But our entire society developed because of progress. Traditions keep the status quo. Traditionally speaking humans walked, but of course there are far better and faster ways to travel. Traditionally marriages were between persons of the opposite sex. Why is it that this can not be breached?

There is no reason, philosophically, logically, physically, or legally to deny a marriage to persons of the same sex. Just tradition. A tradition that prevents the following:

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

, namely the latter. Not eating meat is non-traditional, so why not deny these people the right? That may seem like a silly comparison but it follows the exact same logic.

Life is suffering, is it not divine then to alleviate suffering and bring others closer to enlightment by explaining to them the reasons?

I am not sure if your post was replying to mine. However, in my previous post I did mention it clearly that it'll only be a matter of time before the gay marriage becomes legal everywhere.

Yes it was. I did see that you stated it was only a matter of time. However, I was hoping to present some points that may at least bring about the consideration in a change of your opinion, or at least a mild toleration of the subject.

Tradition doesn't denounce Gay Marriage, Biology does. When a man is born with the ability to concieve a child, I will support Gay Marriage.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

If you think marriage's main purpose is to conceive children, I feel sorry for your wife.....

And i'm a guy too~.

Dinav,

Do you them support gay marriage between women, since they have the ability to concieve?

The tax breaks we give to married couples are there to encourage concieving children. That is all.

Why is everything morality with you people? Economics is so much more important.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

Dinav is the only Mithra on the Ifrit server with a penis.

(All right!)

_________________

This is starting to feel like 1984, Brave New World, <insert futuristic fictional work here>.

They can not concieve by themselves, so no. Buying sperm = buying a child, and that's not very fair. "They can buy children so they can get tax breaks" shouldn't be an argument.

I'm also against tax breaks for families that can't concieve, but how hard that would be to enforce is unthinkable. Also, I'm against it because of the...heavy tax breaks they will get if they do indeed adopt.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

And I'm against mithra-mithra marriage as well!

ok not really.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

I always thought marriage was about love. Silly me. If two people love each other, and they want to have some sort of union (whether it's a hetero or homosexual relationship), I think they should be able to go for it.

Another hopeless romantic wielding a GS.

Who are the others? Haha.

The economic argument is moot because it is arguable that happy people with more tax breaks buy more things, or have the potential to do so, thus stimulating the consumer economy. So really, taxes break to encourage child bearing is silly because either way the money makes it back into the market. If it is through doctor bills and diaper purchases or clothing purchases at Nordstrom, it goes around.

Another point that could be taken from tax breaks for married persons is to encourage property aquisition, because that is more taxes for the government. An entire slew of various conditions can be explicated and stating that one is the single reason is short sighted.

So, with the economics out of the way lets get back to the morality of things, which is after all just as important.

Dinav,

I would first like to say, I disagree so strongly with almost everything you post on this thread. But, I also think that if it wasn't for you this topic would be really boring! and I totally respect the fact that you are not afraid to post your opinions, even if they will be unpopular with the rest of the posters. So, thanks for sticking around!

Now....

Why would you want to not give tax breaks to people who can't concieve? I mean, they want children just as bad as people who can concieve, and I assume it is an equally important part of their lives.

What if they undergo invitro with both the biological mother and father's cells? The mother can carry the children to term, but just can't concieve?

Also, people who adopt are amazing! They love a child as much as if it were their own, and parent the child as if it were their own (and, for all intents and purposes the child is their own, just not biologically). So why would they not be treated like biological parents and recieve similar tax cuts.

Also, I mean, do you get a tax cut when you get married because you are supposed to have children? If this is the rational, then wouldn't you have to provide some proof of having children. And say you get married and choose not to have children, then wouldn't you not want to pay taxes going to schools, since you will not be sending children to schools?

I realize a lot of that may have been incoherent, but hopefully someone will be able to get the gist of what I am saying and provide some answers.

I want to be a huge, rich buisness just as bad as Bill Gates does. I don't get the same tax breaks.



No, no, I agree. If a couple can't concieve, they should not be given tax cuts *until* they adopt. My godfather adopted 3 kids, 2 brothers and a sister. No one ever wants to adopt more than one or two, but they really wanted kids and they felt a connection with them. They love their kids, and I'm extremely happy for them. They also get an incredibly large financial bonus for adopting not only 3 children, but 3 siblings who were, most likely, not going to be adopted by anyone else. Things like this are in place to assure that there are bonuses for families who help children in these terrible predicaments.



That was the point I touched on about not being able to show proof. Too many marriages are couples who just want tax breaks. I don't agree wit h that. On the opposite side, most Gay couples just want rights to have their spouse place them in a hospital, and have joint custody of property; which I'm completely for. Hell, I'm for having that if you have a close best friend who you live with. Why CAN'T your best friend put you in a hospital if you get sick? It's a terrible problem.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

I'm for unions. I'm against marriages because the word itself implies "tax break".

Hell if they forced proof of children as a prerequisite for tax breaks, sure, let them have marriage. But for now Union = rights o marriage without abuse of our taxation system.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

Dinav,

Okay, well I'm glad you clarified your position on adoption, because that makes a lot more sense.

Also, I don't know why, but I guess I was surprised that you had no problem with the other things that gay people were asking for. But I totally agree with you and your arguement makes complete sense. I'm starting to see that your opposition to gay marriage is more than I thought it was....though, I still don't agree!

Okay, what are you guys looking forward to more:

1. the debate tonight, or

2. the spoof that SNL will do about the debate on Saturday?

My thoughts on most issues boil down to

1. Have rights, be free. Be happy.

2. I don't want to pay for you.

3. If you fuck up, I want you to pay for me, not the other way around.

Pro-Gay Unions. For rights, not for money.
Anti-teen abortions. Because money that should go to my city shouldn't go to killing a prom night fuck up.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

Spoof.

Bush will probably win the debate, but people will still believe Kerry won for no reason(last debate...where all of a sudden stem cells became the major issue of the election...because Bush is weak there and he trashed Kerry everywhere else).

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

MY GOD too much reading and I eyes are getting burnt out.

_________________
PS3 Friend list name: Pantherxx Wii code 1629-0463-4657-0263 (revised 9/28/07) Steam ID - Pantherxx010 62BLU 75PLD Reactived 7/5/10 I dare you Click this!

The more I hear him speak, the less I feel Kerry is suited for the office. I want my party to win (democratic), but not with this guy. He's a total boob. I like Gore more than him.

It's gonna be a mixed bag with this debate, the spoof should be decent though.

Then your not against gay marriage, your against abuse of tax breaks for any marriage whatsoever. Why? So what if two people get married for the purpose of tax breaks. Family's with children get better breaks because thay have children. Some may do it out of need, others greed. What should it matter, the codes are there to benfit those who need.

Taking an all or nothing attitude is only going to increase the likelyhood that couples will have children for the sake of tax breaks. Then you have a bunch of kids around for the purpose of money and not out of desire for the child. As any family consul can tell you, children raised for such reasons are much more likely to be criminals.