BBL:I thought I laid some foundation for my position on the destruction (of the institution) of marriage by using the tax breaks for single mothers as an example - intentions being to help single mom's, result is much more destructive in other areas of the family as a direct and indirect consequence of the tax break.
BAR: Well only after multiple requests for you to describe how marriage had been 'destroyed'.
And your comments about the tax code were just that...complaints about the tax code. You still haven't demonstrated how marriage has been destroyed in Mass. From everything I can see, marriage in Mass is doing just fine and rocking along just like the rest of the U.S. I'll consider your comment then as indefensible for now.
BBL: You say that all of the other forms of possible unions are illegal - but so weren't homosexual activities until a few years ago. I look at Nambla as a bunch of single men with a lot of resources (no marriage and children to soak up the resources) to spend on their agenda - who knows where we could end up - also, how many unintended, unforseen consequences could we face as a result of this decision
BAR: If you believe that the guys at NAMBLA have a worthy legal case, then I could understand why you might be concerned. But their case revolves around giving minors the legal right to consent to sex with adults. It has nothing to do with the legality of contracts between consenting adults, which is what the court rulings on same-sex marriage have addressed. To continually wave the NAMBLA case as a parallel to that of same-sex adult marriage has very little relevance.
I would say however that if you believe they (NAMBLA) might actually prevail, that you throw your efforts into impeding them. And point me to any evidence you might have that they actually ARE moving towards a successful case ruling. I'll join you. However, I think said cases are not remotely near, so neither you or I have anything to worry about from NAMBLA. I'm happy to be corrected.
BBL: this social instiutution (marriage) has stood unchanged for thousands of years - and for good reason.
BAR: Nonsense. For starters, we barely have 'thousands of years' of recorded history (actually about 5000). Second, as recently as the 19th century, polygamy was being practiced in the United States and still is today in several parts of the world.
Prior to the early 20th century it was most common for women to be the literal property of men. That of course has changed in the USA over the past century as we have evolved.
In many countries even today, women are prepared from a young age for specific marriage to a man, without their consent. Here in the U.S. we've evolved past that.
Marriage has been a constantly changing relationship just over the past 2-3 centuries.
BAR: Tell me again, are you married? And if you're not, please reference the marriage closest to you (brother, sister, best friend etc).
You know that marriage is not in danger of being 'destroyed' by any gay couple getting together. Quit crying and acting as if a gay couple could damage your marriage (or your friends). Why do you give that imaginary power to another couple? You are bigger and stronger than that. It's just silly. There's plenty of real worries in the world without manufacturing that fantasy.
If anything, your complaint is more valid to gripe about the U.S. tax code which unfairly discriminates in favor of male-female married couples, with everyone else paying a higher percentage.
I think we'd be much better off to revise the tax code, so that no form of marriage leads to a tax break. Each and every wage earner should pay according to their earnings, married or not.
This would remove the discrimination aspect related to taxes.
As for the many other legal benefits that come from marriage, allowing them to same-sex couples does nothing to reduce stability in society, but rather increases it as committment between people is often increased by a marriage contract, rather than decreased.
BAR: Well only after multiple requests for you to describe how marriage had been 'destroyed'.
And your comments about the tax code were just that...complaints about the tax code. You still haven't demonstrated how marriage has been destroyed in Mass. From everything I can see, marriage in Mass is doing just fine and rocking along just like the rest of the U.S. I'll consider your comment then as indefensible for now.
BBL: You say that all of the other forms of possible unions are illegal - but so weren't homosexual activities until a few years ago. I look at Nambla as a bunch of single men with a lot of resources (no marriage and children to soak up the resources) to spend on their agenda - who knows where we could end up - also, how many unintended, unforseen consequences could we face as a result of this decision
BAR: If you believe that the guys at NAMBLA have a worthy legal case, then I could understand why you might be concerned. But their case revolves around giving minors the legal right to consent to sex with adults. It has nothing to do with the legality of contracts between consenting adults, which is what the court rulings on same-sex marriage have addressed. To continually wave the NAMBLA case as a parallel to that of same-sex adult marriage has very little relevance.
I would say however that if you believe they (NAMBLA) might actually prevail, that you throw your efforts into impeding them. And point me to any evidence you might have that they actually ARE moving towards a successful case ruling. I'll join you. However, I think said cases are not remotely near, so neither you or I have anything to worry about from NAMBLA. I'm happy to be corrected.
BBL: this social instiutution (marriage) has stood unchanged for thousands of years - and for good reason.
BAR: Nonsense. For starters, we barely have 'thousands of years' of recorded history (actually about 5000). Second, as recently as the 19th century, polygamy was being practiced in the United States and still is today in several parts of the world.
Prior to the early 20th century it was most common for women to be the literal property of men. That of course has changed in the USA over the past century as we have evolved.
In many countries even today, women are prepared from a young age for specific marriage to a man, without their consent. Here in the U.S. we've evolved past that.
Marriage has been a constantly changing relationship just over the past 2-3 centuries.
BAR: Tell me again, are you married? And if you're not, please reference the marriage closest to you (brother, sister, best friend etc).
You know that marriage is not in danger of being 'destroyed' by any gay couple getting together. Quit crying and acting as if a gay couple could damage your marriage (or your friends). Why do you give that imaginary power to another couple? You are bigger and stronger than that. It's just silly. There's plenty of real worries in the world without manufacturing that fantasy.
If anything, your complaint is more valid to gripe about the U.S. tax code which unfairly discriminates in favor of male-female married couples, with everyone else paying a higher percentage.
I think we'd be much better off to revise the tax code, so that no form of marriage leads to a tax break. Each and every wage earner should pay according to their earnings, married or not.
This would remove the discrimination aspect related to taxes.
As for the many other legal benefits that come from marriage, allowing them to same-sex couples does nothing to reduce stability in society, but rather increases it as committment between people is often increased by a marriage contract, rather than decreased.
