Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Seawytch]

Translation: You are right and I am losing this argument.

Awfully good of you to admit you're wrong!

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to fuck they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

Nobody's forcing you to have a legal marriage, hypocrite.

 

[bodecea]

Um, actually you are on the wrong side of history....

"But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that" - Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation

Video: Heritage?s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman | myHeritage

Welcome to the 21st century

And that means what?

"Lets legalize rape - welcome to the 21st century"

Who here, besides yourself, has said "Let's legalize rape"?

 

[P@triot]

Awfully good of you to admit you're wrong!

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to fuck they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

Nobody's forcing you to have a legal marriage, hypocrite.

So in other words, you're completely incapable of giving a RATIONAL explanation for why you are demanding the government recognize your relationships?

Ok - exactly what I figured. Thanks.

 

[bodecea]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to fuck they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

Nobody's forcing you to have a legal marriage, hypocrite.

So in other words, you're completely incapable of giving a RATIONAL explanation for why you are demanding the government recognize your relationships?

Ok - exactly what I figured. Thanks.

If the government recognizes YOUR relationship if you get a marriage license...what is the legal reason why they don't have to recognize ours?

 

[Seawytch]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to fuck they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

Nobody's forcing you to have a legal marriage, hypocrite.

So in other words, you're completely incapable of giving a RATIONAL explanation for why you are demanding the government recognize your relationships?

Ok - exactly what I figured. Thanks.

So that's why you got married, to DEMAND the government recognize your marriage?

We want to get legally married for ALL the EXACT same reasons that heterosexuals do. What societal harm is there in issuing me the EXACT same legal document my tax dollars pay for that you get? What reasonable person standard will YOU employ to deny it to me and my family? Why don't my children deserve to say their parents are legally married?

 

[P@triot]

Welcome to the 21st century

And that means what?

"Lets legalize rape - welcome to the 21st century"

Who here, besides yourself, has said "Let's legalize rape"?

And 50 years ago, you could have said "who here has said lets legalize gay marriage".

The point was that it is completely nonsensical to say "welcome to the 21st century" as if that is somehow a "rational" explanation

Furthermore, it illustrates the dangers of that kind of stupidity. Progress is NOT - I repeat NOT - simply legalizing and/or accepting intolerable behavior. As sick as the liberals are, I can almost guarantee they will be calling for the legalization of rape within 50 years (did you see the sick rape fest your side participated in during "Occupy Wall Street"?). And most will be like retard here saying "welcome to the 21st century" as their excuse for having a broken moral compass....

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that.

Somehow I think that if you had been in a similar financial situation as Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - legally Civilly Married - and your wife passed and the government tax man showed up with a bill for $365,000 that other Civilly Married couples didn't have to pay...


.... You would have been less than thrilled.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

And that means what?

"Lets legalize rape - welcome to the 21st century"

Who here, besides yourself, has said "Let's legalize rape"?

And 50 years ago, you could have said "who here has said lets legalize gay marriage".

The point was that it is completely nonsensical to say "welcome to the 21st century" as if that is somehow a "rational" explanation

Furthermore, it illustrates the dangers of that kind of stupidity. Progress is NOT - I repeat NOT - simply legalizing and/or accepting intolerable behavior. As sick as the liberals are, I can almost guarantee they will be calling for the legalization of rape within 50 years (did you see the sick rape fest your side participated in during "Occupy Wall Street"?). And most will be like retard here saying "welcome to the 21st century" as their excuse for having a broken moral compass....

Granting same sex, consenting adult couples the right to legally marry is not going to reactivate the Stay Puft marshmallow man. Sheesh, drama queen.

 

[boilermaker55]

Really? One man and one woman. Tell us, one with so much wisdom how come those that criticize others so much about their immorality marry more than one time?
ONE man and ONE woman. Really?

Marriage is between one man and one woman. It has traditionally always been that way in this country. People who want it to be between 2 men and one woman, or 2 women and one man, or any other combination are seeking to redefine the traditional notion of marriage.
That is obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells.

