Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter 1X83Z
  • 2,302 comments
  • 83,278 views
XoravaX - please read through this thread. Take particular heed of what your understanding of rights are in connection to the "trolley problem".

What would they be taking away? They would be taking away what I believe to be a sacred promise to a man and a woman in the presence of God.

Am I not married then?

No need to change what marriage is to satisfy a minority

Apparently this has already happened - it's been changed to only mean joining one man to one woman for financial and legal reasons.
 
We are getting into some religious and moral belief systems, but marriage is between a man and a woman. If it is something that they want, they should each find a man if it is "marriage" that they want. No need to change what marriage is to satisfy a minority when it is recognition of being a couple for tax and other monetary benefits. They certainly don't need my approval to prove their love and commitment to each other nor do they need a marriage certificate from the state to prove their love and commitment. A union between a man and a woman is different than a union between two people of the same gender. This is neither bad nor good, it just is. We still have segregation in many parts of society because of differences. Neither bad nor good, it just is.

With an estimated 3.8% of the US population being gay, and an estimated 4.8% of the US population being non-mixed race asians, would you be happy to deny asian couples from marrying too if that was still not alowed?

Whose to say that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman anyway?
 
XoravaX - please read through this thread. Take particular heed of what your understanding of rights are in connection to the "trolley problem".

The main problem with the rights is that they are subjective. To me, for example, the right to trespass (both government and private) lands is a basic right (as it is here in Finland), while in the US someone could shoot me for that.

The only ones that aren't subjective are the right to live and the right to decide over one's body.



100% allowed in the US, because he thought it was cool. "Freedom means the right to make stupid decisions."

But how far does freedom reach, does the line go just before anarchy?


If I ever find myself single again remind me to avoid Finland. I'll put it in the list of places where getting some is hard to the point of being detrimental to society.

Ah, the issue isn't this (as far as I know), but the fact that it's too expensive to raise a child here. Most people wait until their late 20's/ early to mid 30's, when they have enough money. That leads to a low child count in families.

Also, the low teenage pregnancy rates are because of free condoms and such being given away a lot, and that under-age girls get free pills if they ask.


It should be noted that of the many extreme examples we have on TV only one is a fundamentalist family. The rest have all been the results of fertility treatments.

Uhh, ok. Here the 10+ child families are almost inevitably fundamentalist sect families without birth control, and they have children like every 10 months.


Perhaps past laws can be an example of how new laws won't be the problem you predict. I am looking for a precedent to validate your suspicions of the effects this would have.

Perhaps. But my suspicions of such a system won't go away until I've seen it to work or the whole world-wide situation changed to be more gay-friendly. But your country would make for a good test.


Um, should I point out that it says State? Where does it refer to Congress or the Federal government? States are separate entities with a local government separate from the Federal government. Last I checked it was federal government that worked against the Native Americans.

Eh, so the federal government isn't limited by the 14th Amendment? But I hope there are new Amendments which fix this, as if a general government is allowed to do things like that they can seriously trample on the people's rights.


Even without the gay marriage issue the financial benefits are why I want government out. They are unjust and discriminatory.

Aren't all governmental benefits that are limited to a single group only unjust then?


They are called tourists.

While being disrespectful of local views in someone else's country is bad, reacting to it aggressively is equally bad.

Yeah, but you can't do anything to the ignorant, be they tourists or locals. That's why there are problems.


And I don't give two squirts about offending the intolerant or ignorant. Just ask my dad.

But openly showing disrespect towards them is being equally intolerant.


Global powers rarely have issues with attacking non-neighbors. We declared independence, shipped the document, and then prepared for the incoming fleets, which had what seemed like nonstop reinforcements. George Washington lost all but a couple of battles he commanded in the American Revolution. We were out outnumbered end outgunned. We even had to ask France for help.

Nor they have any issues attacking their neighbours. Declaring independence from Russia wasn't that easy either, and in the following war Germany had to come to our aid against both the Russians and local socialists. Even though Lenin had recognised our independence in late 1917, the Russians still took part in the war in 1918.


You all don't have adult learning classes?

Not full-length education. However our high schools and colleges are free too so if they have the basic education already they can seek in.


