Ron Paul is doing it again.

[evilbau]

leaving everything to the states will leave some very poor states and awful living conditions, worse than already exists. Some state governments would probably go bankrupt with no federal help, and they would be unable to help them after said collapse due to lack of power/money if everything goes his way.

This goes back to an issue from another thread where there are issues which are national ones, and others which are state issues. Leaving everything up to the states would be a disaster. All this stuff is interrelated and Ron Paul supporters usually have an un-nuanced view of how these governments (national, state, district, local) interact.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

States would just have to raise their taxes.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Giving states more autonomy gives the states more rope to hang themselves with and one thing we can't let happen is states COMPLETELY fuck themselves up. That would screw over millions of people.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

States did fine the first 100+ years without federal help.

[BRP]

I'm just pointing out that neither gay marriage and stem cell research are going anywhere and right the president is going to war without a declaration. I don't know if I agree with his stance of swift removal, but he certainly isn't some wacko. I like how he isn't afraid of not being just another puppet.

EDIT: That and he respect the ideas of some of my favorite people in history.

[*Shinzon*]

States did fine the first 100+ years without federal help.

Sure they did, money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. There was no uniformity, every state had its own money. Know your history before saying something stupid like that.

[ozz]

would it be wrong to say beckwin's opinions dont count because he's a communist

[Eaglestrike]

Can someone state a good reason to not allow gay marriages that isn't rooted in religious beliefs or homophobia?

It would cost us more money as a nation.

(this was from 2 pages ago so if someone else said it within the last page I didn't read it)

[Tricen]

Gay marriages might also make the divorce rate higher.

[*Shinzon*]

That's pretty much the argument. Gay people can receive civil unions in most states which recognize them and they receive some financial benefits. Most gays however want the FULL benefits to which married couples receive which varies from state to state.

Simply put, its always about the money. I think one of the major reasons, but I'm not sure because I really don't care at the moment, is that married couples receive some sort of tax benefit from the government.

[Beckwin]

Yeah there's a universal federal tax credit/write off for being married. You also get more money in the military if you're married/have a family (but that's a whoooole other can of worms). Then there's stuff like visitation rights.

But if money is all that matters, we could just switch it around so that only homosexuals could marry and demographics would make the government tons of cash.

[*Shinzon*]

It's not all about money I guess its also about the status. But if gay couples can't deal with not being universally accepted thats a choice they live with. No one forced them into living their type of lifestyle. It has never been accepted before, and it's just now recently catching the attention of the more liberal politicians.

[Beckwin]

thats a choice they live with. No one forced them into living their type of lifestyle.

oooooooooooooooooohhhhhh shit

can o' worms: opened

[*Shinzon*]

Lol, not intentional but I do see the point . I'm not pro or against either, I just think its stupid to expect the government to change its laws simply because people change lifestyle and want recognition. It can really be put into any context like that. Like people who want the government to make new laws restricting the way mortgages are managed.

Sure its terrible your home was foreclosed, but its no ones fault but your own that you didn't keep up with your bank to find out what the status was and they sold it to someone else and you had no idea. I hate people who try to blame it all on the laws.

[Correction]

pro tip: homosexuality is older than the US Constitution. Nobody 'changed' their lifestyle and is just now demanding equal treatment under the law.

[Beckwin]

pro tip: homosexuality is older than the US Constitution. Nobody 'changed' their lifestyle and is just now demanding equal treatment under the law.

and marriage is older than the constitution and the bible.

[*Shinzon*]

Exactly, but now that theres liberal politicians who want to argue that there needs to be 'equal' treatment under law is the only reason its become an issue. People are changing their lifestyles and I hate to say it this way but I can't phrase it another way, to fit the mainstream of gay society and receive monetary benefits. However there is nothing equal to a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.

The law was designed to encourage families to be built in the US. Homosexual couples can not raise a family in the same way so I fail to see how thats one of the relevant arguments in a situation like this. They require outside sources, such as adoption, which you already receive a government benefit for.

You said it very well, it is older than the constitution, and people have lived with it for hundreds of years, but all of a sudden its an issue.

[Demosthenes11]

Is it weird that I support gay marriage but think that all the people who also support it in this thread are being retarded?

"THEY ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS, ALMOST SLAVES!"

its fucking marriage, such a small issue among so many big ones -.-

[Beckwin]

Exactly, but now that theres liberal politicians who want to argue that there needs to be 'equal' treatment under law is the only reason its become an issue. People are changing their lifestyles and I hate to say it this way but I can't phrase it another way, to fit the mainstream of gay society and receive monetary benefits. However there is nothing equal to a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.

The law was designed to encourage families to be built in the US. Homosexual couples can not raise a family in the same way so I fail to see how thats one of the relevant arguments in a situation like this. They require outside sources, such as adoption, which you already receive a government benefit for.

You said it very well, it is older than the constitution, and people have lived with it for hundreds of years, but all of a sudden its an issue.

You receive separate tax cuts for each child, so your whole family argument about hetero couples is invalidated.

It's an issue because of modern things like visitation rights, and because perhaps homosexuals are tired of "just dealing with it". Women didn't have the right to vote in most Western societies for how long? and eventually decided they deserved it.

[*Shinzon*]

It's like I said, I'm not touching the argument of whether or not its good/right/whatever. Speaking from a perspective of law an issue like this is something that people are making an issue out of because they have a politician who will support it. You know what its called? Social construction of reality. People learn through, families, institutions, and the media that issues like this are emotional, and "hot" topics.

They will use these issues to shape public opinion and create laws that suit what their public wants, whatever the issue may be. People can do what they want with their lives, and whatever the choice made its their own. However, the media is so powerful that you can see why issues like this become so mainstream even though its not a mainstream aspect of US life. It's a good thing that laws are not shaped however by only public opinion, otherwise they'd change every single day.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not married or interested in children so I wouldn't fully understand how the law is structured in that area. However the argument holds water to some degree.