what's different? It's a legal union between two people... I guess this is where I'm missing it, I guess I've already been brainwashed over the years to think of it as something between two people...
It was always a male/female union ... usually with family. Even the judge agreed. Come on Tom ... Marriage was not homosexual until recently. This is clearly new ...
again... I said "religion/religious" didn't single out "Christian"... what new meaning??? It was a union between two people before and it still is.
What has happened, essentially, is they've taken gender out of the term, really doesn't change the meaning of the term.
If they take gender out, that does change the meaning. This seems a silly argument, to say marriage has always included homosexuals. Perhaps legally one could somehow claim that ... but culturally it seems clearly not the case.
How many homosexual folks do you know?
I don't really hang out with any, but have been acquainted with and worked with quite a few folks who are of that persuasion. I find them to not really be much different than heterosexual folks in that there are good, bad and ugly in their group. I found them to be nothing at all like they were portrayed to me in TWI and church while growing up.
I knew a lot in New Orleans. Two older lesbians ladies lived in the apartment below me ... a guy played on my coed quads team for a few years (yes he counted as a guy ) for several years. His live in partner hung out at times :o ... (they moved to Houston after they both got shot by some young black kid right outside their home .. an 11th corps guy also got shot in that area I think, was ok) And many in the little volleyball community were gay. But most of my closer friends were not homosexual.
Between my little volleyball bar and the bigger place where I spent a lot of time ... was David Duke's district. Of course a big event for Mardi Gras morning is the gay parade in the residential part of the French Quarter. It is quite a mix.
I don't know any homosexual parents or couples with kids. It may be that the few that want to actually take on children would be more devoted than others, I'm not sure. How important is a male and female role ... I don't know. This is a social experiment.
Clearly, there are few here who should of stayed under Martidales regime, he would of straigtened out there butts!!
just jokin..
Rhino- I am enjoying your post..thxs.
hey likeaneagle ... :)
yeah ... homo purge over the world ... ha
It seems a few vocal lefties want to change hundreds of years of "tradition" on a whim. Some traditons have worked for a reason.
Those other countries and other times Tom mentioned ... those are places where radical ideas took hold ... is the man/woman/family idea really some seditious religious radical thought? I think the radical left agenda is more scary.
The oh so much more informed left is sure homosexuality is genetic ... yet the only proof I ever saw was akin to proving two plus two equals five. Homosexuals tend to not reproduce ... how does that genetic trait continue?
Lotsa weird stuff happens in the first few years that can have life long effects. Those things seems more likely ... but genetics may have some play ... But because they are the left ... one is bigoted or homophobic to disagree. Republicans are supposedly the party of the rich, yet now they are also supposedly also the party of the stupid ... more incongruity ...
Oh well ... we are just chattin' ... good to hear how other (crazy) people think. :)
and just to be clear, I'm not arguing that "marriage always included homosexuals"... I'm arguing that "marriage always included people"
anyway.... what time is Spurs/Lakers on tonight?
(oh yeah, is it OK to store Chardonnay in the garage? or do I have to bring it inside to the air conditioning?)
it always included opposite sex people ...
why are there no women on those teams ... it must be those bigoted religious people ... and why are so many black ... must be some racist thing
I don't know about storing wine ... except people have climate controlled wine cellars ... must be a reason. I (and everyone) add sulfur to kill the yeast and other stuff before bottling, so I don't know what process happens in warmer conditions ... but big reds are better over years ... kept in the wine cellar. Don't boil your wine in a TX garage.
If that is true, I'd assume they would still not qualify.
But instead of granting any partner benefits for homosexual couples, I'd prefer they take all benefits from all spouses .. unless perhaps if they have kids. A society needs to reproduce itself ... so I maybe would accept an advantage for marriages that have children ... maybe. I already pay a lot in property taxes that goes largely to the schools.
But I don't see why a married person working a job should get greater benefits than a single person.
I am still waiting for someone (perhaps you because you keep bringing it up) to tell what the great tax breaks are. I'm married and I am not getting any tax breaks for it. In fact, I pay more now than I did when I was single.
As far as work benefits go, most companies can choose whether or not they wish to provide coverage for an individual only or if they wish to include spouse and children. Where I work, they would pay for my insurance and I would pay the difference (nearly $1,000 per month) to add my husband and children. Thankfully, where Sushi works, the cost to him to put the boys and I on his policy is only about $100 per month.
Property taxes are usually someone tied the the value of the home and has nothing to do with whether or not the owner is married or single.
So again, where is this great tax break??
And, FWIW, I would bet money that the vast majority of people who are opposed to homosexual marriages are opposed to it based on religious beliefs. Thus, they wish to impose their beliefs on other people.
One more thing . . .
I suspect in the long run, it benefits the employer to provide coverage for the whole family when it is possible (i.e. larger companies can get better group rates so it is more affordable to them than to a smaller company).
If an employee is able to maintain their health and the health of their family through regular check ups, to have the peace of mind of knowing their healthcare needs are taken care of, etc., then the employee will probably be more motivated and productive.
An employee whose job does not cover basic needs is not going to be motivated or well focused on their job.
