Flat Earthers for marriage equality

  • 110 Replies
  • 13244 Views
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2013, 06:32:23 PM »
If the government gave out benefits only after children were produced, that is less incentive for a couple to risk it all to have children. If the couple is financially stable before having children, that makes the decision to have children easier.

Heterosexual behavior is desirable. The descendant lineage of a single married heterosexual couple can represent many millions of dollars in tax revenue.

Why should the government give out benefits to gays and people who do not marry?

They also represent millions of dollars in tax expenditures. These are kids that we are going to have to put through school, treat in the emergency room, and share public roads with.  If a married couple needs tax benefits just to stay afloat, then having a child is irresponsible. 

People don't need incentive to have kids.  Having kids should not be about getting a tax benefit.  The tax benefit should help poor people take adequate care their offspring, not encourage them to make even more kids.

Statistically poor children grow up to be poor, and the poor are a terrible group when it comes to government revenue because they have no money. 

This isn't about people having kids, its about people thinking that Homosexuality is immoral.  Even if you look back at arguments congress has made in the last ten years, they are pretty much all about it being wrong/ a danger to the family unit.  This whole gay people don't produce tax payers thing is stupid.  Our goal is to make raising children in poverty less difficult, and to make sure they have a brighter future.  We should not be subsidizing every married couple so they will have children, we have enough people already.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #61 on: April 01, 2013, 06:48:26 PM »
So let's look at your list.
You first laundry list was almost all about allowing one of the two people to collect benefits given to the spouse or about making life or death decisions regarding the spouse.  It's closer to creating a single legal entity from two people rather than encouraging procreation.

I see a lot of benefits in that list, such as inheriting your spouse's estate tax free after they die. That's a direct financial benefit from being married. The government is losing money by allowing that to happen.

The government allows you to obtain insurance benefits from your spouse's employer, making it cheaper for you to obtain insurance, and therefore cause the government to receive much less in taxes then it would otherwise get.

Quote
It's 2X the amount because there are 2X the people living there.  The tax code takes each person and joins them together.  In fact, selling a home is not usually a step towards family as a family usually forms AFTER the purchase of a home or during it.  You usually only sell a house's after you've had a family and perhaps are retiring.

No, you have it backwards. It's a huge benefit. It's 2 people who have paid the price of 1 house, yet are receiving the tax breaks as if they had 2 houses.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 07:05:57 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2013, 07:01:34 PM »
This isn't about people having kids, its about people thinking that Homosexuality is immoral. Even if you look back at arguments congress has made in the last ten years, they are pretty much all about it being wrong/ a danger to the family unit.  This whole gay people don't produce tax payers thing is stupid.  Our goal is to make raising children in poverty less difficult, and to make sure they have a brighter future.  We should not be subsidizing every married couple so they will have children, we have enough people already.

So why should we give homosexuals money for being homo?

I've listed off reasons to encourage heterosexual unions, which directly results in millions of dollars and prosperity of the nation. Why should we encourage homosexual unions?

*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • ROUND000
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2013, 07:21:18 PM »
This isn't about people having kids, its about people thinking that Homosexuality is immoral. Even if you look back at arguments congress has made in the last ten years, they are pretty much all about it being wrong/ a danger to the family unit.  This whole gay people don't produce tax payers thing is stupid.  Our goal is to make raising children in poverty less difficult, and to make sure they have a brighter future.  We should not be subsidizing every married couple so they will have children, we have enough people already.

So why should we give homosexuals money for being homo?

I've listed off reasons to encourage heterosexual unions, which directly results in millions of dollars and prosperity of the nation. Why should we encourage homosexual unions?

This isn't about encouragement, this is about equal rights. If gay marriage was passed nation wide, no one is forcing anybody to become gay. If you're straight, go ahead and marry the opposite gender. No one is stopping you.
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2013, 07:29:26 PM »
So let's look at your list.
You first laundry list was almost all about allowing one of the two people to collect benefits given to the spouse or about making life or death decisions regarding the spouse.  It's closer to creating a single legal entity from two people rather than encouraging procreation.

I see a lot of benefits in that list, such as inheriting your spouse's estate tax free after they die. That's a direct financial benefit from being married. The government is losing money by allowing that to happen.

