Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Have you seen a society, where children use iPads, flourishing and continuing on for longer period of time?

They used to in Atlantis. It turned out badly.

Atlantis? You mean the mythical continent that submerged?

Mystery solved!

[lemminglord]

Point taken. But then the question is wrong, since we have no historical account that homosexual marriages do not work, either. If you could show an example of moral decadence after a historical record of homosexual marriages, then you would have a point, but since you can't, you are not entitled to dismiss the "experiment" on empirical grounds.

Have you seen a society, where children use iPads, flourishing and continuing on for longer period of time? Would that be logical to prevent children using an iPad because we do not have an answer to that? I am aware that Paul does not address iPads, for obvious reasons, but I am sure you know what I mean.

Viole. You complete me. You have got to get on the chat one of these days so I can give a thousand compliments.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Point taken. But then the question is wrong, since we have no historical account that homosexual marriages do not work, either. If you could show an example of moral decadence after a historical record of homosexual marriages, then you would have a point, but since you can't, you are not entitled to dismiss the "experiment" on empirical grounds.

Have you seen a society, where children use iPads, flourishing and continuing on for longer period of time? Would that be logical to prevent children using an iPad because we do not have an answer to that? I am aware that Paul does not address iPads, for obvious reasons, but I am sure you know what I mean.

Viole. You complete me. You have got to get on the chat one of these days so I can give a thousand compliments.

Once again I feel I should remind you that my friend viole is not trying to make a Biblical case for homosexual marriage since she rejects the Bible.

And while she makes a solid point here with which I agree, it brings me right back to another point I made earlier in the thread which was that historically, regardless of how exhalted homosexual behaviour was in a socity there has never before been a society which extended the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples since there is no good reason that everyone else anti-up to provide the financial breaks to a same-sex couple that were designated exclusively to husbands and wives as incentive to procreate and rear the next generation of citizens.

It's an investment and by changing the rules people are abusing the system. Dan and Steve are both able bodied men who can work and can't reproduce but now one of them gets to stay home and play house on everyone else's dime? What for? For their personal sense of inclusion and happiness? That's never a reason to have everyone else anti up.

If we open it up there, how come brothers and sisters who live together don't get the benefits? What about groups of people? What about singles? What if they need to stay home by themselves and have everyone else support them so they don't feel unhappy or excluded?

[UndecidedFrog]

Dan and Steve are both able bodied men who can work and can't reproduce but now one of them gets to stay home and play house on everyone else's dime? What for? For their personal sense of inclusion and happiness? That's never a reason to have everyone else anti up.

OES,

I think you have this reversed. They call it the marriage penalty for a reason. It is financially less rewarding for 2 people to file their income taxes as married (jointly or separately) than filing as 2 singles.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Edited November 1, 2011 by UndecidedFrog

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Dan and Steve are both able bodied men who can work and can't reproduce but now one of them gets to stay home and play house on everyone else's dime? What for? For their personal sense of inclusion and happiness? That's never a reason to have everyone else anti up.

OES,

I think you have this reversed. They call it the marriage penalty for a reason. It is financially less rewarding for 2 people to file their income taxes as married (jointly or separately) than filing as 2 singles.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Hmm, well I guess I'm glad I don't live in your country.

I guess my argument only works where I'm from. Why do they penalize people for being married where you are?

[UndecidedFrog]

Dan and Steve are both able bodied men who can work and can't reproduce but now one of them gets to stay home and play house on everyone else's dime? What for? For their personal sense of inclusion and happiness? That's never a reason to have everyone else anti up.

OES,

I think you have this reversed. They call it the marriage penalty for a reason. It is financially less rewarding for 2 people to file their income taxes as married (jointly or separately) than filing as 2 singles.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Hmm, well I guess I'm glad I don't live in your country.

I guess my argument only works where I'm from. Why do they penalize people for being married where you are?

OES,

The US government, in its infinite wisdom figure that 2 people (who are married) can live more cheaply than 2 people living apart. Hence, the resulting economic gain belongs to the government, since the state is the entity that allowed these 2 people to get married (by the laws vested in me by the state of New York, etc.), and they structure their income tax laws accordingly.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

OES,

The US government, in its infinite wisdom figure that 2 people (who are married) can live more cheaply than 2 people living apart. Hence, the resulting economic gain belongs to the government, since the state is the entity that allowed these 2 people to get married (by the laws vested in me by the state of New York, etc.), and they structure their income tax laws accordingly.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Wow.