I am still waiting for someone (perhaps you because you keep bringing it up) to tell what the great tax breaks are. I'm married and I am not getting any tax breaks for it. In fact, I pay more now than I did when I was single.
well i don't know why that is ... you get a tax credit for dependents ... perhaps that is less if there are two of you now ... I don't know all the married tax breaks, I think they exist ... that is why there are marriages of convenience ...
As far as work benefits go, most companies can choose whether or not they wish to provide coverage for an individual only or if they wish to include spouse and children. Where I work, they would pay for my insurance and I would pay the difference (nearly $1,000 per month) to add my husband and children. Thankfully, where Sushi works, the cost to him to put the boys and I on his policy is only about $100 per month.
the breaks waysider mentioned seemed clear enough ... and putting two kids on for $100/month ... is that just a quantity discount? I don't know ... what are the benefits the California gay couples demanded? There really are none?
Property taxes are usually someone tied the the value of the home and has nothing to do with whether or not the owner is married or single.
Right, everyone pays for the kids' education. So that is a break for those with kids, which is what i said. Otherwise, people with kids would pay maybe double or triple what they do now.
And, FWIW, I would bet money that the vast majority of people who are opposed to homosexual marriages are opposed to it based on religious beliefs. Thus, they wish to impose their beliefs on other people.
Murder has always been a crime ... is that belief imposed on other people? If the marriage definition was an imposition, it occurred hundreds of years ago. The CHANGE is occurring now. I'm opposed to changing the meaning of the word marriage to acomodate a few radical lefties ... this is not based on my religion.
I suspect in the long run, it benefits the employer to provide coverage for the whole family when it is possible (i.e. larger companies can get better group rates so it is more affordable to them than to a smaller company).
If an employee is able to maintain their health and the health of their family through regular check ups, to have the peace of mind of knowing their healthcare needs are taken care of, etc., then the employee will probably be more motivated and productive.
An employee whose job does not cover basic needs is not going to be motivated or well focused on their job.
If it is a perk provided for the married person that the single person does not get ... shouldn't the single person be compensated ... then he would also perform better.
comparing murder and marriage? c'mon Rhino... murder is killin' someone... and while some may say marriage does as well, it's rarely literally murder.
I guess my big question is: what difference does it really make to anyone else if a couple of humans want to get married? ...regardless of whether they're the same gender or different, what difference does it make?
Actually, I think there is a Federal income tax break for one who files "single, head of household"...While that status can and does provide tax relief for single moms and such, it can also serve to discourage some people from getting married...
I think the issue about marriage is more about social security benifits, rights of survivorship and things like insurance coverage...I don't know if the federal social security program would recognize survivor benifits in a marriage that was allowed in certain states but not in others...If California is a community property state, then a gay spouse would have the same rights of survivorship---such as inheritances--as man and wife...For health insurance coverage, I pointed out earlier in the thread that most likely, gay couples who are now living together will have to get married to qualify for spousal health coverage...
I kind of think when all the dust clears, that not too many changes are going to take place in the world as we know it because of the California ruling...My community is rapidly becoming the artsy-fartsy district, and I know plenty enough gays to know their lifestyle is not all seashells and balloons...They can be just as prone to bitch-slap their lover as anybody else; just as afraid to make a commitment as the next guy...I don't know if they're all going to run down to the courthouse and get married and procure babies just because they could...
I didnt manage to read ALL the previous posts, but I read many of them and Id like to put in my two cents
I do NOT hate gay people, I feel they also should be loved with the love of God!
BUT I think if you asked Jesus he would say to practice self discipline and not sin, cause people in this day and age tend to be so self indulgent that they seek any pleasure they can imagine, but I dont think Jesus would endorse Gay activity so therefore I dont recommend it to people either, for the sake of their good standing with God, and for the most part Gays are very loving people so they probly would otherwise make great loving Christians...
I used to work for a company that gave me a bonus for NOT having health insurance.(about 1500/year)
Of course, I had to prove I was covered by my spouses plan. It wasn't designed to discourage people from having coverage, it was a perk they used to reward employees who saved them money. That $1500 most likely represented what they saved on administrative costs or something. The point is, it was a real benefit that would not have been made available to me had I not been married. Two single people "shackin' up", as we used to say, or two gay people, could not take advantage of that perk based solely on a technicality. It's an isolated example, I agree, but it's still a perk that I would not have had if I weren't legally married.
BTW--The only tax breaks I have seen from being married came by virtue of declaring dependent children as a deduction.
Other than that, it seems like the tax rate is actually higher. I'm no tax wiz, that's for sure. That's just a casual observation.
comparing murder and marriage? c'mon Rhino... murder is killin' someone... and while some may say marriage does as well, it's rarely literally murder.
I guess my big question is: what difference does it really make to anyone else if a couple of humans want to get married? ...regardless of whether they're the same gender or different, what difference does it make?
murder ... I think I was just saying not all laws are bad just because a religious person may think something is bad.
I'm not real sure what protections are offered to spouses by the laws connected to marriage. It seems it was originally more to protect a woman from a man that would leave his wife ... either after raising kids or being the home maker while he had his career, which was more traditional 80 years ago.
It seems the heart of the issue is why any partner needs "protection" that is provided by current marriage laws. If it has nothing to do with parents that bear and/or care for the children, then it seems homosexual couples should have the same protections.