Um, the security laws that allowed privacy violations (Patriot Act) is also where Obama claims his power to assassinate US citizens, so long as they are overseas (he claims).

That goes a bit too far. Suspected criminals should always be trialled, unless the life of the police/troops arresting them is threatened by the criminal, to which they should be able to defend against.
 
Last edited:
Religion, at which point a whole other can of worms is opened.

Looking at the passages in the bible that mention marriage, if you read between the lines, it's just a moral guide to how Person A should treat Person B and vice versa. You could also take from it that it's good for a couple to be married and that it's a natural state for adults to live in.

But if you believe those words should be taken literally, ie A man should have a wife, and a woman a husband, then you should surely respect all the other stuff about not eating shell fish or wearing clothing of mixed fabrics or women not wearing trousers or holding positions of authority, as well as all the other violent rapey and murdery bits in the OT.
 
I thought this was an interesting article: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality

The one thing I'm anxious about is children being brought up with the fathers or two mothers and how it may affect the child's mental health in the long run. Recent studies have revealed that most homosexuals never enjoy long term relationships with 1 partner (of the same sex).

Sorry if I've offended anyone; I'm just worried about the safety of the people involved.
 
XoravaX
But how far does freedom reach, does the line go just before anarchy?
Until just before it infringes someone else's freedoms, such as religious groups preventing a group from getting married.

Calling yourself Tyrannosaurus Rex, while shocking and weird, does zero to infringe the freedom of others. Offending people does nothing to infringe their freedom.

Ah, the issue isn't this (as far as I know), but the fact that it's too expensive to raise a child here. Most people wait until their late 20's/ early to mid 30's, when they have enough money. That leads to a low child count in families.
How does that prevent multiple kids. My parents did it and had two kids. I have friends from college that didn't have kids until their upper 20s and now have five kids.

Also, the low teenage pregnancy rates are because of free condoms and such being given away a lot, and that under-age girls get free pills if they ask.
We have free condoms here. We just have some weird thing where kids won't use them, or do it improperly.

, ok. Here the 10+ child families are almost inevitably fundamentalist sect families without birth control, and they have children like every 10 months.
Some are like that here, but because the rate of waiting to have kids until later in life is so high that infertility issues become a larger factor. My wife and I even had to deal with minor infertility issues (had our daughter at 30).

Perhaps. But my suspicions of such a system won't go away until I've seen it to work or the whole world-wide situation changed to be more gay-friendly. But your country would make for a good test.
But where do your suspicions come from?

Eh, so the federal government isn't limited by the 14th Amendment? But I hope there are new Amendments which fix this, as if a general government is allowed to do things like that they can seriously trample on the people's rights.
The federal government is limited by the Constitution. Read through it. There are even sections devoted to what powers Congress has and what is limited. The 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..." The 14th Amendment is designed to prevent states, which have some sovereign rights, from creating local laws that discriminate people from other states and so forth. It guarantees that the Bill of Rights applies no matter what states might want to do.

Aren't all governmental benefits that are limited to a single group only unjust then?
Yes.

Yeah, but you can't do anything to the ignorant, be they tourists or locals. That's why there are problems.

But openly showing disrespect towards them is being equally intolerant.
You can protect individuals who are innocently ignorant from the willfully intolerant.

And exactly how is two gay men holding hands open disrespect?

Nor they have any issues attacking their neighbours. Declaring independence from Russia wasn't that easy either, and in the following war Germany had to come to our aid against both the Russians and local socialists. Even though Lenin had recognised our independence in late 1917, the Russians still took part in the war in 1918.
I don't doubt your case, just pointing out that we won our independence while practicing limited government.

It should also be noted that a strong military does not require an overly intrusive domestic policy.

Not full-length education. However our high schools and colleges are free too so if they have the basic education already they can seek in.
We even let prisoners seek high school equivalency degrees.

That goes a bit too far. Suspected criminals should always be trialled, unless the life of the police/troops arresting them is threatened by the criminal, to which they should be able to defend against.
And they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
I thought this was an interesting article: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality

The one thing I'm anxious about is children being brought up with the fathers or two mothers and how it may affect the child's mental health in the long run. Recent studies have revealed that most homosexuals never enjoy long term relationships with 1 partner (of the same sex).*

Sorry if I've offended anyone; I'm just worried about the safety of the people involved.

