Honestly, I can’t. Exclusivity was never a significant feature of marriage. What ticks people off is the idea that lesser beings would have the same rights as them. Same as for miscegenation.
suck it you hateful bigoted degenerate whore-mothered goat-fucking trash(gay marriage ban overturned
The slaves could quit?
Actually, when you put it that way, it is kind of hard to see how anyone would be ticked off about the marriage club getting a little less exclusive.
My understanding of the concept is completely blown, then.
You really think it’s about tax breaks?
To be fair, my marriage is exclusive, and that fact is significant to me (and, I trust, to my wife). But this ruling has no impact whatsoever on that exclusivity.
I’m with Bosstone - I’m missing whatever it is that’s apparently blindingly obvious to you.
I never knew that Mormons were so concerned about tax revenues.
No, it’s clearly the terrible imposition of not being allowed to forbid other people to marry. Opposition to SSM is about the hatred of homosexuals, and nothing else.
None of this matters to me anymore. I just want to be able to ride a raptor. I’ll even learn Spanish, if I have to.
Hey man they need their 10%… So they can fund legislation that has 0 impact on their members…
I’m still wondering why they would want tar on their tables.
When your only other option is used toilet paper…
I think fear is probably more common than hatred. The Prop 8 supporters’ ace in the hole was the dishonest “protect our children” argument, according to a recent study. Although there’s certainly a good number of outright haters, as any glance at the comments on Protect Marriage’s Facebook page shows.
No, not at all. I’m just saying you’ve got to be wary of making claims that are easily defeated. You said it doesn’t inconvenience people, and yet not having as much tax from gay couples does, in fact, inconvenience straight people. Now, of course that’s a silly reason to take the opposition’s side. That’s obvious. But I’m just saying that there’s no reason to go overboard and give them a chance to easily knock down something you’ve said. Then they walk away thinking they’ve defeated you. Even worse, next time they have this argument, they’ll go “Well I don’t want to pay more taxes” cause they’ll go “Hey, I won the last argument with that line.”
I’m just keepin’ ya honest is all.
Not having as much tax from rich people inconveniences everybody. Which side of that argument are you on again?
Well, only in liberal land where “everybody” doesn’t include those inhuman, disgusting “rich people” who clearly exploit real people for their own personal gain. But that’s neither here nor there.
Look, I’m not trying to make some grand, complicated argument here. It’s really simple.
- With gay marriage, more people will be married.
- Married people pay less taxes and/or qualify for more benefits.
- Receipts fall and expenditures rise.
- Straight people will therefore pay a bigger piece of the (now bigger) tax pie.
- That’s bad for straight people (and single gays), good for gay couples.
Conclusion: Gay marriage is, in at least one minute way, an inconvenience to straight people.
Now you can go on and on arguing “So what? That’s still fair” and “It’s a minute effect” and “the benefits, though, outweigh that cost”. But the inconvenience is still there.
So you say “There aren’t any inconveniences” and they go “There’s the tax thing” and you’re then stuck either having to lie or admit you’re wrong. Neither of those are good things for your side.
It happens all the time on the Dope whenever the board is heavily biased toward one side. You know how IQs inflate over the course of an IQ thread? Well the same thing happens with people arguing their point:
First post: “It’s more good than bad”
Second post: “It’s mostly good and hardly bad.”
Third post: “It’s almost all good and really no bad worth mentioning.”
Fourth post: “IT’S ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY A GOOD THING AND THERE ISN’T A SINGLE BAD THING ABOUT IT!!!”
I call it the “Runaway Exaggeration Train”. Consider it coined. You might not believe me now but I’ll point it out next time and the time after that. Maybe I can get a board meme! It’s totally the next “sneak-brag”.
That is some weak-ass shit, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to present it as a valid argument.
You’re assuming that other taxes will be raised to deal with the (miniscule) revenue lost from gay couples being married, rather than the money coming from some other sourse that the conservatives couples in question don’t care about, like taking care of the poor or funding government offices. I see no reason to accept this assumption, as it seems strained at best - politicians don’t want to evoke the outrage, and so will pull the funds from somewhere innocuous instead. In this case the straight people would not have to pay increased taxes.
Hmm, without this assumption of yours, your argument seems to have utterly collapsed. Do you have another?
How disgusting rich people are don’t enter into it. A rising tide lifts all boats … even yachts.
If your complaint is that the amount of taxes we collect is going to be affected if gay people are allowed to marry, well, hey, I know right where a lot of money is. Rich people have it. And they used to have to pay taxes on it. Now they don’t and guess what … we’re inconvenienced by it.
And why have gay couples fallen off your radar for who can be extorted by the gummint for the purposes wealth distribution anyway?
That’s also the arguement that was used in Maine to shoot down marriage equality. I have a cousin who lives up there; she sincerely believes that schools will start “indoctrinating” the children if same sex marriage is legalized.