 

[P@triot]

I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that.

Somehow I think that if you had been in a similar financial situation as Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - legally Civilly Married - and your wife passed and the government tax man showed up with a bill for $365,000 that other Civilly Married couples didn't have to pay...


.... You would have been less than thrilled.


>>>>

You're 100% correct on that - I would not be happy. However, there are wills, life insurance policies, and trust funds to deal with stuff like that. Marriage is not a requirement in any capacity to avoid that situation.

 

[P@triot]

Who here, besides yourself, has said "Let's legalize rape"?

And 50 years ago, you could have said "who here has said lets legalize gay marriage".

The point was that it is completely nonsensical to say "welcome to the 21st century" as if that is somehow a "rational" explanation

Furthermore, it illustrates the dangers of that kind of stupidity. Progress is NOT - I repeat NOT - simply legalizing and/or accepting intolerable behavior. As sick as the liberals are, I can almost guarantee they will be calling for the legalization of rape within 50 years (did you see the sick rape fest your side participated in during "Occupy Wall Street"?). And most will be like retard here saying "welcome to the 21st century" as their excuse for having a broken moral compass....

Granting same sex, consenting adult couples the right to legally marry is not going to reactivate the Stay Puft marshmallow man. Sheesh, drama queen.

I'm not saying it is. I was simply responding to the asinine response of "welcome to the 21st century" - as if that is somehow a justification for any decision.

I think you realize that too - you're just trying to distract from the real issue.

 

[P@triot]

I'm not the one on the wrong side of history and who is losing in this issue, you are.

Um, actually you are on the wrong side of history....

"But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that" - Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation

Video: Heritage?s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman | myHeritage

Yeah, go with that...I'll go with this.

Don't worry...you'll still have a hose to keep those kids of gays off your lawn.

You mentioned which side of history you were on - I pointed out the actual history. You respond with CURRENT (ie NOT history) trending

You libs are an odd bunch...

 

[bodecea]

I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that.

Somehow I think that if you had been in a similar financial situation as Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - legally Civilly Married - and your wife passed and the government tax man showed up with a bill for $365,000 that other Civilly Married couples didn't have to pay...


.... You would have been less than thrilled.


>>>>

You're 100% correct on that - I would not be happy. However, there are wills, life insurance policies, and trust funds to deal with stuff like that. Marriage is not a requirement in any capacity to avoid that situation.

So...we should cut out civil marriage all together. You won't mind, right? You'll have wills, life insurance policies, and trust funds to deal with stuff like that.

 

[bodecea]

Um, actually you are on the wrong side of history....

"But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that" - Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation

Video: Heritage?s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman | myHeritage

Yeah, go with that...I'll go with this.

Don't worry...you'll still have a hose to keep those kids of gays off your lawn.

You mentioned which side of history you were on - I pointed out the actual history. You respond with CURRENT (ie NOT history) trending

You libs are an odd bunch...

It's going to be interesting in a few years.....people like you gnashing your teeth so much that they are worn down to nubs.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that.

Somehow I think that if you had been in a similar financial situation as Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - legally Civilly Married - and your wife passed and the government tax man showed up with a bill for $365,000 that other Civilly Married couples didn't have to pay...


.... You would have been less than thrilled.


>>>>

You're 100% correct on that - I would not be happy. However, there are wills, life insurance policies, and trust funds to deal with stuff like that. Marriage is not a requirement in any capacity to avoid that situation.

all of which belies the real reason for the push for 'gay marriage'......

although they profess it to be a 'civil rights' issue... the real reason for the godless secular push for 'gay marriage' is to force acceptance of homosexuality upon a mostly Christian country....to force it upon those who believe sodomy and 'gay marriage' are a sin and a travesty of the natural order...

the secular State will force its immorality upon Christians in all kinds of ways.....from teaching kids about 'two mommies' and sodomy in the schools to forcing businesses to provide for homosexual demands....

this is a direct attack upon religion by the godless secular Left....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And that means what?