*[citation needed]

How about all the children with 'traditional' mothers and fathers, where the parents are abusive or dismissive towards their off spring. With all the trouble it takes a same-sex partnership to adopt a child, you'd imagine they'd be much keener to bring up their children well, then couples who have had children 'by mistake' or where one partner was indifferent to the idea of having kids.
 
The main problem with the rights is that they are subjective. To me, for example, the right to trespass (both government and private) lands is a basic right (as it is here in Finland), while in the US someone could shoot me for that.

The only ones that aren't subjective are the right to live and the right to decide over one's body.

They could shoot you dead for it - which kinda blows your argument out of the water.

If it's subjective it's a law, NOT a right. Please read that thread.
 
No, sexual orientation isn't looked into, as that way there would be preconditions for each sexual orientation, making the law inequal. Instead, the law just doesn't recognise a union between two persons of the same sex (they don't necessarily have to be homosexual, and a conventional male-female union doesn't have to be between two straight people).
Though in general, homosexuals don't want a heterosexual marriage. If you're homosexual, you want a same sex partner, but the law denies you this for basically no reason. And not recognizing a union because the two members are the same sex is basically the same thing as looking into sexual orientation. Two men/women getting married is no different from any other pair of people getting married. There's no reason to make any distinction between the two except to discriminate.


But saying gay couples aren't different from straight couples has a single problem. That they physically are different (but nothing more I suppose).
The same kind of physical difference between a white couple and a black one, trivial.


What if all kinds of marriage/union would be called "civil union" but the law itself "marriage law"? That way it would cause minimum discomfort IMO.
Then those people who are married or soon to be married would probably complain. It makes more sense to just let marriage be marriage and let everyone take part.
 
TheCracker
Why are you 'anxious' about how other people bring up their children anyway?

Because all children deserve a decent upbringing. I will be 'anxious' if children are suffering from conditions at home.

http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57451777&feed_id=5&videofeed=41

From the above results: 98% of respondents in the test who had been brought up in a lesbian household said that their parents had not stayed together long enough for them to reach the age of 18.
 
Because all children deserve a decent upbringing. I will be 'anxious' if children are suffering from conditions at home.

http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57451777&feed_id=5&videofeed=41

From the above results: 98% of respondents in the test who had been brought up in a lesbian household said that their parents had not stayed together long enough for them to reach the age of 18.

From that same article:
Several experts and advocacy groups have taken issue with the study's methodology, saying a comparison of children of a lesbian mother - who herself may have divorced the child's biological father, or may not even identify as a lesbian since the survey only asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood - is an unfair, flawed comparison.
💡
 
Because all children deserve a decent upbringing. I will be 'anxious' if children are suffering from conditions at home.

As i said before:

How about all the children with 'traditional' mothers and fathers, where the parents are abusive or dismissive towards their off spring. With all the trouble it takes a same-sex partnership to adopt a child, you'd imagine they'd be much keener to bring up their children well, then couples who have had children 'by mistake' or where one partner was indifferent to the idea of having kids.

Like Denur points out, the legitimacy of the article is spurious and looks to have it's own agenda.

Besides, even if a lesbian couple adopt a child and then divorce/split up before that child reaches 18, there's nothing to say that will harm their upbringing. I'd say that's preferable to the alternative of growing up in a childrens home or a succession of foster families.
 
Because all children deserve a decent upbringing. I will be 'anxious' if children are suffering from conditions at home.

Worth occasionally stopping to think why those kids are in the care of gay couples in the first place, since gay couples can't procreate. Perhaps their previous next of kin weren't really suitable parents?

One of my friends, who is gay, adopted a couple of children last year with her wife. The occasional problems they have with the kids - and let's not forget that kids have plenty of problems inherent to simply being kids - are down to their previous care and are nothing do to with a gay couple fostering them.
 
Worth occasionally stopping to think why those kids are in the care of gay couples in the first place, since gay couples can't procreate. Perhaps their previous next of kin weren't really suitable parents?

One of my friends, who is gay, adopted a couple of children last year with her wife. The occasional problems they have with the kids - and let's not forget that kids have plenty of problems inherent to simply being kids - are down to their previous care and are nothing do to with a gay couple fostering them.

