User Controls
How can two gay people be 'married'?
-
2021-01-27 at 2:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by jfakldjfkdaljfalkdfjlkad The point of marriage is taxes. That's it.
Okay, and... why? If the point of marriage is taxes, what's the point of those changes to taxes? There's certainly a case to be made that joint filing of taxes encourages the traditional homemaker-breadwinner nuclear family structure. Surely you don't mean to suggest that's unintentional. Like why even make joint filing an option? Why require marriage for it? 🤔The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-01-27 at 3:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Okay, and… why? If the point of marriage is taxes, what's the point of those changes to taxes? There's certainly a case to be made that joint filing of taxes encourages the traditional homemaker-breadwinner nuclear family structure. Surely you don't mean to suggest that's unintentional. Like why even make joint filing an option? Why require marriage for it? 🤔
not really.
marriage is officiation of the contract between the client, ie, the husbamd, and the prostitute of his choice,
hereinrefer to as the "wife". -
2021-01-27 at 3:49 PM UTC
-
2021-01-27 at 3:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Okay, and… why? If the point of marriage is taxes, what's the point of those changes to taxes? There's certainly a case to be made that joint filing of taxes encourages the traditional homemaker-breadwinner nuclear family structure. Surely you don't mean to suggest that's unintentional. Like why even make joint filing an option? Why require marriage for it? 🤔
Uhhh is this rhetorical -
2021-01-27 at 11:20 PM UTC
-
2021-01-27 at 11:27 PM UTCWow this is so difficult to grasp, like OP's micropenis
-
2021-01-27 at 11:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Even the aforementioned tax benefits are meant to promote the growth of families.
Marriage as a tax status isn't about encouraging the growth of families, the tax advantages of children exist with or without marriage (single parents claim their children as dependents in the same way as a married couple does). The logic for the tax situation is the (less and less common) institution of single income marriages, where one party earns all the money and another brings in none, to allow taxation to be applied more like each party brought in part of the income. It's the same logic that informs alimony: that marriage is an economic partnership where both members contribute in dissimilar ways. And that's what the significance of gay marriage is as well, or any marriage, economic partnership.
The whole "marriage is about children" thing is some retarded retconing by the right to try and push undesirables out of their sight. -
2021-01-28 at 12:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Marriage as a tax status isn't about encouraging the growth of families, the tax advantages of children exist with or without marriage (single parents claim their children as dependents in the same way as a married couple does). The logic for the tax situation is the (less and less common) institution of single income marriages, where one party earns all the money and another brings in none, to allow taxation to be applied more like each party brought in part of the income. It's the same logic that informs alimony: that marriage is an economic partnership where both members contribute in dissimilar ways. And that's what the significance of gay marriage is as well, or any marriage, economic partnership.
The whole "marriage is about children" thing is some retarded retconing by the right to try and push undesirables out of their sight.
Okay, and why would the government create a tax incentive which promotes homemaker-breadwinner households if not to spur the development of the traditional nuclear family structure? Giving taxbreaks to families with homemakers is just for shits 'n' gigs I guess?
-
2021-01-28 at 12:23 AM UTCI mean the role of a homemaker isn't to "make a home you can comfortably take a semen infused shit in". It's to make a good home to raise a family in. To raise children in. And the government undeniably subsidizes this kind of family structure, so if marriage is just about gaining the ability to jointly file taxes and receive this benefit, what place does a marriage that can't result in children have within that institution?
Abolish gay marriage! Gas the sterile! No boner? Two boners? Get boned! -
2021-01-28 at 1:10 AM UTCYou do get a tax break for having dependents/kids you know. It's not "part of the marriage tax break". It just helps to file jointly, especially if one of you makes more than the other as is the case in a lot of couples, as it can help you move down a tax bracket.