In any case I don't see the need to change what "marriage" always has been to satisfy homosexual couples. If the same "protections" are offered, why change the term against the will of the majority? It seems a forced cultural change.
Anyway, as I said at first, this is really not a hot button issue for me ... I just enjoy the discussion.
Whether being married or not yields a tax penalty or a tax break, depends on several things. Are each of their incomes relatively equal or does one stay home without income. Do both have low incomes or both high incomes. Do they file jointly or separately.
For many, there is a tax-based DISincentive to get married, as I recall, especially with seniors. For a some people there is tax break mainly when one of the partners does not work. They get to claim two people's standard deduction against one person's income.
Regarding the deduction for children: that is the same whether you are married or not, gay or not. If you provide majority financial support for a child, you get a tax deduction. Of course it does not come close in most cases to the cost of raising children. Mind you, this is a deduction not a credit.
I do not know what Rhino's definition of 'marriage of convenience' is, but I have not heard it as being based on tax consequences. Usually it describes a marriage where one or the other (or both) parties marry or remain married for social benefit. Occasionally it means that one of the two marry for the convenience of the other's money. I think that was one of those replies Rhino described he gives "off the cuff and in the manner of a barroom discussion", meaning he does not think them out much I think is how he described it)
The main tax issues for marriage, as I understand it, is the right of surivorship benefits for SS as I and several others have said.
Marriage of convenience ... I think of that movie "Green Card"
I think a divorced spouse gets half the social security of his divorced spouse, if it was more than his? But they may have to be married for 10 years. It seems there can be health care benefits that favor a spouse on many jobs. But I was saying no couples should get tax breaks or extra benefits, unless perhaps it is for children.
Anyway ... "legal protections" were mentioned at the outset. I still haven't seen those listed exactly.
the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.
I know this was not legal and perhaps even an abomination, but in my many years in the restaurant industry we used to marry ketchup bottles. I know, asexual marriage... the worst kind. I might go to hell for it but the reality is many things have been married other than a man to a woman. This sort of marriage has been in our dictionaries for a long time, perhaps since before my time, but I doubt there was a huge social argument that took place when the dictionaries changed. I guess no one disagreed with the lifestyles led by condiments. FOR SHAME!
Speaking of tradition and historical definitions, has anyone looked up the etymology of the word?
Here ya go, from wiktionary.com:
Middle English mariage, from Old French mariage, from marier “to marry”, from Latin maritare “to marry”, literally “give a husband to”, from maritus “married man, husband”, derived probably from Proto-Indo-European *mari-, perhaps a feminine stem of *mer-yo- “young man or young woman” (hence *mari-to- “given a wife”), if not somehow connected with mas “male” (stem mar-).
It seems at one point marriage had more of a single sex definition.
Speaking of Ketchup...
Did you know that the word comes from the Chinese? They had a sause of pickled fish and spices (but no tomatoes) and they called it ke-tsiap. Within a decade of it's invention British explorers had tasted it in Malaysia. Within forty years it was a regular on the tables of the Brits, renamed as ketchup. One hundred years after it's invention in the late 1700s, New England colonists threw some tomatoes into the mix, a fruit long thought to have been poisonous, and our version of ketchup was born! "Whaaaaat?", you say, "they changed the sauce, but kept the same name?" Yep. And now unbeknownst to restauranteurs around the world people are eating married ketchup on their hamburgers, hotdogs, fries, and ,in some of the finer establishments, on their steaks. It IS an abomination!
Somewhere in between the ketchup and heterosexuals the homosexual marriage fits without breaking any syntactic rules.
Speaking of religious bigotry... well not really.
In the bible, if my memory serves me correctly, the "bride of Christ" was the Church. As I understood it the relationship between the Church and Jesus was like a betrothal, hinting at a future "marriage" when he returns. Nothing about sexuality there, yet the metaphor communicates rather clearly... a union.
I think when you look back at some of the words used in this thread, some of the comparisons used, it is pretty clear what this is about. The definition argument is just the best thing one can come up with to make it not sound like they just don't like homosexuals or their "lifestyle" or that they think it is a sin. These views don't hold up to well in a social debate in a free country so the fundamentalist definition argument is what we get. I think any one not of that opinion can see that very clearly.
It seems at one point marriage had more of a single sex definition.
There were a lot of "perhaps" in that word history ... and that was old english ... what is being voted on is American history and current majority opinion. I am a little surprised the constitution of CA can be changed with a simple majority, if that is correct.
Speaking of Ketchup...
so ketchup got voted in, big deal ... I some some show with a restaurant where ketchup was not allowed .... damn the bigots ...
In the bible, if my memory serves me correctly, the "bride of Christ" was the Church. As I understood it the relationship between the Church and Jesus was like a betrothal, hinting at a future "marriage" when he returns. Nothing about sexuality there, yet the metaphor communicates rather clearly... a union.
There is certainly something about sex ... I think this says the opposite of what you are trying to make it say. The "metaphor", or whatever it is ... compares the relationship of Christ to the church (Israel?) with a man married to a woman. Or are you saying bride is gender neutral? Or that Christ is gender neutral? The point of comparison is the oneness as in a marriage ... I don't see how you can say a bride is referring to a man.
