Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[GBuck]

No, everytime something new was brought up, you dismissed it as "apples and oranges" of foolish, or something similar. You refuse to see the other side of the argument, and do nothing but continue to restate your case. Had you taken anything that was said on the opposing view, read it, tried to understand it, ask clarifying questions for understanding, then offered a rebuttal, this could have been a good debate.

I asked many questions, I do understand what is said (I assure you), and I have issued my rebuttal with historical and factual reasons. The only thing I dismissed as apples to oranges is your 'brother/sister, father/daughter' marriages, because it is apples to oranges. However, since you seem hell bent on bringing it into the conversation, IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WANT TO GET MARRIED, I DO NOT CARE. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S FATHER/DAUGHTER, MOTHER/SON, MOTHER/DAUGHTER, ETC.. It is none of my business.

 

[Yup!]

I asked many questions, I do understand what is said (I assure you), and I have issued my rebuttal with historical and factual reasons. The only thing I dismissed as apples to oranges is your 'brother/sister, father/daughter' marriages, because it is apples to oranges. However, since you seem hell bent on bringing it into the conversation, IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WANT TO GET MARRIED, I DO NOT CARE. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S FATHER/DAUGHTER, MOTHER/SON, MOTHER/DAUGHTER, ETC.. It is none of my business.

Why limit it to two?

 

[GBuck]

Why limit it to two?

You don't have to. I don't care. They're adults, let them figure it out.

Ps.. I already answered that question yesterday. As long as they're not doing it to FURTHER the bs tax benefits of marriage, let them. It's not my business.

 

[Yup!]

You don't have to. I don't care. They're adults, let them figure it out.

Ps.. I already answered that question yesterday. As long as they're not doing it to FURTHER the bs tax benefits of marriage, let them. It's not my business.

The whole reason for a legal marriages is the tax, insurance benefit. Otherwise why not just live together and wear matching rings.

Whats the advantage of calling it a marriage?

 

[GBuck]

The whole reason for a legal marriages is the tax, insurance benefit. Otherwise why not just live together and wear matching rings.

Whats the advantage of calling it a marriage?

As I've stated before, the .gov should not give tax benefits. The .gov should not be involved period. However, if it is going to be involved, it should not exclude to consenting adults because of who they choose to love.

You want a good result, get the .gov out of it, then people can call it whatever they choose on their own beliefs. However, we both know that will never happen.

 

[IndyGal65]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GBuck
You don't have to. I don't care. They're adults, let them figure it out.

Ps.. I already answered that question yesterday. As long as they're not doing it to FURTHER the bs tax benefits of marriage, let them. It's not my business.
The whole reason for a legal marriages is the tax, insurance benefit. Otherwise why not just live together and wear matching rings.

Whats the advantage of calling it a marriage?



Because its easier than saying "we're civil unionized" or "contractually binded."

 

[Yup!]

As I've stated before, the .gov should not give tax benefits. The .gov should not be involved period. However, if it is going to be involved, it should not exclude to consenting adults because of who they choose to love.

You want a good result, get the .gov out of it, then people can call it whatever they choose on their own beliefs. However, we both know that will never happen.

You didn't answer the question, you restated your case once again.

 

[Yup!]

Because its easier than saying "we're civil unionized" or "contractually binded."

Is that it? You don't want a tax benefit, or insurance benefit? Besides the label, what other reason is there to want to be "married" - seems easy enough to just not care about a word, unless there's an underlying benefit.

I married my wife because I love her. We were already living together, but she couldn't get my health insurance until we were married. So part of the reason to marry, was to get her on my health insurance, and file a joint return.

 

[GBuck]

As I've stated before, the .gov should not give tax benefits. The .gov should not be involved period. However, if it is going to be involved, it should not exclude to consenting adults because of who they choose to love.

You want a good result, get the .gov out of it, then people can call it whatever they choose on their own beliefs. However, we both know that will never happen.

You didn't answer the question, you restated your case once again.

Sorry, I bolded my answer to your question. I thought you would be able to see it, but I guess not. Allow me to translate, "It should be called a marriage because there is no reason not to allow group (a) to call it that, and not group (b). (that's what I meant when I said the bolded)

 

[IndyGal65]

Is that it? You don't want a tax benefit, or insurance benefit? Besides the label, what other reason is there to want to be "married" - seems easy enough to just not care about a word, unless there's an underlying benefit.

I married my wife because I love her. We were already living together, but she couldn't get my health insurance until we were married. So part of the reason to marry, was to get her on my health insurance, and file a joint return.