See, this is the problem I have with this debate. Most of the time, both sides are begging the question and asserting gays are "better at raising children" than straights or vice versa. Let's get down to brass taxes here people. Gay or straight? It doesn't matter: we all have the potential to be horrible parents.
 
See, this is the problem I have with this debate. Most of the time, both sides are begging the question and asserting gays are "better at raising children" than straights or vice versa. Let's get down to brass taxes here people. Gay or straight? It doesn't matter: we all have the potential to be horrible parents.

To clarify: I agree with you. I wasn't trying to say that a gay couple is better, but on the flip side there's certainly nothing to suggest that a non-gay couple is better either.

Bad parents are bad parents (and indeed, bad couples are bad couples). Their sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with it, so trying to suggest that a gay couple somehow isn't as worthy of marriage is a load of tosh.
 
[Sarcasm to make a point]
I vote that all Olympic games be non-gender specific. I mean, it's just not fair. If everyone is created equally then why the segregation?
[/Sarcasm to make a point]
 
[Sarcasm to make a point]
I vote that all Olympic games be non-gender specific. I mean, it's just not fair. If everyone is created equally then why the segregation?
[/Sarcasm to make a point]

Umm.... not quite sure what the point is you're trying to make?
 
Umm.... not quite sure what the point is you're trying to make?

The point is that segregation/discrimination exists.

When marriage is between a man and a woman, couples that don't meet that criteria are discriminated against. I can't cry "discrimination" to the Olympics board when my request to participate in the woman's lifting events. It is what it is. Do I think they should discriminate against me? Yes, I certainly do because it's a woman's event.

Like I said earlier, if a gay couple want's Civil Union rights so they can take advantage of all the things that married couples do, sure.....I support that, but don't call it marriage, because it is not.
 
Like I said earlier, if a gay couple want's Civil Union rights so they can take advantage of all the things that married couples do, sure.....I support that, but don't call it marriage, because it is not.

But as defined by whom?
 
TankAss95
Well, after the anti-atheism bit, where he falls back on the "how do you have morality if you don't believe in God" bit, he then quotes the basis in Christian belief. Personal beliefs are absolutely fine, but while he is quoting all the sexual morality rules he chooses to ignore that many heterosexual activities are included in that but none of them are having their legality questioned. The guy chooses which sins he thinks should be illegal.

The one thing I'm anxious about is children being brought up with the fathers or two mothers and how it may affect the child's mental health in the long run. Recent studies have revealed that most homosexuals never enjoy long term relationships with 1 partner (of the same sex).
What studies?

That said, I don't doubt there could some differences merely due to gender differences. If someone asked me to stereotype I would imagine two women being the most stable and two men being the least stable purely based on our evolutionary differences in his our bodies and minds approach sexual encounters, men being more programmed to seek multiple partners and women being more programmed to settle into a monogamous relationship. The sheer physiological dynamic shift could easily produce differing results.

That said, when children are involved the psychological effect on those in a relationship can be huge, straight or gay. The same can be said when there is no legal reasoning to prevent you from walking out. There is no alimony or paperwork or court cases to make you stop and ask if you are making the right decision. Heterosexual couples living together, but not married, also may find walking away easier.

Without these factors being involved no 1:1 comparison is possible. Things are just now beginning to change so that in 20 years we may truly be able to see just how different the simple dynamic shift of same sex couples truly affects things.

Sorry if I've offended anyone; I'm just worried about the safety of the people involved.
In a world with rising divorce rates I don't even know if it will matter. If homosexual married couples are prone to divorce more often than heterosexual couples that would increase total divorced home children by less than 10% of total population, and that is assuming all gay couples want children, so I'm shooting high.

Since I have already quoted studies showing childhood instability is not related to gender or sexual preference of the parents, but rather from single parent homes of any kind, if you want to use the stance that you wish to protect the children you make a much stronger case for banning divorce and premarital sex.