"Lets legalize rape - welcome to the 21st century"

Who here, besides yourself, has said "Let's legalize rape"?

And 50 years ago, you could have said "who here has said lets legalize gay marriage".

The point was that it is completely nonsensical to say "welcome to the 21st century" as if that is somehow a "rational" explanation

Furthermore, it illustrates the dangers of that kind of stupidity. Progress is NOT - I repeat NOT - simply legalizing and/or accepting intolerable behavior. As sick as the liberals are, I can almost guarantee they will be calling for the legalization of rape within 50 years (did you see the sick rape fest your side participated in during "Occupy Wall Street"?). And most will be like retard here saying "welcome to the 21st century" as their excuse for having a broken moral compass....

What’s ‘nonsensical’ is comparing equal protection rights for same-sex couples with rape.

 

[Seawytch]

this is a direct attack upon religion by the godless secular Left....

Religion has nothing to do with it. We already have equal access to religious marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what's next for gays with marriage bennies......medical care for the inability to conceive....?

Obastardcare will probably cover it....

so what's next....designer babies....?

and you idiots think 'gay marriage' won't cause societal problems....

'gay marriage' is just one step forward in the godless Secular agenda...

In other words, you opponents of gay marriage can only conjure up imaginary problems.

Yes, that's what we've been pointing out for years. It's all in your head.

conjuring up 'imaginary problems'.....? hardly....

i've already pointed out to you one important problem for which you had no answer....that children of gays are denied one of their real parents....you numbnuts have no real counter argument to this except to huff-and-puff....you blithely follow the secular leaders that are leading you into their freakish unnatural controlled world....

fyi designer babies are already in the works....what's to stop Obastardcare from pushing its secular agenda further with 'medical help' by providing gays with designer babies and engaging in "playing God in the womb".....? what an opportunity for them.....you do realize that the secular agenda is out to make the State the new all-powerful 'god' in your life.....?

Designer Babies - Playing God in the Womb | Beginning And End

The children of gays? What are you talking about?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah, go with that...I'll go with this.

Don't worry...you'll still have a hose to keep those kids of gays off your lawn.

You mentioned which side of history you were on - I pointed out the actual history. You respond with CURRENT (ie NOT history) trending

You libs are an odd bunch...

It's going to be interesting in a few years.....people like you gnashing your teeth so much that they are worn down to nubs.

See there is another boon to society by Same-sex Civil Marriage. Increased employment in the Dentistry field.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that.

Somehow I think that if you had been in a similar financial situation as Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - legally Civilly Married - and your wife passed and the government tax man showed up with a bill for $365,000 that other Civilly Married couples didn't have to pay...


.... You would have been less than thrilled.


>>>>

You're 100% correct on that - I would not be happy. However, there are wills, life insurance policies, and trust funds to deal with stuff like that. Marriage is not a requirement in any capacity to avoid that situation.

1. Wills: Determine how property is distributed, they do nothing to avoid taxes owed by the individual receiving the property.

2. Life Insurance: First of all it's not the inheritance of property, it's an insurance payout. Secondly Life Insurance is not taxable unless the beneficiary pays the insured (not the insurance company) for the policy.

3. Trusts: Take the $35 that would have been spent for a a Civil Marriage license and walk into an investment lawyers office and tell him that's the fee he can expect to setup and irrevocable trust estate plan to avoid inheritance taxes. Bring a towel to help him/her clean off their keyboard after they spew their coffee in laughter.

Finally, pertaining to my situation: Social Security Survivor Benefit's cannot be transferred with a will, insurance, trust, or power of attorney; our Social Security Survivor Benefit's cannot be transferred with a will, insurance, trust, or power of attorney; our (both my wife's and I) Employer Pension Survivor Benefit's cannot be transferred with a will, insurance, trust, or power of attorney.


>>>>