The government allows you to obtain insurance benefits from your spouse's employer, making it cheaper for you to obtain insurance, and therefore cause the government to receive much less in taxes then it would otherwise get.
1. None of those encourages children.
2. They are all extensions of legally binding two people.  How many of those are simple transfer of ownership from dead spouse to living spouse?

Quote
Quote
It's 2X the amount because there are 2X the people living there.  The tax code takes each person and joins them together.  In fact, selling a home is not usually a step towards family as a family usually forms AFTER the purchase of a home or during it.  You usually only sell a house's after you've had a family and perhaps are retiring.
No, you have it backwards. It's a huge benefit. It's 2 people who have paid the price of 1 house, yet are receiving the tax breaks as if they had 2 houses.
Only if they sell it.  That seems to encourage selling of homes, not buying them. 

So what does all this have to do with procreation?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2013, 09:57:40 PM »
This isn't about encouragement, this is about equal rights. If gay marriage was passed nation wide, no one is forcing anybody to become gay. If you're straight, go ahead and marry the opposite gender. No one is stopping you.

But why should we reward gays when they have provided no net benefit to society by being gay? A for effort?

This isn't a charity. If you want my tax money you will have to provide something of value to society.

1. None of those encourages children.
2. They are all extensions of legally binding two people.  How many of those are simple transfer of ownership from dead spouse to living spouse?

All of the bullet points in the link reward heterosexual unions.

Quote
Only if they sell it.  That seems to encourage selling of homes, not buying them. 

So what does all this have to do with procreation?

It rewards heterosexual unions. Rewarding heterosexual unions is good because it helps families and provides a more stable environment for procreation. I don't see what rewarding homosexual unions does for anyone.

As least when we give out welfare its done with under the condition that they are actively seeking gainful employment. It's not a total waste of money. It's keeping them fed until they can find work and start bringing in more tax revenue again. In the case of gays, there is no benefit at all for giving them the homo benefits they're demanding.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 10:03:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2013, 10:05:36 PM »
"Why should we encourage homosexual unions?"

I'll answer this one (again) but I'm not getting into the financial discussion with you because you are hellbent on the idea that it is what's important for our government (and not its people).

Homosexuals, though they are so different than you and I (sarcasm) fall in love, too. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)

Also, homosexual unions promote fidelity.  Fidelity leads to safe-sex practices thereby diminishing the spread of diseases.

But most importantly, love.  People are just people.

And... let me just say this isn't a religious issue that are holding America back.  First of all, the USA is not a Christian nation.  And 2nd of all, not all churches prohibit gay marriages.  Some churches allow gay and lesbian pastors. Just an FYI.
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #67 on: April 01, 2013, 11:19:54 PM »
If homosexual marriage is allowed, why can't we marry objects?
If it is 'equal love, equal rights' what about i have equal love for a chair?
Eventually we'll be marrying dogs and kids will have 10 fathers

Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2013, 11:53:43 PM »
If homosexual marriage is allowed, why can't we marry objects?
If it is 'equal love, equal rights' what about i have equal love for a chair?
Eventually we'll be marrying dogs and kids will have 10 fathers

Really?  When we let black people start voting do you think people were saying, "Pretty soon they're gonna let chairs and dogs start voting."

Because last I knew dogs and chairs can't sign marriage contracts, can't vote, and have no legal standing.
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #69 on: April 02, 2013, 05:53:45 AM »
If homosexual marriage is allowed, why can't we marry objects?
If it is 'equal love, equal rights' what about i have equal love for a chair?
Eventually we'll be marrying dogs and kids will have 10 fathers
Just wow...

?

OMEGA MAN

  • 491
  • I AM A NUMBER NOT A MAN!
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #70 on: April 02, 2013, 05:56:39 AM »
"Why should we encourage homosexual unions?"

I'll answer this one (again) but I'm not getting into the financial discussion with you because you are hellbent on the idea that it is what's important for our government (and not its people).

Homosexuals, though they are so different than you and I (sarcasm) fall in love, too. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)

Also, homosexual unions promote fidelity.  Fidelity leads to safe-sex practices thereby diminishing the spread of diseases.

But most importantly, love.  People are just people.