I think when you look back at some of the words used in this thread, some of the comparisons used, it is pretty clear what this is about. The definition argument is just the best thing one can come up with to make it not sound like they just don't like homosexuals or their "lifestyle" or that they think it is a sin. These views don't hold up to well in a social debate in a free country so the fundamentalist definition argument is what we get. I think any one not of that opinion can see that very clearly.
Growing up (or even now?) if a man woman said they were married, didn't you assume it was to the opposite sex? That is what marriage was ... for all of US history probably, till recently. There is nothing fundamentalist about it ... that is the way it was for everyone. You seem to be trying too hard to tag people you disagree with with a label .. bigots, homophobes, racists .... didn't we already cover this name calling thing earlier?
You really want to "god damn CA" because you don't agree with the voters ... they seem to want to bring it to a vote ... and they will be abiding by the judges ruling ... decent and in order ... you want to damn CA for that process proceeding?
Not in CA. I got divorced here. Soc sec was left undivided although other investments (401K etc) were divided. Med care for children was also divided equally - she was on her own. I paid it out of my paycheck for the kids but it was a "shared expense." I don't know about any other state (been married only once and gonna be divorced only once). But since this is a "God Bless CA" post I thought I would pass that on.
Regards,
RR
I think a divorced spouse gets half the social security of his divorced spouse, if it was more than his? But they may have to be married for 10 years. It seems there can be health care benefits that favor a spouse on many jobs.
There were a lot of "perhaps" in that word history ... and that was old english ... what is being voted on is American history and current majority opinion.
The "perhaps" came after the part that made my point, "from Latin maritare 'to marry', literally 'give a husband to', from maritus 'married man, husband'." The point is language evolves as things evolve. I think the vote and constitutionality etc was covered early on in this thread... and the process continues.
so ketchup got voted in, big deal ... I some some show with a restaurant where ketchup was not allowed .... damn the bigots ...
The point again was language evolves and it was apart of the first point in my last post. That was that the word already evolved at some point in the past.
Or are you saying bride is gender neutral?
Sort of. Gender isn't important in the metaphor. The point is the union. I don't expect the book in which "sodomy" comes from to reference gay marriage, but the metaphor is about the union, not about JC being male and all of us making up the church being female. The language reflects the time, the metaphor and analogy and point of the metaphor transcends sexuality and typical marriage.
Growing up (or even now?) if a man woman said they were married, didn't you assume it was to the opposite sex? That is what marriage was ... for all of US history probably, till recently.
Growing up I didn't know a thing about homosexuality and in my later childhood years while I was in a cult and I acted as a homophobe or just a hater of homos. Now when I see a person with a ring on their finger I assume they are married. If I have never met them before I don't assume anything about their sexuality, although, I figure it is more likely that they are hetero since you can only get married in two (?) states in the US. Still some gay people have marriages or unions outside of the legal world and they too wear rings as a sign of their commitment. So I don't assume. You know what ASSuming does.
There is nothing fundamentalist about it ... that is the way it was for everyone. You seem to be trying too hard to tag people you disagree with with a label .. bigots, homophobes, racists .... didn't we already cover this name calling thing earlier?
LOL "There is nothing fundamentalist about this.. it's the way it's always been." lol that is funny. You have no problem with homosexuality? You think their lifestyle is perfectly fine? You are perfectly comfortable with them? Your only problem with this is that Californians voted against something you also share a semantic issue with and you're upset the judges performed their constitutional duties and came to a different conclusion than you did? This is strictly a semantic issue for you?
You really want to "god damn CA" because you don't agree with the voters ... they seem to want to bring it to a vote ... and they will be abiding by the judges ruling ... decent and in order ... you want to damn CA for that process proceeding?
My wit is lost on you once again. Sorry. I don't want to damn the voters of CA, but it seems some on this thread want to damn the state or the judges. Have you missed comments on this thread like this: "go ahead and have a party over this legal decision if you want... but don't expect God to bless california because of it!"
So the legal language has been man and woman forever. So what. Things have changed. Some of you don't like it, maybe the majority of people don't like it. That also does not matter if the majority of the people's vote is unconstitutional. Why was the language the way it was? Were you expecting the same states that outlawed sodomy and/or homosexual sexual behavior, to make the definitions of marriage to be vague enough to allow them to marry, as long as they don't have sex? And why were those "sodomy" laws in the books in the first place? A risk to civil society? Back then it was considered ok to infringe on private acts? Religious bigotry? Think hard. All of those laws have been struck down. And now I'm supposed to assume everyone's problem with this is semantics?
The "perhaps" came after the part that made my point, "from Latin maritare 'to marry', literally 'give a husband to', from maritus 'married man, husband'." The point is language evolves as things evolve. I think the vote and constitutionality etc was covered early on in this thread... and the process continues.
Sure, words may change over hundreds of years. But you are treating this like first usage in the bible or something. The usage in our culture is the issue, not first usage 700 years ago, or whenever.
Sort of. Gender isn't important in the metaphor. The point is the union. I don't expect the book in which "sodomy" comes from to reference gay marriage, but the metaphor is about the union, not about JC being male and all of us making up the church being female.
Strike two.
The comparison is of one thing to another ... even if the point is just the union ....the spiritual is compared to a real thing that has meaning. The real thing is bride and groom ... female and male. People understood that.
