GAY MARRIAGE

i think that gay marriage should not be allowed. not because i want marriage to be between man and a woman. but because they are going at it in such a way that it is inexcusable. it is also because they want to get tax dodges left and right for wait for it... wait for it... "pain and suffering"
hmmmmmmmm do we give black people tax dodges for their grandparents being slaves, or for discrimination?
so if they get tax dodges then everyone else would like a tax dodge, or they would pretend to be gay.
that is why gay marriage should not be allowed.

Would somebody please check these reality tie downs. Everyone seems to have slipped their moorings and gone floating off with the tide.

actually tax dodging is a stupid argument, because most taxes are spent or given too the private sector. So its a money cycle, also the government makes dumb fucking investments, while tax payers also make bad investments. So it doesn't really matter at that point.
more or less taxes=/= better soceity
most gay people want civil unions
1. to be unified
2. to file jointly for deeds, taxes, wills
3. some states: adopt children

What's the point of marriage?

God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve ....

So just because your religion says adam and eve therefore your religion should be forced upon the entire nation?

>>4
To ensure men stay with the women they impregnate and support and help raise children. In times when resources were scarce this could prevent a lot of sufferring.

I don't think that the government should be involved in the institution of marriage at all. 

I don't think that gay marriage should be "allowed" simply because I don't think any marriage needs governmental notice. 

If you have a deep and profound commitment to another person, one in which your determined to keep for the rest of your life, then pronouce it to the world!  Then if you fail the onus is on you because you fucked it up.  Don't fucking ask permission from Uncle Sam.

>>8
But married couples get insurance benefits/cheaper deductibles.

>>9
It would be better if these were scrapped.

>>9
a lot of insurance plans cover gay couples.  insurance companies like faggos because they know most of them will never have children

>>9
the benefit of being straight.
>>11
they dont care you're gay. they care if you can pay a premium.

>>10
Until they are, the govt shouldn't discriminate against people.  Such discrimination is in violation of the Constitution.  See Amendment 14.  Thus, people who are gay are entitled to any tax deductions/benefits or whatever that heterosexual couples recieve, and equal treatment under the law. 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

>>13 is a faggot.

>>14 is a nigger

>>13
separate but equal is not and should not be used here. they are not equal, but they are separate. its not discrimination. its not in the constitution. the constitution says that marraige is between a man and a woman. marriage to a gay couple is not enough, they want all the bells and whistles that they can get for being "discriminated against" FUCK THAT! there are so many pro-gay shows out there it is ridiculous. they are not being discriminated against... they are being encouraged.
so just because some liberal fuckface gives his opinion it does not mean anything unless it is COMPLETELY supported by our founders and our government.

>>16

you are aware that.... your founders died some 200+ years ago, and thus don't really support anything anymore?

no but they set up a government that is really stable.
the stock market crashing was not their fault.
but they did stand for something.
separate but equal was 1950's

>>16
"the constitution says that marraige is between a man and a woman."

No, no it fucking doesn't. GTFO.

"there are so many pro-gay shows out there it is ridiculous"

Name some of these "many". Note: 2 does not count as many.

"hey are not being discriminated against... they are being encouraged. "

Are you retarded? Are you deaf and blind? Honestly that's the only way I could see you actually believing this bullshit.

"just because some liberal fuckface gives his opinion it does not mean anything unless it is COMPLETELY supported by our founders and our government."

Funny you should say that, because marriage /isn't/ COMPLETELY supported by our founders, it is absent from the constitution.

"they are not equal, but they are separate"

Oh yeah? I'd like to see some peer-reviewed scientific papers backing this up. I'll save you the Google search: there are none.

>>16
HUEG FAGGOT

gay marriage is fine, they should not be allowed children though, for fuck sake how are kids gna feel when their teachers say mummy and daddy and they only know one of them.

>>21 yet another untrue stereotype.

The gov is not allowed to give some entities (i.e. couples) economical parameters that are legally denied to other couples considering said couples based on gender, even if it has the support of the majority. The USA was meant to be a republic, not a democracy. Fuck the socially and morally retarded anti-civil unions christian majority if
they do not like that.

A liberal majority can not, conversely, force a religious entity to NOT admit religious unions (which is just a pathetic ritual, and not economical priviliges) or NOT to fire priests that are ready to wed gay couples.

The ritual of marriage is up to the religious sanctifiers in question. However, what is important is that gay couples have identical legal statures with straight couples. Today, they do not, and this is gov-enforced discrimination acting by a majority and it shames every so-called republican who does not protest this.

All couples get the same rights or they are to be done away with. That is the choice of the plebiscite; what legal changes occur when a couple gets together. The pathetic ritual is up to those who handle them, but gay couples should care more about 

>>16

HEY AWESOME I CAN PULL SOMETHING TOTALLY OUT OF MY ASS TO BACK UP MY ARGUMENT TOO

>>21

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpchildren.html

"For instance, Kirkpatrick and her colleagues (1981) found NO differences between children of lesbian versus heterosexual mothers in toy preferences, activities, interests, or occupational choices."

>>21
Who the fuck are you to tell someone how they can live their life? Besides, I'm sure anyone in their right mind would rather be adopted by a gay couple and be raised with parental figures than jump from foster home to foster home until their 18.

i love all the generalisations.

from bth the faggots and the faggot haters.

you're all full of shit.

>>26 is right all these are generalisations

>>25
Just because a couple is homosexual, it doesn't mean they won't be tossed to another foster home.

>>26
aren't all social issues generalizations debate?

>>29
and you wonder WHY society is so fucked up still don't you...

All generalizations are false.

>>31
i lol'd

>>28
Um... if they adopt a kid, then yes, that does mean they won't be tossed into another foster home. Thats kind of the purpose of adoption, that it's permanent.

>>33
too bad marriages can fall apart too.

takes it from dysfunctional too st00pidly dysfunctional.

you chose your lifestyle, fucking live with the consequences.

If we're gonna ban gay marriage cos the christian fundies don't like it, let's fucking ban pork and alcohol cos the muslim fundies don't like those things either.

Gay marriage should be allowed. Prostitution should be allowed, too - I see nothing wrong with people selling the opportunity to have sexual intercourse. I do see something wrong with smoking, however, of any sort, and of drinking-and-driving, although drinking's all right if one can keep his or her cool. I think driving ought to be done with moderation, and I see nothing wrong with a liberal policy on clothing (people should be allowed to dress how they wish, when they wish). Abortion is a bit more questionable, though, because the point when life - or intelligence - begins is hard to determine and very controversial. I agree with banning partial-birth abortions because of this controversy. I think government should take money from the rich to benefit the poor, but I also don't want a completely socialist system: there must always be some opportunity for advancement and encouragement towards progress. Militaries are also important, unfortunately, because of morons like Osama Bin Laden; involvement in the Iraqi troubles are a necessary evil, but the situation needs stabilization somehow.

I don't mind taxing and spending, so long as the spending benefits the people.

Oh yeah, Osama Bin Laden needs to be hunted down and taken care of.