User Controls
How can two gay people be 'married'?
-
2021-01-28 at 2:17 AM UTC
-
2021-01-28 at 2:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Sounds like a social issue, not a legal one.
False dichotomy. They're the same thing.
People want respect. If you are living with a partner privately, no one might interfere with you, but it's not a high status thing.
If you get married, publically, you are declaring your relationship, and demanding it be respected and honoured by all. Quite a different thing.
Respect, for MOON PERSONs, who get no respect, the concept might be hard to understand. -
2021-01-28 at 2:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump False dichotomy. They're the same thing.
People want respect. If you are living with a partner privately, no one might interfere with you, but it's not a high status thing.
If you get married, publically, you are declaring your relationship, and demanding it be respected and honoured by all. Quite a different thing.
You can wear the ring. Have a ceremony. You can declare it and demand it be respected and honored. If that isn't enough to assuage your emotional insecurities, expecting the government to redress your self-confidence issues legally is fucking asinine. -
2021-01-28 at 2:30 AM UTCLegal gay marriage hasn't demolished the concept of homophobia. It's basically just a coping mechanism for emotional gays. "Hardly anyone we meet accepts us, but this paper proves society does." They wouldn't need that coping mechanism - they wouldn't need a piece of paper to prove it - if society just accepted them. It's a social issue, and legislating coping mechanisms to alleviate the social discomfort felt by fags in polite society is fucking dumb.
-
2021-01-28 at 2:32 AM UTCgarries gonna garry
-
2021-01-28 at 2:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai …expecting the government to redress your self-confidence issues legally is fucking asinine.
It might be asinine, whatever that means, but everyone does it.
Originally posted by Meikai Legal gay marriage hasn't demolished the concept of homophobia. It's basically just a coping mechanism for emotional gays. "Hardly anyone we meet accepts us, but this paper proves society does." They wouldn't need that coping mechanism - they wouldn't need a piece of paper to prove it - if society just accepted them. It's a social issue, and legislating coping mechanisms to alleviate the social discomfort felt by fags in polite society is fucking dumb.
Their problem is that society doesn't care, not that society doesn't accept them. Hence the oppression narrative.
Every outsider wants to feel oppressed - oppressed people are IMPORTANT! Being oppressed means you're VALID! Any attention is good attention, and nothing is worse than not even being not worth oppressing. -
2021-01-28 at 2:39 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 2:41 AM UTC
-
2021-01-28 at 3:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai 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?
Married couples have increased expenses.
Not that hard. -
2021-01-28 at 3:19 AM UTCGuys §m£ÂgØL is not smart enough to see how much smarter you are than him. He thinks he's debating.
At this point it's kind of mean. Like fighting a child. -
2021-01-28 at 3:22 AM UTC
-
2021-01-28 at 3:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by jfakldjfkdaljfalkdfjlkad Married couples have increased expenses.
Not that hard.
How does being married increase expenses? If anything, having shared accommodations and the like cuts expenses. No longer two people paying rent times two, or two mortgages. Shit, even disregarding that... people live together before they're married. Aside from the cost of an extravagant ceremony if you're marrying bridezilla, your expenses stay level. Neh? -
2021-01-28 at 4 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai i.e. it's a tax break. For being married. To help strengthen your family's financial situation
Correctand make a better home in which to have your child.
No. I don’t know where you’re getting this from but it’s not the tax code.Why let married couples move down a tax bracket? Just for shits and gigs?
Because it’s recognition of the value of the non-wage-earning spouse’s labor. It’s saying “this person didn’t get paid directly, but enabled their spouse to earn, so they should be able to split their tax burden as opposed to treating the household as one highly productive individual and one person who did literally nothing” which seemed more reasonable and fair than “we want people to fuck so let’s subsidize that”The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-01-28 at 4:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Correct
Roger roger.
Originally posted by Lanny No. I don’t know where you’re getting this from but it’s not the tax code.
What incentive does the government have to do the following:
Originally posted by Lanny recognition of the value of the non-wage-earning spouse’s labor. It’s saying “this person didn’t get paid directly, but enabled their spouse to earn, so they should be able to split their tax burden as opposed to treating the household as one highly productive individual and one person who did literally nothing” which seemed more reasonable and fair than “we want people to fuck so let’s subsidize that”
Like... this lacks motive. This entire explanation boils down to "the government wanted to be nice", which is a premise I'm unwilling to accept. You're literally just saying "yes, for shits and gigs" in the most elaborate way possible. -
2021-01-28 at 4:15 AM UTC"We're giving you a tax break because even though we haven't profited from your labor directly through taxes, we think you earned it kiddo."
It's entirely too altruistic for the government. I refuse to believe it. smh -
2021-01-28 at 4:26 AM UTCWe don't even get tax breaks here. Which made gay marriage completely meaningless, as they had all the rights of a heterosexual couple before it become legalized.
Of course the left will never shy away from a victory, no matter how petty. Admirable really. -
2021-01-28 at 4:31 AM UTCGARRIED
-
2021-01-28 at 8:27 AM UTCSO,
I am not hating gays. nor transgenders or whatever. I mean David Bowie and the NYDOLLS made great music channeling into different lifestyles
but, it is a sin. at least in the Abraham religions of Islam, J'ews and Christian folks alike. I think Buddha as well?
but what bugs me is any radicalized groups controling and taking control in Government to the extreem. it's a rush for them. A fucking high greater than any substance they may abuse.
this has to stop. Liberal is good but Libtarded Radicalism is evil. and its growing so much.
I don't hate the people but I hate what is happening. it's fucking weird. -
2021-01-28 at 10:51 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 getting your argument destroyed six times and then resorting to this copeThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-01-28 at 10:53 AM UTCStop making alts you little homo