In trying to squeeze your own meaning out of it, you blind yourself to the obvious.
Growing up I didn't know a thing about homosexuality and in my later childhood years while I was in a cult and I acted as a homophobe or just a hater of homos.
OK so you have an image of Christians being homophobes .... maybe you are projecting that on everyone that does not want a change in terminology.
LOL "There is nothing fundamentalist about this.. it's the way it's always been." lol that is funny. You have no problem with homosexuality? You think their lifestyle is perfectly fine? You are perfectly comfortable with them? Your only problem with this is that Californians voted against something you also share a semantic issue with and you're upset the judges performed their constitutional duties and came to a different conclusion than you did? This is strictly a semantic issue for you?
You said
These views don't hold up to well in a social debate in a free country so
the fundamentalist definition
argument is what we get."
I'm saying the definition is not a fundamentalist definition ... it is the definition everyone in the US used 40 years ago, whether they had a problem with homosexuality or not. It is still the established definition. To make the legal change seems an imposition.
My wit is lost on you once again. Sorry. I don't want to damn the voters of CA, but it seems some on this thread want to damn the state or the judges. Have you missed comments on this thread like this: "go ahead and have a party over this legal decision if you want... but don't expect God to bless california because of it!"
NIKA started the thread and titled it "God Bless California". So there was perhaps some irony that her God would be different than the traditions of Christianity. I don't accept the Bible's standards on many things, but it would not be surprising that many here still do. I can't see that the God of the Bible would bless a broader acceptance of the act of homosexuality.
So someone said God would not bless California for this change ... but you saw that as them saying God damn America.
Of the other things NIKA noted that "we" had wrong ... (adultery, abortion, women as second-class people) it is interesting that two of those hold more to the traditional Christian values, women as second class compares to the judge saying homosexuals were treated as second class if they were not treated equally in marriage law.
Certainly TWI did not treat women fairly ... some more misogynist parts of the new testament are questioned as to validity ... I don't know of the real standard for treatment of women according to current Christianity. There is probably more importance put on the mother role than there is in the homosexual union.
But NIKA was basically saying "God Bless the acceptance of homosexuality" ... so it would be little surprise that many that still believe the Bible would disagree with that. Yet no one said God Damn America ... and to compare them to Rev. Wright only seems half witty.
So the legal language has been man and woman forever. So what. Things have changed. Some of you don't like it, maybe the majority of people don't like it. That also does not matter if the majority of the people's vote is unconstitutional.
This is different than a sodomy law ... it does nothing to interfere with what goes on in the bedroom. This is about changing the definition of marriage. You say things have changed ... in November we will see how much they have changed.
If they change the constitution, their decision will not be judged unconstitutional. But 3 of 7 judges disagreed with the current decision, as well as a majority of citizens it would seem.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
rhino
It was always a male/female union ... usually with family. Even the judge agreed. Come on Tom ... Marriage was not homosexual until recently. This is clearly new ...
If they take gender out, that does change the meaning. This seems a silly argument, to say marriage has always included homosexuals. Perhaps legally one could somehow claim that ... but culturally it seems clearly not the case.
I knew a lot in New Orleans. Two older lesbians ladies lived in the apartment below me ... a guy played on my coed quads team for a few years (yes he counted as a guy
) for several years. His live in partner hung out at times :o ... (they moved to Houston after they both got shot by some young black kid right outside their home .. an 11th corps guy also got shot in that area I think, was ok) And many in the little volleyball community were gay. But most of my closer friends were not homosexual.
Between my little volleyball bar and the bigger place where I spent a lot of time ... was David Duke's district. Of course a big event for Mardi Gras morning is the gay parade in the residential part of the French Quarter. It is quite a mix.
I don't know any homosexual parents or couples with kids. It may be that the few that want to actually take on children would be more devoted than others, I'm not sure. How important is a male and female role ... I don't know. This is a social experiment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
agreed, it is a social experiment... for that matter, I guess "life" is...
and just to be clear, I'm not arguing that "marriage always included homosexuals"... I'm arguing that "marriage always included people"
anyway.... what time is Spurs/Lakers on tonight?
(oh yeah, is it OK to store Chardonnay in the garage? or do I have to bring it inside to the air conditioning?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
hey likeaneagle ... :)
yeah ... homo purge over the world ... ha
It seems a few vocal lefties want to change hundreds of years of "tradition" on a whim. Some traditons have worked for a reason.
Those other countries and other times Tom mentioned ... those are places where radical ideas took hold ... is the man/woman/family idea really some seditious religious radical thought? I think the radical left agenda is more scary.
The oh so much more informed left is sure homosexuality is genetic ... yet the only proof I ever saw was akin to proving two plus two equals five. Homosexuals tend to not reproduce ... how does that genetic trait continue?
Lotsa weird stuff happens in the first few years that can have life long effects. Those things seems more likely ... but genetics may have some play ... But because they are the left ... one is bigoted or homophobic to disagree. Republicans are supposedly the party of the rich, yet now they are also supposedly also the party of the stupid ... more incongruity ...