And... let me just say this isn't a religious issue that are holding America back.  First of all, the USA is not a Christian nation.  And 2nd of all, not all churches prohibit gay marriages.  Some churches allow gay and lesbian pastors. Just an FYI.
Most gay couples /marriages/civil partnerships [70%] have open sex lives according to Gay Men's Health. So monogamy is not paramount in a gay marriage, the idea of love in the gay world must be very different to the concept of love in a heterosexual marriage.
Just an observation. Not a judgement.I would like to see more monogamous marriage among gay's.
BOLLOX.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #71 on: April 02, 2013, 06:05:10 AM »
The issue is that certain rights to individuals should be modular, not lumped into one huge entity known as "marriage."  Marriage should be a matter of belief and intent.  From there we can have prenups, access contracts for hospital visits, and tax breaks for children, productivity, and adoption.

Unfortunately making large changes is almost impossible.

As far as the argument of why to give money to homosexuals, it wouldn't be hard to justify tax breaks since we are having population issues with our Social safety nets like Social Security.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #72 on: April 02, 2013, 06:07:38 AM »
1. None of those encourages children.
2. They are all extensions of legally binding two people.  How many of those are simple transfer of ownership from dead spouse to living spouse?

All of the bullet points in the link reward heterosexual unions.

Quote
Only if they sell it.  That seems to encourage selling of homes, not buying them. 

So what does all this have to do with procreation?

It rewards heterosexual unions. Rewarding heterosexual unions is good because it helps families and provides a more stable environment for procreation. I don't see what rewarding homosexual unions does for anyone.

As least when we give out welfare its done with under the condition that they are actively seeking gainful employment. It's not a total waste of money. It's keeping them fed until they can find work and start bringing in more tax revenue again. In the case of gays, there is no benefit at all for giving them the homo benefits they're demanding.
I just realized something.
Something so profound that I wanted to separate it from my original argument.
Why does it matter if we reward a minority group of marriages in the same way as traditional?  It won't cheapen the reward or incentive to procreate.  People aren't going to say "Well if gays can get married and get tax and spouse benefits, why should I bother?". 

So why don't you want homosexuals to have marriage benefits?



---------- Original Argument ---------------
Are you suggesting that all citizens have only one function and that function is to procreate?  Because that's what it sounds like.  Which is odd considering the number of children in foster care or other non-traditional homes is over 400,000 in the US.
According to the US census Bureau, there are 646,000 same sex couple households in the US.

If each of those households had the legal right to adopt (marriage helps with that) then the federal funding for orphans and foster care could drop significantly.  Not only that but the children would likely become more productive to society, raised in a family environment rather than foster care or an orphanage.  Even if the child has two mothers or two fathers.

Also, as a married couple, homosexuals would have the same spending power as married, heterosexual couples.
In fact, if you really want to go on about procreation, homosexual couples CAN procreate with a donor.  Either donor sperm or a surrogate mother. 



So let's break it down:
Homosexual vs Heterosexual marriages.
Can care for children: Yes - Yes
Can have children with DNA matching one parent: Yes - Yes
Can have children with DNA matching both parents: No - Yes
Can pay taxes: Yes - Yes
Can adopt: Yes - Yes
Can raise healthy, socially adjusted children: Yes - Yes
Can buy a house: Yes - Yes


You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #73 on: April 02, 2013, 06:08:26 AM »
"Why should we encourage homosexual unions?"

I'll answer this one (again) but I'm not getting into the financial discussion with you because you are hellbent on the idea that it is what's important for our government (and not its people).

Homosexuals, though they are so different than you and I (sarcasm) fall in love, too. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)

Also, homosexual unions promote fidelity.  Fidelity leads to safe-sex practices thereby diminishing the spread of diseases.

But most importantly, love.  People are just people.

And... let me just say this isn't a religious issue that are holding America back.  First of all, the USA is not a Christian nation.  And 2nd of all, not all churches prohibit gay marriages.  Some churches allow gay and lesbian pastors. Just an FYI.
Most gay couples /marriages/civil partnerships [70%] have open sex lives according to Gay Men's Health. So monogamy is not paramount in a gay marriage, the idea of love in the gay world must be very different to the concept of love in a heterosexual marriage.
Just an observation. Not a judgement.I would like to see more monogamous marriage among gay's.
Can you break that down to the various percentages of couples, married couples, and civil partnership couples?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Genius

  • 2180
  • Professor of Geniustology
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #74 on: April 02, 2013, 06:09:02 AM »
If homosexual marriage is allowed, why can't we marry objects?
If it is 'equal love, equal rights' what about i have equal love for a chair?
Eventually we'll be marrying dogs and kids will have 10 fathers

