• They are married and they are just as capable of doing stuff

    I know it is "weird", but I want my brain to think of it as normal. C'mon, they both "love each other." Marriage may be 5,000 years old but everything's changing.
    The transition 100 years to today is a lot. Here are a few.
    Most nations used to be monarchies until World War 1.
    At the Trinity bomb testing, one person said "it's the end of traditional warfare."
    We can now fly. 100 years ago we take boats for transportation.
    Forced marriage is generally illegal today while in Romeo and Juliet's time it is not. Lord Capulet attempted for Juliet to be married to Paris.

    God, we will continue to change, and traditions can be kept, but should not be forced into people's minds today.

  • All or nothing on marriage equality

    The government needs to make up its mind on weather the institution of marriage should be allowed for all its citizens. When they do ALL rights and conditions associated with marriage need to be allowed and enforced on couples. No more of this half assed "ok you can get married BUT.." Business ....No more inbetweens. Either all people are equal and have the right to commit to a union or not. That simple

  • Yes, of course.

    The federal government must respect state laws. If a same-sex couple is legally married in their state, then the federal government should recognize that couple as legally married, and treat them the exact same way as heterosexual married couples. I'm glad to see that the Treasury Department sees it as such and has ruled that same-sex couples will now receive the equal tax benefits they deserve.

  • Why Shouldn't They?

    If they are already "married," it would be discriminatory to not give them the same benefits based on sexual orientation. Let me clarify things, I don't think it should be called "gay marriage," because marriage is indeed between a man and woman. Anyways, "Legal Unions" should indeed get the same tax benefits. That is fair. You would have to be really stubborn to disagree with that.

  • It is discrimination otherwise.

    Marriage is a state right, not a federal right. If a state determines that gay marriage is legal, the federal government has NO RIGHT or standing to claim those couples legally married in that state cannot have the same benefits as heterosexual couples. In essence that removes the power of the state by the government claiming that even though the state decided what marriages were legal, the government will just ignore that and discriminate anyway.

    Not to mention the severely unethical nature of barring couples from equal privileges under the law just because you personally don't like homosexuals.

  • It's still marriage

    Marriage is marriage and if we or the government choose to say yes to it, that should also imply that everything that comes with marriage would be there, including taxes, let the church decide whether or not they want to accept it, but as long as they are married under the government they need to do their share as married couples in a community.

  • Yes they should

    The thing im wondering is why should we deny them benifits? How does loving or marrying someone different gonna effect your taxes? Why should it anyways? Theyre married and love each other like straigh couples do. I dont get how people could say no. Theyre humans and U.S citizens too.

  • Yes they should.

    So we have the religious retards on the 'No' side. And the people with brains on the 'Yes' side. Of course they should get equal tax. Were not living in a third-world country here. Love is love, doesn't matter who they want to love. We're all human. Well, atleast most of us are... You'd have to be in the WBC to select the 'No' button.

  • Don't encourage them

    Marriage is a 5,000 year old tradition and it is being tainted by the liberals and their homosexual agenda. The whole purpose of a marriage is to join a man and a woman in holy matrimony so they can be one in the eyes of God.

    Since homosexuality is seen as a deadly sin though God's (and my) eyes, this is a big slap in his face. Not only are you angering God by defying his word, you are mocking the institution of marriage. The only reason homosexuals want to get married is because they believe they are getting back at traditional Americans for opposing their lifestyle.

    I completely oppose equal tax benefits (or any benefits for that matter) for gay and lesbian couples. I don't believe we should be encouraging this disgusting, unnatural behavior. We should be discouraging homosexuality or even outlawing it Instead of promoting.

  • Simply put, no.

    I don't have anything against LGBT couplings, but when it comes to federal tax benefits for marriage, that begs the question as to exactly what is marriage, and why does the government encourage it.

    The simple answer is that marriage is about family creation. Since LGBT couplings cannot create families (unless via in vitro fertilization from an outside donor, or via adoption), they should not receive tax benefits ostensibly aimed towards family creation.

  • Marriage is a matter of personal choice: it should have no bearing on tax.

    There should be no tax benefits for being married at all: what difference does it make whether a couple, gay or straight, decide to formalise their relationship by getting married? Being married has no effect on the couple’s finances so why should unmarried taxpayers pay more tax than married people?

    The only reason anyone ever gives is that traditionally couples get married then have children and that they can use the extra money to bring up their kids. With this being the case, since same-sex couples cannot reproduce, it does seem reasonable that if married couples’ tax benefits do exist then only heterosexual couples should receive them.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.