Oh well ... we are just chattin' ... good to hear how other (crazy) people think. :)
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
it always included opposite sex people ...
why are there no women on those teams ... it must be those bigoted religious people ... and why are so many black ... must be some racist thing
I don't know about storing wine ... except people have climate controlled wine cellars ... must be a reason. I (and everyone) add sulfur to kill the yeast and other stuff before bottling, so I don't know what process happens in warmer conditions ... but big reds are better over years ... kept in the wine cellar. Don't boil your wine in a TX garage.
It's a wonderful life
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I am still waiting for someone (perhaps you because you keep bringing it up) to tell what the great tax breaks are. I'm married and I am not getting any tax breaks for it. In fact, I pay more now than I did when I was single.
As far as work benefits go, most companies can choose whether or not they wish to provide coverage for an individual only or if they wish to include spouse and children. Where I work, they would pay for my insurance and I would pay the difference (nearly $1,000 per month) to add my husband and children. Thankfully, where Sushi works, the cost to him to put the boys and I on his policy is only about $100 per month.
Property taxes are usually someone tied the the value of the home and has nothing to do with whether or not the owner is married or single.
So again, where is this great tax break??
And, FWIW, I would bet money that the vast majority of people who are opposed to homosexual marriages are opposed to it based on religious beliefs. Thus, they wish to impose their beliefs on other people.
One more thing . . .
I suspect in the long run, it benefits the employer to provide coverage for the whole family when it is possible (i.e. larger companies can get better group rates so it is more affordable to them than to a smaller company).
If an employee is able to maintain their health and the health of their family through regular check ups, to have the peace of mind of knowing their healthcare needs are taken care of, etc., then the employee will probably be more motivated and productive.
An employee whose job does not cover basic needs is not going to be motivated or well focused on their job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
well i don't know why that is ... you get a tax credit for dependents ... perhaps that is less if there are two of you now ... I don't know all the married tax breaks, I think they exist ... that is why there are marriages of convenience ...
the breaks waysider mentioned seemed clear enough ... and putting two kids on for $100/month ... is that just a quantity discount? I don't know ... what are the benefits the California gay couples demanded? There really are none?Right, everyone pays for the kids' education. So that is a break for those with kids, which is what i said. Otherwise, people with kids would pay maybe double or triple what they do now.
Murder has always been a crime ... is that belief imposed on other people? If the marriage definition was an imposition, it occurred hundreds of years ago. The CHANGE is occurring now. I'm opposed to changing the meaning of the word marriage to acomodate a few radical lefties ... this is not based on my religion.If it is a perk provided for the married person that the single person does not get ... shouldn't the single person be compensated ... then he would also perform better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
comparing murder and marriage? c'mon Rhino... murder is killin' someone... and while some may say marriage does as well, it's rarely literally murder.
I guess my big question is: what difference does it really make to anyone else if a couple of humans want to get married? ...regardless of whether they're the same gender or different, what difference does it make?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Actually, I think there is a Federal income tax break for one who files "single, head of household"...While that status can and does provide tax relief for single moms and such, it can also serve to discourage some people from getting married...
I think the issue about marriage is more about social security benifits, rights of survivorship and things like insurance coverage...I don't know if the federal social security program would recognize survivor benifits in a marriage that was allowed in certain states but not in others...If California is a community property state, then a gay spouse would have the same rights of survivorship---such as inheritances--as man and wife...For health insurance coverage, I pointed out earlier in the thread that most likely, gay couples who are now living together will have to get married to qualify for spousal health coverage...
I kind of think when all the dust clears, that not too many changes are going to take place in the world as we know it because of the California ruling...My community is rapidly becoming the artsy-fartsy district, and I know plenty enough gays to know their lifestyle is not all seashells and balloons...They can be just as prone to bitch-slap their lover as anybody else; just as afraid to make a commitment as the next guy...I don't know if they're all going to run down to the courthouse and get married and procure babies just because they could...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steveo
I didnt manage to read ALL the previous posts, but I read many of them and Id like to put in my two cents
I do NOT hate gay people, I feel they also should be loved with the love of God!
BUT I think if you asked Jesus he would say to practice self discipline and not sin, cause people in this day and age tend to be so self indulgent that they seek any pleasure they can imagine, but I dont think Jesus would endorse Gay activity so therefore I dont recommend it to people either, for the sake of their good standing with God, and for the most part Gays are very loving people so they probly would otherwise make great loving Christians...
Edited by SteveoLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I used to work for a company that gave me a bonus for NOT having health insurance.(about 1500/year)
Of course, I had to prove I was covered by my spouses plan. It wasn't designed to discourage people from having coverage, it was a perk they used to reward employees who saved them money. That $1500 most likely represented what they saved on administrative costs or something. The point is, it was a real benefit that would not have been made available to me had I not been married. Two single people "shackin' up", as we used to say, or two gay people, could not take advantage of that perk based solely on a technicality. It's an isolated example, I agree, but it's still a perk that I would not have had if I weren't legally married.
BTW--The only tax breaks I have seen from being married came by virtue of declaring dependent children as a deduction.
Other than that, it seems like the tax rate is actually higher. I'm no tax wiz, that's for sure. That's just a casual observation.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
murder ... I think I was just saying not all laws are bad just because a religious person may think something is bad.
I'm not real sure what protections are offered to spouses by the laws connected to marriage. It seems it was originally more to protect a woman from a man that would leave his wife ... either after raising kids or being the home maker while he had his career, which was more traditional 80 years ago.