TankAss95
Well the statistics from the article I shared comes from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0830818588
Assuming the author of the article you linked is accurately reporting this book;

It is a nearly 20-year-old book published when homosexuality was just barely being accepted in public and had a lot of stigma attached to it. That appears to have affected this book. It claims 75% have had over 100 partners, half of them strangers. It claims the majority are disease infested drug users. And the best one was that average life expectancy of a homosexual is 40. Half the gay people I know are 40 or older, none are sick, none are any more promiscuous than straight people in the same demographic, and none have a history of drug use. I have worked with many gay people and one transgendered. I even know a few that have retired and are drawing social security. I have a sneaking suspicion he couldn't find older gay people because it was 1995 and coming out likely seemed scary to them.
 
Do you guys agree with the Bishop of Aberdeen that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then the floodgates should be open for polygamy and incest?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...d-incest-jibe-1-2451060#.UCAmAVEIGl0.facebook

It's a fair point i suppose.

But there is substantial evidence that children born of incest do have a much higher chance of been born with some form of genetic disability. That's not to say that those children are any less valued and loved by their parents, but i'd imagine most parents would prefer their children to be born 'average' in this respect so they have less hurdles to face in later life.

As for polygamy, well, it's a bit like having multiple houses. Whilst it's great in theory to have more than one house to dwell in and call your own, just think about the multiple mortgages!
 
But as defined by whom?

The majority.

Are all your public bathrooms/restrooms co-ed or do they discriminate on gender?

Some of you talk of discrimination like it is the plague and scream that all things are equal when they are not. We will have discrimination as long as people are different. The level of acceptable discrimination that is tolerated is a moving line. I think the line is fine where it is while others want to continue to push it. I think this is fine that this is want they want, but I do not support that point of view. If a gay couple wants to get married, too bad. They can't have it. If I want to be financially independent, well....too bad for me, I can't have it. Just because someone has something that I want, that doesn't mean I am entitled to it because they are.
 
[Sarcasm to make a point]
I vote that all Olympic games be non-gender specific. I mean, it's just not fair. If everyone is created equally then why the segregation?
[/Sarcasm to make a point]

You're making a point, but it's a bit of a lousy one.

How about they segregate the gay athletes instead?

All things being equal, gay athletes have absolutely no reason not to be included in the same gender group as their heterosexual counterparts, and have equally as much right to compete.

All things being equal, gay couples have absolutely no reason not to be granted the same rights to marriage as their heterosexual counterparts, and have equally as much right to get married.

Since when has...

The point is that segregation/discrimination exists

...meant that it's okay to segregate or discriminate?

Oh, it happens elsewhere? That must make it okay everywhere! See: racial discrimination, genocide, religious discrimination, etc etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if gay marriage was one fewer area in which discrimination over some utter irrelevance took place?
 
The one thing I'm anxious about is children being brought up with the fathers or two mothers and how it may affect the child's mental health in the long run. Recent studies have revealed that most homosexuals never enjoy long term relationships with 1 partner (of the same sex).

If you look at divorce statistics, then a high number of heterosexual partners do not either.
 
TankAss95
http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57451777&feed_id=5&videofeed=41

From the above results: 98% of respondents in the test who had been brought up in a lesbian household said that their parents had not stayed together long enough for them to reach the age of 18.
Here is what multiple of the coworkers of this study's author sent in to the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/debra-umberson/texas-professors-gay-research_b_1628988.html

Mark Regnerus claims to have produced the first rigorous scientific evidence showing that same sex families harm children. As a family sociologist at the University of Texas, I am disturbed by his irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research, and furious that he is besmirching my university to lend credibility to his "findings."

The recent study by my colleague Mark Regnerus on gay parenting purports to show that young adults with a parent who ever had a same-sex relationship turn out worse than young adults with continuously married heterosexual parents (who are, in addition, biologically related to their children). He calls this latter group the "gold standard for parenting."

But in making this claim, he has violated the "gold standard for research." Regnerus' study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison.
His definition of children raised by lesbian mothers and gay fathers is incredibly broad -- anyone whose biological or adopted mother or father had a same-sex relationship that the respondent knew about by age 18. Most of these respondents did not even live with their parent's same-sex partner; in fact, many did not even live with their gay or lesbian parent at all! Of the 175 adult children Regnerus claims were raised by "lesbian mothers," only 40 actually lived with their mother and her same-sex partner for at least three years.