Heh hem, you're a fucking idiot.
The earth is round because the space man said so.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #75 on: April 02, 2013, 06:12:48 AM »
I just realized something.
Something so profound that I wanted to separate it from my original argument.
Why does it matter if we reward a minority group of marriages in the same way as traditional?  It won't cheapen the reward or incentive to procreate. 
Well, in a zero sum system it does cheapen the value of the reward to procreate.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #76 on: April 02, 2013, 06:19:13 AM »
Can have children with DNA matching both parents: No - Yes
Actually...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19597856
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

OMEGA MAN

  • 491
  • I AM A NUMBER NOT A MAN!
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #77 on: April 02, 2013, 06:25:15 AM »
If homosexual marriage is allowed, why can't we marry objects?
If it is 'equal love, equal rights' what about i have equal love for a chair?
Eventually we'll be marrying dogs and kids will have 10 fathers

Heh hem, you're a fucking idiot.
Someone had to tell him.
BOLLOX.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #78 on: April 02, 2013, 06:38:45 AM »
I just realized something.
Something so profound that I wanted to separate it from my original argument.
Why does it matter if we reward a minority group of marriages in the same way as traditional?  It won't cheapen the reward or incentive to procreate. 
Well, in a zero sum system it does cheapen the value of the reward to procreate.
Only if it's perceived as a reward.  I would think the tax deduction on the child itself is the perceived reward.  I suspect that most people don't consider the federal benefits marriage to be an incentive for procreation. 
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #79 on: April 02, 2013, 07:30:56 AM »
Sure, of course not;  but perhaps married people tend to have babies more often.  Or tend to be more productive.  Or perhaps its a wide and small change meant to implement a mentality and world order rather than anything else. 

Whatever the reasoning, it seems silly this even exists to argue about.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #80 on: April 02, 2013, 09:25:51 AM »
"Why should we encourage homosexual unions?"

I'll answer this one (again) but I'm not getting into the financial discussion with you because you are hellbent on the idea that it is what's important for our government (and not its people).

Homosexuals, though they are so different than you and I (sarcasm) fall in love, too.

Why should the government give out life long tax breaks to two people because they fell in love?  "You're in love, congratulations, here's some lifelong cash for you." Is that why you think the government gives out tax breaks to married couples?  ???

This woman fell in love with her father.

This woman fell in love with her dog.

Are you arguing that because they fell in love we should let them get married and give them life long monetary benefits in the name of love?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 09:57:57 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #81 on: April 02, 2013, 09:36:26 AM »
I just realized something.
Something so profound that I wanted to separate it from my original argument.
Why does it matter if we reward a minority group of marriages in the same way as traditional?  It won't cheapen the reward or incentive to procreate.  People aren't going to say "Well if gays can get married and get tax and spouse benefits, why should I bother?". 

It matters because we are wasting money by giving it to people who exhibit undesirable behavior. Heterosexual unions are clearly better for public revenue than homosexual unions. Homosexuals do not contribute to the prosperity of the country in the way heterosexual do.

Quote from: Lorddave
So why don't you want homosexuals to have marriage benefits?

I don't like wasting my money.

Quote from: Lorddave
Are you suggesting that all citizens have only one function and that function is to procreate?  Because that's what it sounds like.  Which is odd considering the number of children in foster care or other non-traditional homes is over 400,000 in the US.
According to the US census Bureau, there are 646,000 same sex couple households in the US.

If each of those households had the legal right to adopt (marriage helps with that) then the federal funding for orphans and foster care could drop significantly.  Not only that but the children would likely become more productive to society, raised in a family environment rather than foster care or an orphanage.  Even if the child has two mothers or two fathers.

Also, as a married couple, homosexuals would have the same spending power as married, heterosexual couples.
In fact, if you really want to go on about procreation, homosexual couples CAN procreate with a donor.  Either donor sperm or a surrogate mother. 

As I said, even if homosexuals do adopt, it's still heterosexual behavior which produced that tax payer, not homosexual behavior. If you agree to conduct a charitable act such as adoption, that does not legitimize your outlandish sexual lifestyle. If a homosexual would like to act as a surrogate parent, that is their own prerogative and financial burden.

I don't see why the government should actively reward homosexual behavior because a few of them choose to adopt. I'm sure people who love children, animals, and people of their immediate families also adopt. Should the government reward those behaviors as well?