It seems the heart of the issue is why any partner needs "protection" that is provided by current marriage laws. If it has nothing to do with parents that bear and/or care for the children, then it seems homosexual couples should have the same protections.
In any case I don't see the need to change what "marriage" always has been to satisfy homosexual couples. If the same "protections" are offered, why change the term against the will of the majority? It seems a forced cultural change.
Anyway, as I said at first, this is really not a hot button issue for me ... I just enjoy the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FzrTIGJkdw&hl=en"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FzrTIGJkdw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FzrTIGJkdw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
heres a wedding song
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
From what I know about the subject of taxes:
Whether being married or not yields a tax penalty or a tax break, depends on several things. Are each of their incomes relatively equal or does one stay home without income. Do both have low incomes or both high incomes. Do they file jointly or separately.
For many, there is a tax-based DISincentive to get married, as I recall, especially with seniors. For a some people there is tax break mainly when one of the partners does not work. They get to claim two people's standard deduction against one person's income.
Regarding the deduction for children: that is the same whether you are married or not, gay or not. If you provide majority financial support for a child, you get a tax deduction. Of course it does not come close in most cases to the cost of raising children. Mind you, this is a deduction not a credit.
I do not know what Rhino's definition of 'marriage of convenience' is, but I have not heard it as being based on tax consequences. Usually it describes a marriage where one or the other (or both) parties marry or remain married for social benefit. Occasionally it means that one of the two marry for the convenience of the other's money. I think that was one of those replies Rhino described he gives "off the cuff and in the manner of a barroom discussion", meaning he does not think them out much I think is how he described it)
The main tax issues for marriage, as I understand it, is the right of surivorship benefits for SS as I and several others have said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Marriage of convenience ... I think of that movie "Green Card"
I think a divorced spouse gets half the social security of his divorced spouse, if it was more than his? But they may have to be married for 10 years. It seems there can be health care benefits that favor a spouse on many jobs. But I was saying no couples should get tax breaks or extra benefits, unless perhaps it is for children.
Anyway ... "legal protections" were mentioned at the outset. I still haven't seen those listed exactly.
It seems this can be overturned by a vote in November.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I know this was not legal and perhaps even an abomination, but in my many years in the restaurant industry we used to marry ketchup bottles. I know, asexual marriage... the worst kind. I might go to hell for it but the reality is many things have been married other than a man to a woman. This sort of marriage has been in our dictionaries for a long time, perhaps since before my time, but I doubt there was a huge social argument that took place when the dictionaries changed. I guess no one disagreed with the lifestyles led by condiments. FOR SHAME!
Speaking of tradition and historical definitions, has anyone looked up the etymology of the word?
Here ya go, from wiktionary.com:
It seems at one point marriage had more of a single sex definition.
Speaking of Ketchup...
Did you know that the word comes from the Chinese? They had a sause of pickled fish and spices (but no tomatoes) and they called it ke-tsiap. Within a decade of it's invention British explorers had tasted it in Malaysia. Within forty years it was a regular on the tables of the Brits, renamed as ketchup. One hundred years after it's invention in the late 1700s, New England colonists threw some tomatoes into the mix, a fruit long thought to have been poisonous, and our version of ketchup was born! "Whaaaaat?", you say, "they changed the sauce, but kept the same name?" Yep. And now unbeknownst to restauranteurs around the world people are eating married ketchup on their hamburgers, hotdogs, fries, and ,in some of the finer establishments, on their steaks. It IS an abomination!
Somewhere in between the ketchup and heterosexuals the homosexual marriage fits without breaking any syntactic rules.
Speaking of religious bigotry... well not really.
In the bible, if my memory serves me correctly, the "bride of Christ" was the Church. As I understood it the relationship between the Church and Jesus was like a betrothal, hinting at a future "marriage" when he returns. Nothing about sexuality there, yet the metaphor communicates rather clearly... a union.
I think when you look back at some of the words used in this thread, some of the comparisons used, it is pretty clear what this is about. The definition argument is just the best thing one can come up with to make it not sound like they just don't like homosexuals or their "lifestyle" or that they think it is a sin. These views don't hold up to well in a social debate in a free country so the fundamentalist definition argument is what we get. I think any one not of that opinion can see that very clearly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
"NOT GOD BLESS CALIFORNIA! GOD DAMN CALIFORNIA! GOD DAMN CALIFORNIA!"
I keep hearing that in my head every time I come to this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ketchup Schmetchup! Leave my hot sauce alone and we'll get along just fine.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I'm with you on the hotsauce - no real use for ketchup
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
There were a lot of "perhaps" in that word history ... and that was old english ... what is being voted on is American history and current majority opinion. I am a little surprised the constitution of CA can be changed with a simple majority, if that is correct.
so ketchup got voted in, big deal ... I some some show with a restaurant where ketchup was not allowed .... damn the bigots ...There is certainly something about sex ... I think this says the opposite of what you are trying to make it say. The "metaphor", or whatever it is ... compares the relationship of Christ to the church (Israel?) with a man married to a woman. Or are you saying bride is gender neutral? Or that Christ is gender neutral? The point of comparison is the oneness as in a marriage ... I don't see how you can say a bride is referring to a man.
