Con_Alma;840543 wrote:I'm in. Phase it out. Create the equality being cried for.

Haha, our election chances are heading toward negative probability!

gut;840555 wrote:Haha, our election chances are heading toward negative probability!

I could never be elected. I don't tell folks what they want to hear.

I need to get something off my chest. I have been thinking about my actions through words, the last couple days.

I would like to issue an official apology to people on this thread. Im not doing this for attention, Im doing this, because I know the venom of my words. I let emotions get the best of me, and I violated my trust and credibility on here. I also know that I jeopardized my Faith, and those that share my Faith. My words I chose, not wisely I may add, were those of MY opinion, and not the opinion of people of my same Faith.

First- To FWK- I apologize for my lack of reasonable thinking, and debate. I allowed my head to speak, and not my heart. I allowed my emotions to overtake my fingers, and the words that I typed were not pleasant, nor constructive. To call someone out, like I did on the internet, was spineless and childish. For that, Im sorry. My intentions were not to offend, but, my actions led otherwise. I hope you can find room to forgive me, but, I also understand it is something that will happen with time, not an overnight decision.

Second- To those of whom I share a common Faith in- I apologize for my outburst. It was not God like in thinking or action, and I have thought about my choice of words. As someone said, it is people like me, that give the Christian Faith an already bad name, and for that I humbly am apathetic about.

To those in this thread that I may have offended, I truly am sorry. I have learned from this, and will be taking further precautions in the future, to make sure it does not happen again. I cant take back what I said, as it is on here in print, but, can only hope that I can be forgiven.

gut;840542 wrote:Yeah, and it is about the deductions and healthcare, to large extent. And I'm just saying, why do we have these benefits for married couples in the first place? It's arguably an antiquated incentive/hand-out that is not nearly as applicable in today's world of dual-income families. Not to mention, why do we need shared health benefits now that we have Obamakare?

Good lord you can't be on your partner's health insurance...Do what a single person does and get a job with coverage (or buy some), or even a married couple with no employer insurance and GO BUY SOME.

I'm sure that's being done, but gay couples like any other couple often times have situations where having the OPTION of going on the partner's insurance would save a lot of hassles and money. For instance, if they lose their job and benefits in a bad economy like we have now.

I agree that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business to begin with, but since it is, let's make it equitable.

Writerbuckeye;840593 wrote: I agree that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business to begin with, but since it is, let's make it equitable.

Agreed, but that's why I have a hard time getting behind it because it's not exactly "equitable" in the first place. No one will say it publicly, but it would be comical to see some bible thumper saying "right on, no rights, it's not the same...WHAT?!? you want to take away our deduction to make things equitable?!?" From joyous to riotous it would be quite the sight.

The more I think about it, those marriage benefits should be eliminated. I'm sure the thinking was, if one stays home to raise a family, then that's worth $30k or whatever they might otherwise reasonably earn. Empty-nesters and DINK's shouldn't get these benefits - eliminate it and increase the deduction for dependents.

Thank you, Coyotes. I accept your apology. When I posted this thread, I wanted to see what points of view would be given. I got more than I bargained for. Oh, well, it is a controversial subject and I should have expected this.

Kudos for the sincere apologies and gracious response - rare on the internetz.

I made a few jokes and probably wasn't clear, but my "opposition" is purely from a fiscal perspective (and it's the marriage deductions, in general). What's frustrating to me is I can't understand why people's rights having no real impact on those not affected by it must be such a divisive issue of focus. Top of my list is abortion which, without getting into the socioeconomic and other arguments, Roe v. Wade was over 35 years ago. While I oppose abortion as a "form" of birth control, c'mon it's over and done with - you lost let's move on.

gut;840777 wrote: Top of my list is abortion which, without getting into the socioeconomic and other arguments, Roe v. Wade was over 35 years ago. While I oppose abortion as a "form" of birth control, c'mon it's over and done with - you lost let's move on.

You know you really shouldn't have opened that can of worms . . .

Abortion, like other controversial moral/social hot-button issues, should have been (and should be) decided by the legislative branches of state governments- not a few justices cloistered in a room in DC.

If a state legislature decides they want to allow gay "marriage", then let them have it. However, other states should not be forced to recognize such unions if they choose not to (which was the basis of the Defense of Marriage Act).

jhay78;840850 wrote:You know you really shouldn't have opened that can of worms . . .

Abortion, like other controversial moral/social hot-button issues, should have been (and should be) decided by the legislative branches of state governments- not a few justices cloistered in a room in DC.

If a state legislature decides they want to allow gay "marriage", then let them have it. However, other states should not be forced to recognize such unions if they choose not to (which was the basis of the Defense of Marriage Act).

I agree with the logic, but in practice it doesn't make a lot of sense because it's so easy to cross state borders and it just seems silly to me that one state recognizes a gay marriage and it's null & void in another. To have, say, abortion legal in one state and not another is idiotic and pointless, or even with it legal in Canada and other countries (which then becomes a socioeconomic and perhaps health issue). And when issues of federal tax are involved, it makes even less sense.

jhay78;840850 wrote:You know you really shouldn't have opened that can of worms . . .

Abortion, like other controversial moral/social hot-button issues, should have been (and should be) decided by the Woman having it. not a few justices cloistered in a room in DC.

There.. I feel much better

Has it occurred to anyone on this place that marriage is religious as it pertains to faith and a civil contact as it pertains to the state?

I thought you tea baggin righties wanted the government the hell out of your personal affairs?

