I have stayed away from this discussion, mainly because my views are quite practical, and would most likely alienate people from all sides of the debate. Given the latest story from the Boston Herald outlining the Boston Globe’s directive for gay couples to either marry or lose benefits, it’s perhaps as a good a time as any to come out with my opinion… (thanks to the Flesh Presser for the tip on this one!)
While I believe that, if there is such a thing as absolute moral values, and those are based on scripture, then it is clear that homosexual activity is morally wrong. I also believe, however, that in these cases it would be wrong to actually legislate against them (and somewhat problematic–I know I don’t want to be involved on the stake out in these cases!)
I have come, over time, to nominally support the notion of gay marriage. I have been for too long a victim of the “marriage penalty” when it comes to tax structures. While I have seen two incomes, stacked one on the other, resulting in higher and higher taxation, I have seen homosexual couples enjoy the freedom to claim two sets of income. Now admittedly I have been able to have benefits for my spouse, and my children, that have often been denied to homosexual couples. But once those couples started to receive the benefits of the union, without the taxation of the union, my view began to shift.
It seems to me that the Boston Globe is taking the correct approach on this issue. Benefits, and taxation, should apply only to married couples. In this case, if you are married, then you can receive benefits–and you must pay taxes.
As a fiscal conservative I believe this is the most prudent action–let’s welcome all married couples into the “marriage penalty” world that is the federal tax structure. Perhaps the deficit will be decreased.
So there you have it. I approve of Gay (and Lesbian) Marriage, simply because it hasn’t been fair to heterosexuals to not allow it.
DANG! Approval of gay marriage out of spite…Wish you well with this arguement – I enjoyed it.
hmm… interesting… I agree… lol… this arguement is very ‘you’ …lol.. yes, that is a compliment. *smirk*
Say it isn’t so!! Something we disagree on?
Yup, I support gay marriage — but because I believe it is the right thing to do.
All: Thanks for your comments.
Mike: Thanks for visiting, and point taken. I would argue that I am saying it is the “right thing to do also.” My question would be to you “what makes it ‘right’?”
In my view, what makes it “right” is that it truly levels the playing field–benefits, and costs are applied to all.
Marriage being accepted in the ‘EYES’ of the government! We are not talking about GOD! It is right because these fagules or fanucks love each other enough to share a house, a home, a family, and all the screwed up contractual shit you have to deal with when you get married. IT is RIGHT not because it levels the playing field for taxes and benefits, but because if two people love each other and can agree to marriage than those two peeps should be allowed to get married. Obviously outside the church. Maybe even outside of West Milton or anything back woods. GEEZ! THose m-fers should have to go through divorce too!
Sorry for the delay in the reply, but ‘right’ in my eyes is not merely the economical aspect of marriage — penalties or benefits. (Although I see the ‘right’ more in terms of the right to benefits then I do to the right of equity among all married couples penalties.)
I firmly believe, from my experience with numerous gay/bi-sexual friends, that their lifestyle is not an option. It is who they are. I can no more say to someone, ‘grow 5 inches’ then I can say, ‘alter your sexual orientation.’
Grant it, ‘they’ have the option of not being able to act on their desires… such as the case with the military’s acceptance of homosexuals in service. In this case, however, we are talking about acting on feelings and getting married — or whatever drives a couple to be married. I dont believe it’s anyone’s right to say that you can not legally spend the rest of your life (or your life until you divorce) with the person you love (desire, want financially stability with, etc). To me, that is paramont to saying grow 5 more inches, becuase it is uncomfortable for me to have to look down.
Mike! BRAVO! BRAVO!
My question is: Why does the basis of approval of Gay Marriage seem to be based soley on a tax/economic bent? Is that the ONLY/SOLE reason for anyone to get married? Obviously this discussion/article/argument leans towards the financial aspect as brought up by the Boston Herald article.
I agree with Mike. You are (as some would say) as God made you. If that is heterosexual or homosexual or even bi-sexual, then so be it. That’s the way you are. It’s just one aspect of the person – if they are left handed, Republican, Catholic, married, single, motorcyclist or executive. We should be able to ‘love all God’s chillin’s’, not select only some folk to love, even though someone else is different from ourselves, that doesn’t necessarily translate into “You’re different, so you’re bad/wrong.”
Besides… whatever happened to the “Send us your poor, your tired…” etc. Oh… but not your gay? Huh?