Same sex Marriage

... and the unmarried have no 'responsibilities'?!? That's bullshit, otherwise we wouldn't have child support between the unwed forced via paternity tests. The only reason the government stuck it's nose this deep into marriage (in the 'modern' age) in the first place was to give a unfair (to the unmarried) tax break to the wed, along with tax breaks for having kids, to try and increase the population to keep social security afloat. (SS depends entirely on the concept of there being more people in the future paying into it -- since what's paid into it NOW is used to pay people on it NOW -- Despite what many think, it's NOT a savings plan!)

"clearly" you didn't research ... Care to quote sources? There are findings going both ways, though the findings against same sex parents are universally from groups like NARTH (the Westboro Baptist of psychology), or date back to the mid 50's when all kinds of hate-mongering and paranoia were standard operating procedure. In particular the APA backpedalled on all that crap way back in the 1970's!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
(check the sources to avoid 'truthiness')
http://teachthefacts.org/resources-professionalorgs.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare5.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

In particular, be wary of anything from NARTH or ACP, as they've been REPEATEDLY caught falsifying research or 'card stacking' their information -- including research that supports their agenda of hatemongering, ignorance through "biblical truths" and omitting anything that dares to contradict them.

The ACP is often a laugh too -- they are to the AAP (American Academy) what W3Schools is to the W3C -- and no, that's not a compliment.

 

I'm not sure what type of argument this is in favor of legalizing gay marriage. You could replace the every instance of the words homosexual/homosexuality in your post with the words pedophile/pedophilia and it would be equally accurate. There are several organizations in the US already working at designating pedophilia as a sexual preference rather than a disorder.

Mind you, I'm not trying to equate the two. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is entirely their own business, and pedophilia does not involve two consenting adults. If you are over 18 and want to bang your own grandmother, that's perfectly fine by me(so long as you don't produce offspring, which would then become a burden on society).

My point is rather one of what types of laws we as a culture legislate. Incest and pedophilia are every bit as normal as homosexuality. That doesn't mean we should be encouraging the activities with tax incentives. Giving tax incentives to people who want to raise children in stable and loving homes, on the other hand, I have much less of a problem with.

 

Agreed, but that's why:

I'm against that because it's unfair to single people without kids -- and really using marriage as a standard of 'stable and loving homes' is a giant crock of shit! Maybe for people who were actually raised in such a thing they're under the delusion it is the norm of the 'nuclear family fantasy' that belongs on 1950's TV and exists nowhere else; from my experience and observation of my friends -- not so much.

But again, it's none of the government's damned business and why NOBODY should be getting tax incentives, insurance incentives, or any other such extras because of a RELIGIOUS union -- but then I'm also in favor of taxing churches; they want to keep sticking their nose into politics, let them pay the admission fee like the rest of us!

 

Why should I care?

 

If you think that it's "normal" because a very VERY small percentage of people wake up gay, decide to be gay - then you are on another planet.

 

LOL.. So, after YEARS, everything should suddenly be changed because the dems woke up one day and decided it should be...

Love it.

 

The way you feel is normal, you just have to be brave and step out of the closet. Aren´t you tired of pretending to be a conservative Republican who hates gays?

 

Then you must be a fan of the flat tax. After all, why single out low income earners with tax incentives for earning less? I happen to be a fan of a mildly progressive tax code, and I don't like the idea of the "rich" being the only people who can raise kids because they can afford it on their after tax income.

Like you, I'm not a fan of subsidies. I think if the government is going to subsidize anything with tax rebates, exemptions, etc, it needs to have a damn good crystal clear reason for doing it. In the case of child rearing, the case is pretty compelling. The US reproduction rate is just above replacement rate, while places like Europe would actually decrease in population were it not for immigrants. We need to have a sufficient quantity of our population replenished by reproduction over immigration if we want to retain anything resembling our own culture, or we will simply start to resemble whatever country most of our immigrants come from.

That said, I can see subsidizing up to four kids. You decide to have kid number five, you do it on your own dime. You should also get a shot of Norplant with every welfare check. The price you pay for accepting government money to survive is a year's worth of infertility.

That wasn't my argument, though it is certainly the argument presented by the Gay marriage crowd, and I'm not sure I disagree. Children from two parent households simply do better in life. Period. One doesn't have to believe in the "nuclear family fantasy" to acknowledge every statistic that says as much, even taking high rate of divorce into account.

FYI, the nuclear family "fantasy" is alive and well in 2013, at least in my neighborhood. Christmas time is upon us and the wives in my neighborhood are already in a baking frenzy. I'm getting fatter just thinking about it.

If marriage were only a religious union, there would be no fight for gay marriage. This is about money, pure and simple. When your parents kick off, your inheritance will go largely untaxed based on your familial relationship. The same is true between domestic partners in a marriage relationship. Maybe if you thought of it less as tax incentive for the married/familiy members, and more as a tax penalty for being a "player" into your old age.

I with you on getting rid of the religious tax exemptions, though to take your argument to it's logical conclusion, you would have to get rid of practically every last political advocacy group which are also tax exempt. Every last 501c3. Planned Parenthood. Acorn. Organizing for America. Organizing for Action. SEIU. Every Union really.

Good luck with that one. Those political interests are VERY entrenched.

 

I heard on TV that by 2050 you will be a majority.

 

I think it's safe to assume that people who project onto others their own emotional, physiological and physiological traits tend to be just what they are projecting.

 

May be you should talk with him and explain how coming out of the closet and doing the sex change operation has helped your life.

 

Maybe you should consider moving out of mom's basement and becoming a productive member of society.

 

I live in Europe and not stuck in the CHEESE state.

 

Canada is now Europe?

 

Miss Mia (A.K.A fruity Mike), I moved to Spain five years ago.

 

I feel sorry for them. Ironic that someone living in Spain would not know what mia means in Spanish. Mine, or my.. in Italian too.
Your ignorance has increased with age.

 

Are you trying to say that you are pretending to be a Spanish or Italian girl to make yourself look exotic for the guys in CHEESE state? The miracles of modern medicine, one very little operation and fruity mike from the cheese state becomes Miss Mia from Italy.

 

Who exactly is Mike? Julian, you've lost it, not that you've ever been all there to begin with.

 

i guess this is the best answer.
just a minute if we forget about religion and personal opinion . think about nation and country.
totaly not agree

 

Just because you are Miss Mia from Italy now, you don´t need to deny your life before the operation.