Oh... and Coyotes...... that apology was...... er...... uhm......... It was gay

Thread Bomber;841020 wrote:Oh... and Coyotes...... that apology was...... er...... uhm......... It was gay

I'm gay and I didn't see it that way.

Thread Bomber;841014 wrote:There.. I feel much better

Not necessarily depending on what is socially and morally acceptable in the given society.

Let me ask you this, if science tomorrow proved that it was a life at the first heartbeat would you still feel this way or would you call abortion murder?

Society would call it murder.

Thread Bomber;841018 wrote:Has it occurred to anyone on this place that marriage is religious as it pertains to faith and a civil contact as it pertains to the state?

I thought you tea baggin righties wanted the government the hell out of your personal affairs?

Actually if you would read the posts you would find that most of us conservatives do believe the government shoukd be out of the marriage business.

gut;840777 wrote:Top of my list is abortion which, without getting into the socioeconomic and other arguments, Roe v. Wade was over 35 years ago. While I oppose abortion as a "form" of birth control, c'mon it's over and done with - you lost let's move on.

I am glad many other past Americans did not have this attitude. The SCOTUS has got it wrong many times before. Thankfully many did not just lie down in defeat. Dred Scott v. Sanford you lost let's move on? Well many Americans didn't move on. This one came to blows. Around 625,000 Americans perished because they could not move on any longer.

Plessy v. Ferguson took 58yrs to be overturned semi peacefully with Brown v. Board of Education. It did not come to all out war but many perished not excepting their loss back in 1896. Thankfully they did not give up after 35yrs and accept their plight.

majorspark;841231 wrote:I am glad many other past Americans did not have this attitude.

Well, now you get into the question of practicality, and it's not practical or wise to pass such a law when people can go to the next state or to Canada. What does such a law accomplish? The smug feeling of morality while you cause a minor inconvenience to go somewhere else?

Why go to Canada to get married? Those rights don't transfer to the U.S. except in a handful of states. I know a lesbian couple who could have gotten married years ago in the Netherlands because one partner is Dutch. They said it wasn't worth the bother since they would not be regarded as married here in Seattle.

And on another point, relocating is not a "minor inconvenience." Some people simply can't do it.

gut;840913 wrote:I agree with the logic, but in practice it doesn't make a lot of sense because it's so easy to cross state borders and it just seems silly to me that one state recognizes a gay marriage and it's null & void in another. To have, say, abortion legal in one state and not another is idiotic and pointless, or even with it legal in Canada and other countries (which then becomes a socioeconomic and perhaps health issue). And when issues of federal tax are involved, it makes even less sense.

You are making an argument for centralized government in the US. One that regulates the affairs of 300+ million people. Why? Because it does not make sense to take your business across state lines because they have different laws and you can subvert the laws in your state. Your an economic guy (one who I agree with most of the time on this issue). So lets apply this logic to economics. Why should states have competing tax law? Take competing sales tax law. In practice it does not make sense for a state to have a higher sales tax if it is so easy for an individual to purchase goods at a lower tax rate across state lines? Add competing state income tax rates and corporate tax rates. In practice it just does not make sense for states to have higher tax rates in these areas when corporations and individuals can easily cross state lines to avoid them.

majorspark;841278 wrote:You are making an argument for centralized government in the US. One that regulates the affairs of 300+ million people. Why? Because it does not make sense to take your business across state lines because they have different laws and you can subvert the laws in your state. Your an economic guy (one who I agree with most of the time on this issue). So lets apply this logic to economics. Why should states have competing tax law? Take competing sales tax law.

My perspective on the economics of the issue is too much time and resources are wasted debating these issues. And for what reason? What do you accomplish when the gay couple just lives together, or gets married in another state? People are all riled up over what, at the end of the day, is a piece of paper. And to make matters worse, with the country fairly evenly divided on these issues, the loser always just kicks things up in the courts or tries to get special ballot measures, which is even MORE a waste of time and resources. This country is going bankrupt, and we're busy bickering over whether two gays guys have the right to sign a piece of paper.

Difference in sales and business tax have a real impact and are a tool states can use to make materially differences in their economy (and incidentally, I believe in most cases many states tax you on the difference, but most people choose to evade this tax). I fail to see, ultimately, how the average person is affected at all by someone having an abortion or a gay couple getting married. These are issues that make sense to me, if only purely from an efficiency and consistency perspective, to decide at the national level.

FairwoodKing;840759 wrote:Thank you, Coyotes. I accept your apology.

Very Christian of you.

FairwoodKing;841277 wrote:Why go to Canada to get married? Those rights don't transfer to the U.S. except in a handful of states. I know a lesbian couple who could have gotten married years ago in the Netherlands because one partner is Dutch. They said it wasn't worth the bother since they would not be regarded as married here in Seattle.

And on another point, relocating is not a "minor inconvenience." Some people simply can't do it.

so what you are saying is your lesbian couple friends really didnt give a shit about getting married, they just wanted benefits?

dwccrew;841291 wrote:Very Christian of you.

In a very secular way of course.

Thread Bomber;841018 wrote:Has it occurred to anyone on this place that marriage is religious as it pertains to faith and a civil contact as it pertains to the state?

I thought you tea baggin righties wanted the government the hell out of your personal affairs?

I do.

FairwoodKing;840759 wrote:Thank you, Coyotes. I accept your apology. When I posted this thread, I wanted to see what points of view would be given. I got more than I bargained for. Oh, well, it is a controversial subject and I should have expected this.

Thank you for accepting.