I've told you countless times what is wrong with this. In this case, heterosexual couples serve as consumers and producers. Homosexual couples serve only as consumers. That's the problem.

That's all well and good that you only see homosexuals as people who reap the benefits of things that only heterosexuals do. For example, work, pay taxes, buying products, etcetera. Oh yeah. Totally.

quote:

No, based on what I just said, you have to provide information that gay marriage activists have lobbied for gay marriage benefits tax referendums.

Oh yes, the lot of homosexuals are right in any newspaper or website when they're active about something. And not every group provides information about what they will do, you do things that are not recorded; same with homosexuals.

quote:

Citizens are taking action, and every single defense of marriage referendum that has been voted has passed.

Yeah, you're right. And that's why homosexuals, the "three percent", the outcasts, the plagued, the immoral, the biblical sinners are going to win over a Christian country.

quote:

Imagine you and three of your friends have a pot of money. You take money out when you need it, but you also put a lot back in. So do two of your friends. The other friend only takes money out, in the name of "fairness" & "equality". Would you be happy with that person?

I would not be happy, but you are not talking about a similar situation. You're talking about people who do not put in any money taking it out. However, there are fewer homosexuals that don't file taxes than those that do. So how would you feel to be putting money into something like, say, social security and never get any of it?

quote:

Actually I was being generous. We could go with what the 2000 US Census that places the gay population at 5%.

So 3 percent is now higher than 5 percent? Wow, and all this time I thought I was a smarty pants. Thanks for being so generous.

quote:

2000 US Census

That's odd. Your source shows percentages from Great Britain...

Oh, and the US Census was based on couples. Not actual homosexuals. And mind you how many closeted homosexuals there are. And the children that have not discovered their sexual orientation. There are too many variables to pin it down within a percent.

quote:

Algebra II.

It shows.

quote:

Of course I'm looking at the big pot, because, as of now, there is no small pot. If the gay lobby would like to hold tax referendums to pay for their own benefits (while not calling 'marriage'), I could deal with that.

Here is what I understand you're saying: "Gays don't deserve marriage or marital benefits because they are homosexual and that is wrong. And if they want to pay taxes and contribute to the american economy, that's okay. We'll just segregate them when it comes to marital benefits."

That is what I see as discrimination and wrong.

quote:

I've already said, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation report releashed January 2005.

Interesting...

quote:

I do see what you're saying, and that does seem wrong.... this just hit me, the perfect solution: Gays are (in a small part) paying for heterosexual marriage benefits, and that's wrong. Most of what gays want from marriage is the benefits, so the government should give gay couples a tax break according to what they would have gotten from marriage benefits. Boom, problem solved.

You being such a political and governmental whiz should no it isn't that simple. Thanks for trying though.

quote:

my calculations

Ha! I knew it! You are a piece of work, you know that?! Your calculations don't prove a thing! Why bother using some lame excuse as a source as you knowing 6 homosexuals in your high school?

quote:

1.5% of the American population (4,425,000 people) is still alot of people with alot of money attached to 'em.

Yes, absolutely horrible. But what I found more disturbing was your disregard for their citizenship, honesty and overall, their humanity.

quote:

Its not a matter of how much it is, but how well its invested. The government needs to be run like a business, which means making fiscally responsible decisions.

And that's why we have two branches dealing with money, nickJ. One takes taxes, the other will spend it. And somehow we always manage to come up pretty damn short of the mula, now don't we, reactionary?

quote:

That's fascism, the elimination of the majority's rights for the benefits of the minority.

Gee, that sounds familiar. Something like "Oh, there are far more whites than blacks-let's make the blacks have bad swimming pools and water fountains, have to sit in the back of the bus, and let's allow private businesses to reject black customers. Because whites have the rights-we were here first after all!" Har har har, congressman.

quote:

The government investments in married heterosexual couples because they get a return that money can't buy (pending it hasn't had its skull ripped open and brains vaccumed out).

Or, let's just say for kicks, keeping the economy going... That's not all that valuable.

quote:

Created being the key word. Surely, you do not think that all men die equal?

Sure. Straight men die happy in their beds or with tubes stuck in and out of orifices, while gay men die by queer bashings or with tubes stuck in and out of orifices. And created is a key word. Because everyone in this country, that I know of, is required to pay taxes if they are working a certain amount every year.

quote:

Where is gay marriage mentioned? I don't see it.

****! Me neither. Oh I guess your point was proven. But just for fun, let's take away marriages all together, taxes, and a democracy. 'cause, well, they aren't mentioned either.