You are arguing for the government to reward the undesirable behavior of one minority group over another, despite that there is no public benefit for rewarding such behavior. If you want to have sex with men, you can do that on your own dime. Why should I be obligated to support your unsavory lifestyle?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 10:01:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • ROUND000
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #82 on: April 02, 2013, 12:10:16 PM »
"Why should we encourage homosexual unions?"

I'll answer this one (again) but I'm not getting into the financial discussion with you because you are hellbent on the idea that it is what's important for our government (and not its people).

Homosexuals, though they are so different than you and I (sarcasm) fall in love, too.

Why should the government give out life long tax breaks to two people because they fell in love?  "You're in love, congratulations, here's some lifelong cash for you." Is that why you think the government gives out tax breaks to married couples?  ???

This woman fell in love with her father.

This woman fell in love with her dog.

Are you arguing that because they fell in love we should let them get married and give them life long monetary benefits in the name of love?

Did you really just use Yahoo Answers to make a point? Really?

Dogs don't have legal standings and therefore can't get married.

Getting married to a family member is illegal because if they were to have a child it could end up being genetically deformed which is harming an innocent life. Sad thing is, a lot of states allow family members to get married: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

Who is being harmed by gay marriage?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 12:14:47 PM by Snaaaaake »
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #83 on: April 02, 2013, 01:15:45 PM »
Quote from: Snaaaaake link=topic=58093.msg1474456#msg1474456
Did you really just use Yahoo Answers to make a point? Really?

Dogs don't have legal standings and therefore can't get married.

Nor do homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have legal standing and therefore can't get married. I'm glad you agree that the law should stay as it is.

Quote
Getting married to a family member is illegal because if they were to have a child it could end up being genetically deformed which is harming an innocent life.

I thought the argument in this thread was that marriage doesn't necessarily lead to children? Now it does?

The government doesn't recognize incestuous unions because it is an undesirable behavior. It is not a behavior which contributes to the prosperity of the nation.

Quote
Who is being harmed by gay marriage?

I am.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 01:17:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #84 on: April 02, 2013, 01:51:20 PM »
Desirability of behavior has little to do with its addition to the prosperity of the nation. Furthermore, tax breaks for married couples has nothing to do with incentivizing child-making. It was started purely to avoid the 'Marriage Penalty'. Which you know, of course. We don't give money to heterosexual couples because they're good for the public revenue, we do it for socialist reasons. Not all of public policy was written by a 10th grader whose only political education was Atlas Shrugged.

*

Genius

  • 2180
  • Professor of Geniustology
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #85 on: April 02, 2013, 01:53:03 PM »
Chiiiiiiiccccckkkkeeennnn SOOOUUUUPPP

The earth is round because the space man said so.

*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • ROUND000
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #86 on: April 02, 2013, 02:07:03 PM »
Quote from: Snaaaaake link=topic=58093.msg1474456#msg1474456
Did you really just use Yahoo Answers to make a point? Really?

Dogs don't have legal standings and therefore can't get married.

Nor do homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have legal standing and therefore can't get married. I'm glad you agree that the law should stay as it is.

Quote
Getting married to a family member is illegal because if they were to have a child it could end up being genetically deformed which is harming an innocent life.

I thought the argument in this thread was that marriage doesn't necessarily lead to children? Now it does?

The government doesn't recognize incestuous unions because it is an undesirable behavior. It is not a behavior which contributes to the prosperity of the nation.

Quote
Who is being harmed by gay marriage?

I am.

1. Yes they do. Homosexuals are human beings. Dogs are not.

2. You'd rather have a baby be born deformed than it be adopted by a gay couple?

3. Explain.
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #87 on: April 02, 2013, 02:36:06 PM »

Nor do homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have legal standing and therefore can't get married. I'm glad you agree that the law should stay as it is.


Homosexuals do have legal standing. Every citizen has legal standing.

Did you watch the video I posted Tom?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #88 on: April 02, 2013, 02:39:32 PM »
In actuality, many gay couples would have to pay more money in taxes after marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Flat Earthers for marriage equality
« Reply #89 on: April 02, 2013, 04:15:11 PM »
Nor do homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have legal standing and therefore can't get married. I'm glad you agree that the law should stay as it is.

Say what?!
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.