• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexico court backs gay marriages

Oh, I know you luuuuuvvvv you some government. LOL

/facepalm

So what your saying is. I love government. But i don't want government interfering in peoples rights to marry, but you do.

WTF
 
Mexico shouldn't be an example of anything. It is a million-time loser of a country. They treat their people like animals.

Except that they'll allow same sex marriages. So maybe that at least treat their people like animals uniformly.
 
Judao-Christian beliefs did, however, play a HUGE role in the writing of both the Declaration and the Constitution.
So what? Even if we did start that way, nothing says we cant evolve beyond that point.
 
Mexico shouldn't be an example of anything. It is a million-time loser of a country. They treat their people like animals.

Whereas we only treat gays like animals. Is the point people making going over your head, or are you just refusing to address it?
 
Oh, I know you luuuuuvvvv you some government. LOL

Who would that be? The ones looking for the right to contract to be acknowledged or those looking to use government force to enforce their preconceived notions of what "marriage" is?
 
Appeal to populism doesn't count for valid argument. It wasn't Judao-Chirstian beliefs, only maybe 30% of the 10 Commandments made it into actual law. The fact remains that you cannot subject me to the rules of your god and use government force to enforce that subjugation. The Marriage License is a contract, plain and simple. The individual has right to contract. That's it.

Marriage is a contract to you because you don't believe in a Christian God.

It is not a contract; in fact, it's anything but. It's a life-long commitment made before God, in a church, in front of the people that mean the most to you. Government wasn't and isn't any part of my marriage to my wife, and it never will be.

With religion, the concept of marriage never would have surfaced. We'd be running around screwing everybody and procreating at will. A man might have 10 kids on the way simulataneously with 10 different women, and that would be normal.

Christianity (and other religions) scoff at such a behavior, and if you believe in the Bible, it describes what and how procreation is supposed to occur, within the framework of marriage.

Without that, "marriage" would have never been invented in the first place. I mean, with no boundaries, what's the fun of marriage?
 
Who would that be? The ones looking for the right to contract to be acknowledged or those looking to use government force to enforce their preconceived notions of what "marriage" is?

"Contract". Wow, how romantic.

I've never known anyone looking to enter a "contract of marriage" before.
 
Marriage is a contract to you because you don't believe in a Christian God.

It is not a contract; in fact, it's anything but. It's a life-long commitment made before God, in a church, in front of the people that mean the most to you. Government wasn't and isn't any part of my marriage to my wife, and it never will be.

With religion, the concept of marriage never would have surfaced. We'd be running around screwing everybody and procreating at will. A man might have 10 kids on the way simulataneously with 10 different women, and that would be normal.

Christianity (and other religions) scoff at such a behavior, and if you believe in the Bible, it describes what and how procreation is supposed to occur, within the framework of marriage.

Without that, "marriage" would have never been invented in the first place. I mean, with no boundaries, what's the fun of marriage?

We're not talking about how the church views it, get that through your dogmatic viewpoints head.

We're talking about how a secular government who is suppose to treat all people fairly should view marriage, and that, it is equal for all.
 
"Contract". Wow, how romantic.

I've never known anyone looking to enter a "contract of marriage" before.

And yet almost every one who gets married in this country do enter into that contract.

Edit to add: and they happily accept the benefits that come from entering that contract.
 
Marriage is a contract to you because you don't believe in a Christian God.

First off, Marriage is a contract because the Marriage License is a contract which is issued and recognized by the State. And secondly, once again I am not held to the standards of your god. That's your problem, not mine.

It is not a contract; in fact, it's anything but. It's a life-long commitment made before God, in a church, in front of the people that mean the most to you. Government wasn't and isn't any part of my marriage to my wife, and it never will be.

Religion has nothing to do with it. Nor can it form the basis of an argument about laws in America. The Marriage License is a contract. That's the end all be all of it.

With religion, the concept of marriage never would have surfaced. We'd be running around screwing everybody and procreating at will. A man might have 10 kids on the way simulataneously with 10 different women, and that would be normal.

Christianity (and other religions) scoff at such a behavior, and if you believe in the Bible, it describes what and how procreation is supposed to occur, within the framework of marriage.