No. Of course I do. I was just trying lighten the mood. Geesh.

 

[foszoe]

I asked many questions, I do understand what is said (I assure you), and I have issued my rebuttal with historical and factual reasons.

You tied the historical definition of marriage to the "Church" wish was challenged and did not provide concrete examples. You didn't back that claim other than you claimed factuality based on "numerous other posts". which is not an proof of an established fact and a wikipedia citation of Catholic Marriage.

You have said the definition of a word is fluid then attempted to make it concrete through using "dictionary.com" and objected when someone else used a fluid definition rejected your concrete definition.

Word definitions don't matter but you seem to want make sure people don't disagree with yours.

Its all just very confusing.

 

[GBuck]

Is that it? You don't want a tax benefit, or insurance benefit? Besides the label, what other reason is there to want to be "married" - seems easy enough to just not care about a word, unless there's an underlying benefit.

I married my wife because I love her. We were already living together, but she couldn't get my health insurance until we were married. So part of the reason to marry, was to get her on my health insurance, and file a joint return.

And all I'm saying is that homosexual couples should be able to do the same, without being discriminated against. If they love each other, make each other happy, why not allow them the same benefit? You said yourself it's easy enough to just not care about a word.

 

[GBuck]

You have said the definition of a word is fluid then attempted to make it concrete through using "dictionary.com" and objected when someone else used a fluid definition rejected your concrete definition.

Word definitions don't matter but you seem to want make sure people don't disagree with yours.

Its all just very confusing.

No, no, no, Sir. I said all along to use the definition, as provided. YOU are the one that insisted that the definition was wrong. Not me.

As for the relation to the Church, if you honestly want to argue that point, there is no point.

 

[Yup!]

No. Of course I do. I was just trying lighten the mood. Geesh.

The mood is pretty light over here as well.

So under the current system, there is a tax and insurance benefit to marriage, and that is a partial reason for wanting to be legally married, versus unioned, or even living together. I get that.

We've now defined marriage as Between one or more consenting adults. Because we don't care if you're gay, or already related, or if you want to marry more than one person, as long as love is in the air, knock yourself out.

Agree?

 

[GBuck]

Agree?

From what I can tell, yes. Whether you actually agree or are just using it for the sake of discussion, I don't know.

 

[Yup!]

And all I'm saying is that homosexual couples should be able to do the same, without being discriminated against. If they love each other, make each other happy, why not allow them the same benefit? You said yourself it's easy enough to just not care about a word.

I don't care about the definition. You can call it whatever you want.

We aren't going to eliminate the marriage tax benefit, and spousal rights when it comes to insurance and other legal issues any time soon. So it's probably best to simply call it marriage for any consenting adults, to get married, regardless of the number of them, their gender, or their current relationship?

 

[foszoe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GBuck
You don't have to. I don't care. They're adults, let them figure it out.

Ps.. I already answered that question yesterday. As long as they're not doing it to FURTHER the bs tax benefits of marriage, let them. It's not my business.
The whole reason for a legal marriages is the tax, insurance benefit. Otherwise why not just live together and wear matching rings.

Whats the advantage of calling it a marriage?



Because its easier than saying "we're civil unionized" or "contractually binded."

Waaaay back you posted and I agreed with you (I think butyou may disagree) Given we can't get the government out of the benefits side of this, I would favor giving every single benefit to a gay couple. You were willing to call it by another term of the LGBT choosing if I remember correctly. Just find a decent 2 syllable word and run with it . Then all parties would be happy.

In my mind its more important that those in the LGBT community are happy with the solution rather than those who are LGBT sympathizers. Would the above solution be agreeable to those you know who are in this situation from the inside?

 

[Yup!]

From what I can tell, yes. Whether you actually agree or are just using it for the sake of discussion, I don't know.

I'm asking if you agree with the post, the post does not reflect my opinion, I'm trying to understand your side of the argument! So I can ask further questions from an established base.

 

[foszoe]

No, no, no, Sir. I said all along to use the definition, as provided. YOU are the one that insisted that the definition was wrong. Not me.

As for the relation to the Church, if you honestly want to argue that point, there is no point.

No need to argue the point as you continue to support it with your posts, including this one. Human civilization didn't all come from the middle ages.

 

[GBuck]

I'm asking if you agree with the post, the post does not reflect my opinion, I'm trying to understand your side of the argument! So I can ask further questions from an established base.

I said, I DO AGREE.


Seriously, what further questions could you possibly have that haven't been asked and answered?