Geez Louise! Of course it's there. It is called "implied"; gays have every right to live just as much as a straight person, they have the ability to be married and they are able to carry out a happy life. And so do you. And yet, how is your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness being taken away by homosexuals being married? huh?

You strike me as the brown crayon of the box.

quote:

Originally posted by thewalrus:
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!

Hahahahahaha!

You know, my friends and I have a code name for a certian gay person. We call them a walrus. No joke. You made me laugh.

quote:

The benefits are wonderful, should they go through, but they're no substitute for equality.

Exactly. Civil Unions are a step in the right direction, but it's not equal. Marriage, full marriage, the benefits and all is what it's going to take to make it equal...

quote:

problem solved.

That would certainly help, but somehow, it's still not solved...

quote:

government investments in married heterosexual couples because they get a return that money can't buy

See, though, there's a problem with your logic. Not all married couples have children. By saying that it seems that marriage is a committment to having a child. (and hypothetically, what if that child moved to a different country, then they wouldn't contribute to american society...) But gay couples could and would adopt children, not only from the US, but from overseas. You keep saying that adoption is a better option than abortion, so...

quote:

Surely, you do not think that all men die equal?

They don't, but I believe that they should. On terms with rights and benefits. Everyone should start out with everything equal, until they lose them (i.e. get sent to jail)... same thing goes with respect, with me anyway.

quote:

Where is gay marriage mentioned? I don't see it.

Well, a bunch of gay people would like to pursue their happiness through marriage. So, the founding fathers thought that people should be equal and given the same opportunities...

quote:

and don't try to interpet the Founding Documents to fit your ideology.

But you do, all the fricken time.. we all do because that is what we have to go off of.. the only reason that we aren't a theocracy right now is because of the constitution and some people who would actually like to see us still be a democracy-type of government...

quote:

How could you possibly know? Blacks didn't have rights.

You don't think that they could forsee blacks getting rights? It's just a natural evolution of civilized society... Gays will get their rights, and soon... it's already started...

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
I've told you countless times what is wrong with this. In this case, heterosexual couples serve as consumers and producers. Homosexual couples serve only as consumers. That's the problem.

The problem could possibly be that too many heterosexual couples exist, therefore overpopulating this lovely planet of ours. Homosexuals do not produce, as you said, but they can take care of (aka adopt) all the children hetreosexual couples had and for whatever reason, could not afford to keep. I see no problem with giving a child a home, unless you do?

quote:

No, based on what I just said, you have to provide information that gay marriage activists have lobbied for gay marriage benefits tax referendums.

I don't know who said the comment before you, but gay couples do not want that. Just as most same-sex opposition leaders are using religious basis, gays are using societal basis. They want to be able to call someone their spouse, not just their tax partner. Wouldn't you feel slighted if you could not say that you're married to your wife? That you're together, but you just have tax benefits, retirement rights, etc?

quote:

Citizens are taking action, and every single defense of marriage referendum that has been voted has passed.

Can't debate that. Mass hysteria has been known to really **** up a country.

quote:

Imagine you and three of your friends have a pot of money. You take money out when you need it, but you also put a lot back in. So do two of your friends. The other friend only takes money out, in the name of "fairness" & "equality". Would you be happy with that person?

And what if you were putting money into that pot, and not allowed to take any out of it?

quote:

Actually I was being generous. We could go with what the 2000 US Census that places the gay population at 5%.
How many gays are there?

That same website even says it's difficult to report homosexuality. Homosexuality is not easily defined by most people (i.e. bisexual men or women who may really be gay and do not define themselves as such), and many who are may not want to lay claim to it because of the stigma attached that was created by conservatives such as yourself.

That same website also states 5.5 million households consist of unmarried partnerships; 595,000 of those are same-sex partnerships. As the website states, that translates to 1.2 million gays living with a same-sex partner.

And the Human Rights Commission then only shows the small 5% number, which clearly isn't indicative of the amount of tax-paying gays in America.

quote:

Of course I'm looking at the big pot, because, as of now, there is no small pot. If the gay lobby would like to hold tax referendums to pay for their own benefits (while not calling 'marriage'), I could deal with that.

How generous. Gee whiz, can gays hold hands in public as well? There is a point to be made, and it is not fiscal.

quote:

I do see what you're saying, and that does seem wrong.... this just hit me, the perfect solution: Gays are (in a small part) paying for heterosexual marriage benefits, and that's wrong. Most of what gays want from marriage is the benefits, so the government should give gay couples a tax break according to what they would have gotten from marriage benefits. Boom, problem solved.