On the other hand, to be included in the "heterosexual married family" category, respondents had to have parents who were continuously married from the time of their birth to the time of the survey! Anyone whose parents had divorced between the time they left home and when they took the survey (respondents were aged 18 to 39 at the time of the survey) was not included in this so-called "gold standard."

By casting his net so widely for children of supposedly gay and lesbian parents, and so narrowly for the children of heterosexual couples, Regnerus practically guaranteed that his study would find that those with so-called gay and lesbian parents would fare worse than those with so-called heterosexual parents. His approach selected for people who had experienced far more stress and far less stability than average for their generation, much of which arguably had little to do with their parent's sexual orientation. They experienced more parental divorce, remarriage, and adoption (perhaps preceded by foster care). They were also more likely to be nonwhite and less economically privileged.

Regnerus could have compared young adults who lived continuously in exclusively heterosexual households and those who lived continuously with a parent in a same-sex relationship. But he did not, both because his sample of youth from "gay families" was too small to parse in this fashion and because his sample of youth from heterosexual households of all types would not likely produce many differences from the "gay parent" group.
While Regnerus has the right to investigate any question, he also has the responsibility to report only robust findings. We are dismayed by the poor quality of this analysis. Regnerus is not an expert in family sociology, nor does he represent the views of other faculty at the University of Texas. I have been conducting research on family relationships, including gay and lesbian relationships, for many years. Yet the first I learned of this study was when it hit the press. Had Regnerus walked down the hall and knocked on my door, I would have been happy to explain that stress and instability harm children in any family context. Love and support help children to thrive and succeed. Pseudo-science that demonizes gay and lesbian families contributes to stress, and is not good for children.

Debra Umberson collaborated with three other prominent family sociologists at the University of Texas, Austin, to assess the scientific merits of Regnerus' research. These colleagues include: Shannon Cavanagh, Associate Professor, University of Texas, Austin; Jennifer Glass, Barbara Bush Professor of Liberal Arts, University of Texas, Austin; and Board Member of the Council on Contemporary Families, Kelly Raley, Professor, University of Texas, Austin and Editor, Journal of Marriage and Family
It doesn't speak well for you when the people in offices down the hall from yours collaborate on a commentary to the press to discredit you for junk science.

Omnis
Do you guys agree with the Bishop of Aberdeen that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then the floodgates should be open for polygamy and incest?
If everyone involved are consenting adults, and a guy likes the idea of punishing himself with more than one wife, have at it.

Pako
The point is that segregation/discrimination exists.

When marriage is between a man and a woman, couples that don't meet that criteria are discriminated against. I can't cry "discrimination" to the Olympics board when my request to participate in the woman's lifting events. It is what it is. Do I think they should discriminate against me? Yes, I certainly do because it's a woman's event.
I was unaware that the IOC was a government. Private organizations should be allowed to discriminate in their policies. Government should not. Which means that if gay marriage is legalized and a gay couple take a church to court for refusing to marry them I will defend the church, just as I defended the Komen Foundation's funding choices and Chick Fil A's public voicing of their opinion on this issue.

Like I said earlier, if a gay couple want's Civil Union rights so they can take advantage of all the things that married couples do, sure.....I support that, but don't call it marriage, because it is not.
You keep saying that. I still don't get why you are so adamant about it having to be that way.

EDIT:

Pako
Are all your public bathrooms/restrooms co-ed or do they discriminate on gender?
I've been in public coed bathrooms before. But then they still had lockable doors on all the stalls. Probably because it is a privacy and safety issue.

By the way, let me know when they start making gay only bathrooms. I don't want gay dudes checking out my junk.

Some of you talk of discrimination like it is the plague and scream that all things are equal when they are not. We will have discrimination as long as people are different. The level of acceptable discrimination that is tolerated is a moving line. I think the line is fine where it is while others want to continue to push it. I think this is fine that this is want they want, but I do not support that point of view. If a gay couple wants to get married, too bad. They can't have it. If I want to be financially independent, well....too bad for me, I can't have it. Just because someone has something that I want, that doesn't mean I am entitled to it because they are.
Gay couple gets married. You are affected how? I'm not letting that go by the way.

You are given financial independence without earning it. That money had to come from someone else.

So, one example requires taking assets from someone. The other example just does nothing to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Back