Funny how every argument against gay marriage always boils down to made up bullshit. You fucking disgust me HTS. I am disgusted. I'm going to go disgust into the toilet now. Thanks a lot you disgusting fuck -
2021-01-28 at 1:11 AM UTCiTz aDaM ANd EevEe
nOt
AdAm aND stEeEvEe
-
2021-01-28 at 1:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by jfakldjfkdaljfalkdfjlkad as it can help you move down a tax bracket.
i.e. it's a tax break. For being married. To help strengthen your family's financial situation and make a better home in which to have your child. Which you then also get more tax breaks for having. Why let married couples move down a tax bracket? Just for shits and gigs?
So why come fag marriage is a thing then?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-01-28 at 1:43 AM UTCIt's interesting, all this talk about taxes but no talk about love.
-
2021-01-28 at 1:44 AM UTC'love' was never the basis for marriage, historically it's largely been incidental. that's a fairly modern invention
-
2021-01-28 at 1:47 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-01-28 at 1:50 AM UTCMeikai may piss me off a lot but she/he/it is so much more intelligent than Little Homo it's not even funny.
Look at how many different angles it gets explained to him and how he still doesn't get it because he can't understand anything outside the world view of the regime he grew up in.
There's a reason the libs here have circles run around them - it's because we fully understand their world view as it used to be our own. We could argue from their vantage point easily. They do not understand ours at all and are completely bewildered when we try and explain it. So they have zero perspective, and just revert back to their programming.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-01-28 at 1:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai No it isn't, considering two people can love each other and live together without some weird artificial ritual that requires church or state authorization.
If two people who love each other want to get married, why shouldn't they? Of course nobody needs some weird artificial ritual, but maybe some people like that sort of thing? -
2021-01-28 at 2:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by rabbitweed Meikai may piss me off a lot but she/he/it is so much more intelligent than Little Homo it's not even funny.
Look at how many different angles it gets explained to him and how he still doesn't get it because he can't understand anything outside the world view of the regime he grew up in.
There's a reason the libs here have circles run around them - it's because we fully understand their world view as it used to be our own. We could argue from their vantage point easily. They do not understand ours at all and are completely bewildered when we try and explain it. So they have zero perspective, and just revert back to their programming.
Imagine if you watch the news, and it takes 110% of your mental effort just to understand the world view they are presenting to you.
What chance do you have of ever going beyond that world view, and asking yourself what the agenda of these people is to present this world view to you, and what other perspectives exist?
People like §m£ÂgØL etc are continually confused by reality, and don't understand anyone's point of view - not even their own, which was just handed to them, the default world view you will have if you grow up without questioning anything.
Originally posted by Meikai No it isn't, considering two people can love each other and live together without some weird artificial ritual that requires church or state authorization.
People want to have their relationship recognised by the community in which they live.
I realise community might be an ungraspable concept to the modern atomised individual like you.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-01-28 at 2:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by rabbitweed Meikai may piss me off a lot but she/he/it is so much more intelligent than Little Homo it's not even funny.
Look at how many different angles it gets explained to him and how he still doesn't get it because he can't understand anything outside the world view of the regime he grew up in.
There's a reason the libs here have circles run around them - it's because we fully understand their world view as it used to be our own. We could argue from their vantage point easily. They do not understand ours at all and are completely bewildered when we try and explain it. So they have zero perspective, and just revert back to their programming.
White people are under attack. Why don't these people understand while we run circles around them. Da IQ is impressive why are these circles we're running not working????
Let me read about it on the internet and maybe I'll figure out why... -
2021-01-28 at 2:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe If two people who love each other want to get married, why shouldn't they? Of course nobody needs some weird artificial ritual, but maybe some people like that sort of thing?
They can do whatever they want. Gay dudes can even invent their own ritual where they take viagra and spin on their cocks like beyblades while they recite their vows. What's stopping them if they like that sort of thing? They can have all the fun artificial ceremonies and rituals they want.
Why should they be included in the government or religious concept of marriage though? "Because... like... love, man" isn't particularly compelling justification. How does legal recognition by the state effect your love? You could maybe argue the spiritual importance of being accepted by your church, but if you're doing something incompatible with your religion you can't pretend that your religion is all that important.