Gays want equality. Civil unions are okay because they allow:
Adoption: Entitled to all the protections and benefits available when adopting. Same-sex couples already are allowed to adopt, but laws would reflect that those couples would now be treated as spouses.
Compensation: Use of victims' compensation and workers' compensation related to spouses.
Discrimination: Use of laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status.
Health Care: Able to make medical decisions for incapacitated partner. Able to visit hospitals visitation and be notified of a partner's condition.
Insurance: State employees are treated as spouses for insurance or continuing care contracts.
Lawsuits: Able to sue for wrongful death, the emotional distress caused by a partner's death or injury, and loss of consortium caused by death or injury.
Property: Entitled to joint title, transfer from one to the other on death, and property transfer tax benefits.
Probate: Use probate law and procedures.
State Tax: Treated as an economic unit.
Testimony: Not be compelled to testify against one another.

However, they cannot collect social security upon their spouses death, and cannot file jointly as spouses on taxes.

But that's not where the debate truly lies, in the hearts of most gays. They want true, equal recognition of their union. The benefits are wonderful, should they go through, but they're no substitute for equality.

quote:

Originally posted by NickJ:
First off, where did you get that 3% of the population is gay... I just never saw a source for that...

Actually, as I stated in the last post, the US 2000 Census places the gay population in America at 5%. Take your pick, I was generous with my calculations.

quote:

And secondly, if this is such an atrocious money problem and with only 1.5% of the population...

1.5% of the American population (4,425,000 people) is still alot of people with alot of money attached to 'em.

quote:

how much is it for all of the married couples out there right now?

Its not a matter of how much it is, but how well its invested. The government needs to be run like a business, which means making fiscally responsible decisions.

quote:

If you claim that the us only spends 26 bil. (proof, btw)

Simple mathematics. Used a calculator.

quote:

then nobody should be able to get married and no one should get any benefits from marriage...

That's fascism, the elimination of the majority's rights for the benefits of the minority. The government investments in married heterosexual couples because they get a return that money can't buy (pending it hasn't had its skull ripped open and brains vaccumed out).

quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal."

Created being the key word. Surely, you do not think that all men die equal?

quote:

And then something about, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Where is gay marriage mentioned? I don't see it.

quote:

Written roughly 1776, by the founders of America.

Don't lecture me on American history, and don't try to interpet the Founding Documents to fit your ideology.

quote:

By their standards, it's either everyone gets benefits, or no one does...

How could you possibly know? Blacks didn't have rights.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
You haven't told me what is so wrong about that. And if you're so against marriages having anything to do with taxes, don't get married. It'll show me how much of a hypocrite you aren't.

I've told you countless times what is wrong with this. In this case, heterosexual couples serve as consumers and producers. Homosexual couples serve only as consumers. That's the problem.

quote:

Please provide a source for the above statements of gay advocates and lobbyists.

No, based on what I just said, you have to provide information that gay marriage activists have lobbied for gay marriage benefits tax referendums.

quote:

You either aren't paying attention, or are deliberately overlooking some aspects of citizens taking action.

Citizens are taking action, and every single defense of marriage referendum that has been voted has passed.

quote:

Again, the part about this you do not like or understand?

Imagine you and three of your friends have a pot of money. You take money out when you need it, but you also put a lot back in. So do two of your friends. The other friend only takes money out, in the name of "fairness" & "equality". Would you be happy with that person?

quote:

Again, this is your hypothetical situation, which isn't true and one you have not provided a source for.

Actually I was being generous. We could go with what the 2000 US Census that places the gay population at 5%.
How many gays are there?

quote:

What is your current math class?

Algebra II.

quote:

what you're looking at is the big pot, then how much you feel they would get in return.

Of course I'm looking at the big pot, because, as of now, there is no small pot. If the gay lobby would like to hold tax referendums to pay for their own benefits (while not calling 'marriage'), I could deal with that.

quote:

And where are your sources about all of this taxation percentage that goes to marriage and how is all of this money accruing interest?

I've already said, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation report releashed January 2005.

quote:

Secondly, I believe what matters most is that the taxes that are put in by homosexuals are also being taken out by homosexuals. As of now, homosexuals put in, but only heterosexuals take out. Do you see what I am getting at yet?

I do see what you're saying, and that does seem wrong.... this just hit me, the perfect solution: Gays are (in a small part) paying for heterosexual marriage benefits, and that's wrong. Most of what gays want from marriage is the benefits, so the government should give gay couples a tax break according to what they would have gotten from marriage benefits. Boom, problem solved.