C'est bizarre.

[lemminglord]

Once again I feel I should remind you that my friend viole is not trying to make a Biblical case for homosexual marriage since she rejects the Bible.

And while she makes a solid point here with which I agree, it brings me right back to another point I made earlier in the thread which was that historically, regardless of how exhalted homosexual behaviour was in a socity there has never before been a society which extended the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples since there is no good reason that everyone else anti-up to provide the financial breaks to a same-sex couple that were designated exclusively to husbands and wives as incentive to procreate and rear the next generation of citizens.

It's an investment and by changing the rules people are abusing the system. Dan and Steve are both able bodied men who can work and can't reproduce but now one of them gets to stay home and play house on everyone else's dime? What for? For their personal sense of inclusion and happiness? That's never a reason to have everyone else anti up.

If we open it up there, how come brothers and sisters who live together don't get the benefits? What about groups of people? What about singles? What if they need to stay home by themselves and have everyone else support them so they don't feel unhappy or excluded?

Since we are talking universal law here, I find viola's flawless use of logic to be applauded. I don't believe her feelings on the bible are germaine to a discussion of universal law. If it is a universal law, it is a universal law regardless of what the bible says. Where the universal law comes from is a question we could ask, but we are asking why the same-sex marriage experiement will not work, and not "why the bible says the same-sex marriage experiement will not work." There are enough biblically literate people here to share biblical perspectives. It is good to also hear cogent arguments that dont' rely on the bible.

My wife and I have no kids and can't reproduce. Are we abusing "the system?" If so, would you suggest we get a divorce and simply cohabitate? I think there is great advantage to society for us to stay married. We are a closer knit team, we are in it for the long haul, we are a part of something greater than ourselves; we feel more secure in our relationship and make better decisions than if we didn't have this bond. In the states we've lived in, because we are married we are legally responsible for one another's money - all of our money is communal between us by law... it means we are forced to be accountable to at least one other person in this world. Statistically speaking, married couples feel healthier and live longer healthier lives than those who simply cohabitate. Since we are married, if one of us goes to the hospital and becomes incapacitated the spouse automatically has the a privileged right to visitation and treatment decisions. If one of us dies, the other automatically receives inheritance if there's no will (and in some states, even if there is a will, the right of the spouse to inherit can superceed the will). Pension plans, social security and medicare (three programs my spouse and I have paid our fair share to since we began working) benefits for each other.

This is something everyone should do. Find someone you love and get a lawfully protected, government approved, union with them.

[Guest]

Just to clarify something that was discussed briefly but is off topic, I don't think there is a marriage penalty as such. Unless I am mistaken, there is a personal deduction for each spouse, and that is a tax break on that return. Where the 'penalty' comes in, is that as a married couple, you are a single financial entity. If husband earns 25k and wife earns 25k, they pay the tax rate on 50k, and that is where they get stung.

However if one person is earning 50k, and the other is earning nothing, they will pay slightly less as a couple that they would separately. It is not therefore a penalty for being married, it is the effect of a progessive tax structure, that punishes those with higher incomes. Actually, I beleive the married scenario can work greatly to there advantage (again, if I am not mistaken).

It might be that if one of the two makes a lot of money, say $250k while the other makes $30k, that the tax rate is made so that while the married couple will pay taxes on $270k, it will be adjusted as though they are making $140k each, and that would drop the tax bracket down more on the higher income, than it raises it on the lower income.

If I am mistaken, correct me (or not) and I will take you word for it.

Back to your program already in progress.

[Arthur Durnan]

Bottom-line: Simply because something may be thot to "work" doesn't mean it is within the permissive will of the Creator-God. And, of course, the terms "gay" (ask Truman Capote!) and "same-sex" invented by the UltraLibDem news media Elite are neither strong enuf nor precise enuf for this particular observer, ie, homosexual & homosexuality are the correct & fully explanatory terms re those who would decry the revealed law of God "from the beginning" (Matthew 19:4). And too, if "homosexual shacking-up," why in the interest of logical consistency denounce incest, pedophilia, necrophilia or polygamy? If two men, why not four men? If two men, why not two men & two boys? Homosexuals in all reality continue to nurse their inane rebellion against Judeo-Christianity into a galloping paralysis. Talk about social & moral Dunkirks! Bubble-gum mentality rides again....and falls off!