Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is there any good reason to be con SSM?

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 9:23:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Legal marriage as presently constituted is a subsidy. Who ought pay for its expansion?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Agnostic86
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 9:27:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 9:23:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Legal marriage as presently constituted is a subsidy. Who ought pay for its expansion?

Do not understand. Are you saying that because it costs money to get married we shouldn't expand on it?
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:43:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
By allowing SSM we necessarily endorse it legally. This, in turn, promotes more homosexual decisions by naturally heterosexual people. Of course, this depends solely upon the notion of homosexuality being a choice, as well as it being a negative one. So in conclusion, there is good reason to be against its prohibition, provided you can show it is not natural and not desirable - if you're the type of American that likes using the law to control people.
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:47:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 9:27:48 AM, Agnostic86 wrote:
At 6/2/2011 9:23:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Legal marriage as presently constituted is a subsidy. Who ought pay for its expansion?

Do not understand. Are you saying that because it costs money to get married we shouldn't expand on it?

No, he is saying that because marriage comes with a tax deduction, it is the same as a subsidy. That implies that it costs everyone else more money. He is asking, if we expand this "subsidy" who is stuck paying for it (all non-married tax-payers) and why should they be stuck footing that tax bill?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Agnostic86
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 1:20:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 12:47:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 9:27:48 AM, Agnostic86 wrote:
At 6/2/2011 9:23:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Legal marriage as presently constituted is a subsidy. Who ought pay for its expansion?

Do not understand. Are you saying that because it costs money to get married we shouldn't expand on it?

No, he is saying that because marriage comes with a tax deduction, it is the same as a subsidy. That implies that it costs everyone else more money. He is asking, if we expand this "subsidy" who is stuck paying for it (all non-married tax-payers) and why should they be stuck footing that tax bill?

Ah. Well, why should gays, like myself, be stuck paying your bill? Oh, and why shouldn't we be entitled to the same rights?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 1:25:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 1:20:33 PM, Agnostic86 wrote:
At 6/2/2011 12:47:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 9:27:48 AM, Agnostic86 wrote:
At 6/2/2011 9:23:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Legal marriage as presently constituted is a subsidy. Who ought pay for its expansion?

Do not understand. Are you saying that because it costs money to get married we shouldn't expand on it?

No, he is saying that because marriage comes with a tax deduction, it is the same as a subsidy. That implies that it costs everyone else more money. He is asking, if we expand this "subsidy" who is stuck paying for it (all non-married tax-payers) and why should they be stuck footing that tax bill?

Ah. Well, why should gays, like myself, be stuck paying your bill? Oh, and why shouldn't we be entitled to the same rights?

I'll answer for Ragnar, because I'm pretty sure I know what he's going to say.

Homosexuals' right to marriage ought to be recognized, but the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (i.e. no tax benefits or special privileges for anyone who gets married).
Agnostic86
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 1:28:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 1:25:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/2/2011 1:20:33 PM, Agnostic86 wrote:
At 6/2/2011 12:47:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 9:27:48 AM, Agnostic86 wrote:
At 6/2/2011 9:23:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Legal marriage as presently constituted is a subsidy. Who ought pay for its expansion?

Do not understand. Are you saying that because it costs money to get married we shouldn't expand on it?

No, he is saying that because marriage comes with a tax deduction, it is the same as a subsidy. That implies that it costs everyone else more money. He is asking, if we expand this "subsidy" who is stuck paying for it (all non-married tax-payers) and why should they be stuck footing that tax bill?

Ah. Well, why should gays, like myself, be stuck paying your bill? Oh, and why shouldn't we be entitled to the same rights?

I'll answer for Ragnar, because I'm pretty sure I know what he's going to say.

Homosexuals' right to marriage ought to be recognized, but the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (i.e. no tax benefits or special privileges for anyone who gets married).

Ah, okay! I understand. And, yes, I agree that there shouldn't be any "Special treatment" of married versus the non-married.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 4:35:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's a good sign of logic when people can predict what you're saying that accurately. ^_^

Also, it's not my bill, I'm single. :(
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.