Chick-fil-a

[Farbin Kaiber]

Give birth to more taxpayers. To stay at the top of the pyramid, you gotta keep having new suckers buy into the the scheme.

[Vedubin01]

That seems more of a consequence than a reason. I was wondering what good it does society for the government to subsidize marriage if that is the case.

Its in the works to take away that deduction. I pretty sure the original thinking was that once you are married you the working husband would work and provide while your wife stayed home to raise your kids. They gave you a deduction for that like you can deduct your kids etc...

Today most households that are married are both working. Out of necessity or striving to live a better life.

[FunfGan]

This thread is gay.

:ohsnap:

[rwh11385]

don't take it to such an extent. Categorize men to men and women to women. Since you are comparing same sex. (how many men have sex with other men vs. men having sex with women) etc...

And to an extent yes minorities are not normal. ex. it is not normal to find a Cuban in Alaska. It happens but not "normal"

So are you saying that minorities are a bad thing? Wrong? Do you think that the world would be better with less diversity? Or, no diversity? All blond with blue eyes? Because that is the message you seem to be sending.


Recessive genetic traits are never the majority in a population... but they are still normal or expected outcomes. So equating majority with "normal" is ridiculous.

[squidmaster]

don't take it to such an extent. Categorize men to men and women to women. Since you are comparing same sex. (how many men have sex with other men vs. men having sex with women) etc...

And to an extent yes minorities are not normal. ex. it is not normal to find a Cuban in Alaska. It happens but not "normal"

Would it be wrong to find a Cuban in Alaska though? Normality doesn't always dictate correctness.

It's normal to smoke cigarettes for instance. But let's get off of the choice of doing something normal. Many lbgt people are born with a set chemistry that supports them through their love life. Much the same way that people have different aptitudes toward different subjects. It may not be the most common thing to have a gift for math, but it's not "wrong" or "against nature" or "gross." And to suggest that such a thing as being gay are wrong are ridiculous.

That seems more of a consequence than a reason. I was wondering what good it does society for the government to subsidize marriage if that is the case.

You can save money on filing taxes together. Also it's easier to list beneficiaries.

[Vedubin01]

So are you saying that minorities are a bad thing? Wrong? Do you think that the world would be better with less diversity? Or, no diversity? All blond with blue eyes? Because that is the message you seem to be sending.


Recessive genetic traits are never the majority in a population... but they are still normal or expected outcomes. So equating majority with "normal" is ridiculous.

Never said that minorities are a bad thing! Is it wrong? Not at all. Do I think the world would be better, of course not. I happen to be blond hair and green eyes. Damn just missed it! :?


And again compare apples to apples. If there is a recessive there is a dominate. Compare recessive to recessive and dominate to dominate. One would not be one if not for the other.

[rwh11385]

Never said that minorities are a bad thing! Is it wrong? Not at all. Do I think the world would be better, of course not. I happen to be blond hair and green eyes. Damn just missed it! :?


And again compare apples to apples. If there is a recessive there is a dominate. Compare recessive to recessive and dominate to dominate. One would not be one if not for the other.

So compare left-handedness to being gay. Most people are right-dominate and most people are attracted to the opposite sex, but there's also less frequently occurring outcomes paired with those. If you treat people who eat with their left hand as human, do the same for guys who love guys. Shouldn't that be easy?? Haven't we learned to do that with minorities and women?


Or do you deny civil rights to lefties??

[Farbin Kaiber]

It's got nothing to do with treating them as humans, that's a given. Nobody is calling them less than human, or even anything less than human. This is about those you speak of wanting to modify the meaning of a word to fit them instead of using a word that does fit that specific group.

[Vedubin01]

So compare left-handedness to being gay. Most people are right-dominate and most people are attracted to the opposite sex, but there's also less frequently occurring outcomes paired with those. If you treat people who eat with their left hand as human, do the same for guys who love guys. Shouldn't that be easy?? Haven't we learned to do that with minorities and women?


Or do you deny civil rights to lefties??

That makes no sense... I am reading that as the same thing.

[Vedubin01]

It's got nothing to do with treating them as humans, that's a given. Nobody is calling them less than human, or even anything less than human. This is about those you speak of wanting to modify the meaning of a word to fit them instead of using a word that does fit that specific group.

thank you

[rwh11385]

It's got nothing to do with treating them as humans, that's a given. Nobody is calling them less than human, or even anything less than human. This is about those you speak of wanting to modify the meaning of a word to fit them instead of using a word that does fit that specific group.

Marriage is a fundamental civil right (so has been declared by the Supreme Court). Denying them that is denying that they are equal as humans, like the country did with former slaves and women.

You JUST said that if they are normal, they shouldn't get special treatment - which would include a special new term for a specific group instead of allowing them the term everyone else is allowed.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Yes, I said IF they are normal.

That does not equal that I said they ARE normal.

[rwh11385]

That makes no sense... I am reading that as the same thing.

I'm sorry, I'll frame it out more slowly for you...


Do you think that left-handed people deserve the same rights as those who are right-hand dominate?

Do you believe that left-hand dominate is "normal" and is the connected pair to being born right-handed? (Like recessive traits are paired with dominate ones)

The occurrence of left-handedness is similar to homosexuality. Do you acknowledge that homosexuality is the alternate outcome to heterosexuality?

Therefore, do you consider homosexuals to be as normal as left-handed people?

And based on that, do you understand why they should have the same rights as everyone else?



Or did I lose you again?

[rwh11385]

Yes, I said IF they are normal.

That does not equal that I said they ARE normal.

So, are you saying that they aren't normal? And are you saying that they should be treated differently?

And your solution is a separate but "equivalent" term??

[Farbin Kaiber]

I didn't say they are, I didn't say they are not.

I do feel a unique term should be used in this situation, one that accurately defines the type of union inferred by the word/title used.