Christians can do whatever the hell they want. They don't have to marry gay people either if they do not want it. But religious arguments are not valid for implementation of laws in our society. Our laws are to be based upon the rights and liberties of the individual; not your god. So it's a moot point. Your god can say all sorts of things, and you can buy into it as much as you want. But you cannot subjugate me to the whims and laws of your god.

Without that, "marriage" would have never been invented in the first place. I mean, with no boundaries, what's the fun of marriage?

I doubt that marriage would never have evolved without the use of religion. It's an institution which has several benefits for society. Benefits that allowing same sex marriage will not destroy.
 
"Contract". Wow, how romantic.

I've never known anyone looking to enter a "contract of marriage" before.

Have you known anyone to sign a marriage license? if so, then yes you have.
 
And yet almost every one who gets married in this country do enter into that contract.

Edit to add: and they happily accept the benefits that come from entering that contract.

Yeah, the marriage tax penalty is awesome!
 
We're not talking about how the church views it, get that through your dogmatic viewpoints head.

We're talking about how a secular government who is suppose to treat all people fairly should view marriage, and that, it is equal for all.

You mean the same government that taxes me at a higher rate than my neighbor. The same government that provides additional advantages to people of one color versus another? The same government that is going to tax me again on the same money they've already taxed me on when I die?

Liberals preach fairness, fairness, fairness......except when it's inconvenient.
 
It's not a penalty to most.

It's a penalty to everyone. My wife's first dollar she makes in January is taxed at 31 percent because her income is added to mine, not treated seperately for a seperate person like if we were single. If we'd just divorce, she get the benefit of the lower tax brackets on her early earnings like everyone else.
 
It's not a penalty to most.

Regardless, on that point I would say there should be no tax benefit or liability for becoming married. Nor should there be unlimited deductions for having kids.
 
You mean the same government that taxes me at a higher rate than my neighbor. The same government that provides additional advantages to people of one color versus another? The same government that is going to tax me again on the same money they've already taxed me on when I die?

Liberals preach fairness, fairness, fairness......except when it's inconvenient.

Another straw man.

Taxes have nothing to do with civil rights. Try again.
 
Another straw man.

Taxes have nothing to do with civil rights. Try again.

And besides, as it currently stands you can take your tax burden down by having more kids. Additionally, married couples get plenty of tax benefits on things like mortgages and such that single people cannot claim. I mean, it's a boo hoo my wife gets taxed more on dollar one, but we're reaping more benefits in the end. Fine, I'll treat your income separately (you can file separately too), but we're taking all the other benefits away too. No reason why we should subsidize married families by taxing single people more.
 
Another straw man.

Taxes have nothing to do with civil rights. Try again.

Of course they don't. That's too inconvenient and hypocritical for the liberal platform to digest.
 
Of course they don't. That's too inconvenient and hypocritical for the liberal platform to digest.

Guess it's clear at page 5 your only objective in this thread is to show your hatred for gays.

Well done Mexico.

Freedom and Justice for all.
 
It's a penalty to everyone. My wife's first dollar she makes in January is taxed at 31 percent because her income is added to mine, not treated seperately for a seperate person like if we were single. If we'd just divorce, she get the benefit of the lower tax brackets on her early earnings like everyone else.

No, actually it isn't. The Marriage Tax Penalty

The marriage penalty still exists for some couples depending on their tax bracket.

Tax Implications of Marraige - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Majority of the married couples prefer to file their tax returns jointly. This is because filing tax returns jointly creates a low tax liability if the income of both the husband and wife is unequal and carries a difference. There are also many credits that the married couple can avail if they file their tax returns jointly. Also filing jointly means filling in only once and not twice so it is in a way time saving method. So filing jointly has better tax implications on married couples.

Further, since married people have the choice of filing jointly or separately, you can 100 % avoid any penalty.

We call this sourcing a claim and proving a claim.
 
Like who? Like many other countries, America is slowly losing its soul.

You are dead wrong. America is choosing to be civilized, which is good.
 
Whatever you feel about the issue itself, it isn't being "chosen," except in a few cases. It's being imposed judicially, not through democratic "choice."
 
Back
Top Bottom