I've come to a conclusion that I'm against gay marriage.

[Proteus_MST]

...

Marriage isn't subsidized to encourage coupling. Anyone can and will couple if they want to. It's mostly to encourage child rearing, a very historic and very expensive function of marriage.

Childs can also be reared by a homosexual couple (after all there are enough children who can be adopted)

And a marriage isn´t a proof that the married couple really intends to ever have children ...
hell, you could marry your best female friend forever in which you have no sexual interest and afterwards live in separate households with each of you having separate sexpartners ... noone would care (well, unless the marriage is used to help one of both to immigrate to USA ... in which AFAIK it is really checked if the marriage was out of love, or just an attempt to bypass immigration laws).

So wouldn´t it be logical to withhold the tax benefits until the couple really has children?

[Kidlicious]

1. Asher knows how many kids he put in this world so maybe he doesn't need little chicken ****s like yourself telling him what his morals should be

That's not really a hard problem for him.

2. What asher said actually is not sociopathic in any way.

This is why I don't have serious conversations with you.

[giblets]

So wouldn´t it be logical to withhold the tax benefits until the couple really has children?

This. We can give tax benefits directly to couples who actually have dependents, so giving tax benefits to people who marry is always a less efficient means of encouraging child rearing.

[Dr Strangelove]

I've been pro gay marriage for several years, but reading Poly has caused me to reassess my views.
Gay cohabitation is not a problem: no one will send you to jail if you live with your homosexual partner and call him your husband. You have every right to do that. I'm not against churches recognizing your cohabitation as a marriage. What I am against is the recognition of your marriage by the state, which is what most gay couples actually want.
When your cohabitation is recognized as a marriage, you get all sorts of benefits: you are included in the default inheritance order, pay less taxes, get hospital visitation rights, etc. But getting these benefits is not your right, it's a privilege. Why should the government provide these benefits to you but not other sexual deviants?
Yes, homosexuality is a sexual devitation, like polygamy, pedophilia and zoophilia. You cannot even claim that homosexuality is different because both partners are consenting adults. Polygamists are also consenting adults, yet they have zero official recognition. Why should only homosexuality be elevated to the same level of recognition as the sexual norm? It already enjoys the benefit of legality.

Isn't the Russian Federation already rather repressive towards gays? So what's your beef?

If you look at the recent cases of polygamy in the US you'll find that once a man gets used to having his way with lots of women he invariably turns towards involving underage teen girls. That's reason enough to ban it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yes they are asking for freebies. They're asking for the tax deductions. They can get "married" to their partners if they go to a sufficiently left-wing church like the Unitarians.

Don't forget us Episcopalians reggie. Please, oh please put us on your right-wing hit list too.

[onodera]

Isn't the Russian Federation already rather repressive towards gays? So what's your beef?

If you look at the recent cases of polygamy in the US you'll find that once a man gets used to having his way with lots of women he invariably turns towards involving underage teen girls. That's reason enough to ban it.

There are some retarded laws like 'on banning the propaganda of homosexualism among the minors', but homosexualism is not illegal. There's ongoing self-radicalizing discussion in the media between westernized liberals and the Church, which sounds a bit like Asher vs Ben, so I had to ask myself what my own personal opinion was.
And I think the government shouldn't persecute or promote homosexualism in any way. No matter what pseudo-scientific bull**** about COUPLING Asher spews, a heterosexual couple is the cornerstone of society, generally able to produce and rear their own children. I think anyone can see the difference between a barren couple and a gay couple.

And banning polygamy for child abuse is like banning homosexuality for Catholic pedophile priests. With the amount of negative attention polygamists have, only religious nuts dare to practice it in the open. Being religious nuts, they are more likely to abuse children.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

a heterosexual couple is the cornerstone of society.

I don't agree.

I think the nuclear family is a terrible development and will be viewed as a mistake in the future. Extended family/clans are far preferable, and there's plenty of room for gay members in that.

[Fake Boris]

I don't agree.

I think the nuclear family is a terrible development and will be viewed as a mistake in the future. Extended family/clans are far preferable, and there's plenty of room for gay members in that.

This.

[Dr Strangelove]

There are some retarded laws like 'on banning the propaganda of homosexualism among the minors', but homosexualism is not illegal. There's ongoing self-radicalizing discussion in the media between westernized liberals and the Church, which sounds a bit like Asher vs Ben, so I had to ask myself what my own personal opinion was.

So the Russian Orthodox Church is to the right of the Pope?

And I think the government shouldn't persecute or promote homosexualism in any way. No matter what pseudo-scientific bull**** about COUPLING Asher spews, a heterosexual couple is the cornerstone of society, generally able to produce and rear their own children. I think anyone can see the difference between a barren couple and a gay couple.

There is an emotional commitment that goes beyond mere freindship, and as it's been pointed out there are times when for legal reason the partners need legal recognition of their relationship, for instance if one becomes incapacitated the other needs to have the legal power to make decisions for the other.

And banning polygamy for child abuse is like banning homosexuality for Catholic pedophile priests. With the amount of negative attention polygamists have, only religious nuts dare to practice it in the open. Being religious nuts, they are more likely to abuse children.

But let's be realistic, when we speak of polygamy in the West we're talking about polygyny. Polyandry has virtually never existed in Western society, and in fact is quite rare even in the east. Of 1250 societies practicing some sort of polygamy around the world only 4 practice polyandry. Amongst societies that practice polygyny it's primarily confined to the wealthy, the extra wives are a sort of status symbol. Even amongst Mormons originally polygyny was not supposed to be allowed for the hoi polloi, but was to be confined to those commanded by God.
I don't know how you feel about it, but a person shouldn't be a token of wealth or a favor handed out by a deity. A woman deserves equal status in a marriage, but if there are more than one that can't be.

[Wiglaf]

Childs can also be reared by a homosexual couple (after all there are enough children who can be adopted)

And a marriage isn´t a proof that the married couple really intends to ever have children ...
hell, you could marry your best female friend forever in which you have no sexual interest and afterwards live in separate households with each of you having separate sexpartners ... noone would care (well, unless the marriage is used to help one of both to immigrate to USA ... in which AFAIK it is really checked if the marriage was out of love, or just an attempt to bypass immigration laws).

So wouldn´t it be logical to withhold the tax benefits until the couple really has children?

Maybe, but a lot of couples get together planning to have kids in five or six years. Getting married early helps everything much easier when the kids do come out.

[MrFun]

Considering that I've been through it, **** happens Asher. There was nothing myself nor my mother or any of my family could do. She was devastated.

You're the only one mocking people here Asher.

And yet, you cannot appreciate the emotional devastation of a gay man who is denied seeing his partner in the hospital while the partner is dying.

[Wiglaf]

That doesn't happen anymore. Find something else to complain about. Thanks.

[MrFun]

It started with those dumbass ******s thinking they had the same rights as the superior race, amiright?

No kidding. ******s had this sense of entitlement for a long time now. Asking and whining about wanting equal employment opportunities, voting rights, equal housing laws, and so on. What makes darkies so damn special?

[Wiglaf]

Being black doesn't imply sexual perversion

[Flubber]

Ahh, I see. So you're *****ing because of a government benefit.

Pull it out of the RRSP. Problem solved.

Lmfao