Growing up (or even now?) if a man woman said they were married, didn't you assume it was to the opposite sex? That is what marriage was ... for all of US history probably, till recently. There is nothing fundamentalist about it ... that is the way it was for everyone. You seem to be trying too hard to tag people you disagree with with a label .. bigots, homophobes, racists .... didn't we already cover this name calling thing earlier?
You really want to "god damn CA" because you don't agree with the voters ... they seem to want to bring it to a vote ... and they will be abiding by the judges ruling ... decent and in order ... you want to damn CA for that process proceeding?
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Not in CA. I got divorced here. Soc sec was left undivided although other investments (401K etc) were divided. Med care for children was also divided equally - she was on her own. I paid it out of my paycheck for the kids but it was a "shared expense." I don't know about any other state (been married only once and gonna be divorced only once). But since this is a "God Bless CA" post I thought I would pass that on.
Regards,
RR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I stated that poorly ... she would not get half yours, she would get half that amount from the government ...
This is just what I remember from an uncle ... she stayed over ten years which qualified her for better social security payments.
Nothing to do with what you put in being taken ... of course it is already taken by the fed gov anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
The point again was language evolves and it was apart of the first point in my last post. That was that the word already evolved at some point in the past.
Sort of. Gender isn't important in the metaphor. The point is the union. I don't expect the book in which "sodomy" comes from to reference gay marriage, but the metaphor is about the union, not about JC being male and all of us making up the church being female. The language reflects the time, the metaphor and analogy and point of the metaphor transcends sexuality and typical marriage.Growing up I didn't know a thing about homosexuality and in my later childhood years while I was in a cult and I acted as a homophobe or just a hater of homos. Now when I see a person with a ring on their finger I assume they are married. If I have never met them before I don't assume anything about their sexuality, although, I figure it is more likely that they are hetero since you can only get married in two (?) states in the US. Still some gay people have marriages or unions outside of the legal world and they too wear rings as a sign of their commitment. So I don't assume. You know what ASSuming does.
LOL "There is nothing fundamentalist about this.. it's the way it's always been." lol that is funny. You have no problem with homosexuality? You think their lifestyle is perfectly fine? You are perfectly comfortable with them? Your only problem with this is that Californians voted against something you also share a semantic issue with and you're upset the judges performed their constitutional duties and came to a different conclusion than you did? This is strictly a semantic issue for you?My wit is lost on you once again. Sorry. I don't want to damn the voters of CA, but it seems some on this thread want to damn the state or the judges. Have you missed comments on this thread like this: "go ahead and have a party over this legal decision if you want... but don't expect God to bless california because of it!"
So the legal language has been man and woman forever. So what. Things have changed. Some of you don't like it, maybe the majority of people don't like it. That also does not matter if the majority of the people's vote is unconstitutional. Why was the language the way it was? Were you expecting the same states that outlawed sodomy and/or homosexual sexual behavior, to make the definitions of marriage to be vague enough to allow them to marry, as long as they don't have sex? And why were those "sodomy" laws in the books in the first place? A risk to civil society? Back then it was considered ok to infringe on private acts? Religious bigotry? Think hard. All of those laws have been struck down. And now I'm supposed to assume everyone's problem with this is semantics?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Sure, words may change over hundreds of years. But you are treating this like first usage in the bible or something. The usage in our culture is the issue, not first usage 700 years ago, or whenever.
Strike two.The comparison is of one thing to another ... even if the point is just the union ....the spiritual is compared to a real thing that has meaning. The real thing is bride and groom ... female and male. People understood that.
In trying to squeeze your own meaning out of it, you blind yourself to the obvious.
OK so you have an image of Christians being homophobes .... maybe you are projecting that on everyone that does not want a change in terminology.
You saidI'm saying the definition is not a fundamentalist definition ... it is the definition everyone in the US used 40 years ago, whether they had a problem with homosexuality or not. It is still the established definition. To make the legal change seems an imposition.
NIKA started the thread and titled it "God Bless California". So there was perhaps some irony that her God would be different than the traditions of Christianity. I don't accept the Bible's standards on many things, but it would not be surprising that many here still do. I can't see that the God of the Bible would bless a broader acceptance of the act of homosexuality.
So someone said God would not bless California for this change ... but you saw that as them saying God damn America.
Of the other things NIKA noted that "we" had wrong ... (adultery, abortion, women as second-class people) it is interesting that two of those hold more to the traditional Christian values, women as second class compares to the judge saying homosexuals were treated as second class if they were not treated equally in marriage law.
Certainly TWI did not treat women fairly ... some more misogynist parts of the new testament are questioned as to validity ... I don't know of the real standard for treatment of women according to current Christianity. There is probably more importance put on the mother role than there is in the homosexual union.
But NIKA was basically saying "God Bless the acceptance of homosexuality" ... so it would be little surprise that many that still believe the Bible would disagree with that. Yet no one said God Damn America ... and to compare them to Rev. Wright only seems half witty.
This is different than a sodomy law ... it does nothing to interfere with what goes on in the bedroom. This is about changing the definition of marriage. You say things have changed ... in November we will see how much they have changed.
If they change the constitution, their decision will not be judged unconstitutional. But 3 of 7 judges disagreed with the current decision, as well as a majority of citizens it would seem.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.