My head exploded - friend's wife's reason for opposing gay marriage

[phylny]

I was at a picnic this weekend, and a group of us were talking about a million topics, and then I talked about a relative who had died of AIDS in the early 1990s. The conversation was civil and pleasant, as I explained years before I understood he was gay, I knew that he and his partner were always invited to family gatherings, weddings, baptisms, dinners as a couple - and this was way back in the 70s and 80s. I can't even remember if I had an "aha!" moment because in our family, it was so natural (other men in the family are/were gay as well).

I casually made a comment that although I have no firm grasp of the legal system, that I was surprised no one has been able to strike down the "anti-gay marriage" state and local laws as unconstitutional, since the only arguments I've continually heard against them is because of religious grounds, or the non-argument that "historically, marriage has been between only men and women." In short, I said I expected that there might one day be legal challenges to the laws and there should be, because I think they're discriminatory.

A woman who was on the fringe of our group piped up and said, "Well, you know that it's the government's job to do only two things: Sustain our society through encouraging the formation and continuation of family units, and provide national defense. The purpose of marriage is to have families - to have children, to continue our society. In order to encourage the formation of families, the government gives families - a man, a woman, and children - tax breaks. So, if you allow gay people to get married, my taxes will go up, and I don't want to pay more taxes."

Follow that? ME NEITHER! Did your head explode? Mine did.

The group was stunned into silence for a moment. I then said, "So...the purpose of marriage is to have chidren?" She said yes. I followed, "So...men and women who get married and don't want or can't have children shouldn't be able to get married, just like gay people, because...they're not having children? So, you think we should deny gay people and childfree couples or infertile people - all of them - the right to be married, so YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY IN TAXES?" I then brought up that adultery and divorce were having a devastating effect on families, but that I didn't see a real movement toward banning those.

Lots of sputtering, strawmen, you name it came forth from her. She began to accuse me of having "Left-wing blinders" on and "reading the New York Times too much" (I don't read the NYT anyway). Other people joined in, and it was obvious that everyone else in the group supported equality under the law.

I have to say this is a first - I have never, ever heard of anyone not wanting other people to get married because it'll increase his or her tax bill (and yes, I know her premise might not even be correct).

[ck4829]

1. ...

I'm going to make a list of things that will justify a Revolution. I am thinking of adding this to that list.

[electron_blue]

2. Ask her how come she already pays higher taxes when married

Being married won't give the gays tax breaks. We straights don't get that either. Ever heard of the marriage penalty?

The tax break comes once the children arrive (whether by birth or adoption). Gays can already adopt in some states, so what is *her* reason for denying gay marriage, again?

[phylny]

5. I actually did say that, but couldn't counter with every possible

tax scenario.

I was just amazed that of all the idiotic reasons to oppose gay marriage, greed was hers.

[eallen]

3. With cloning, gay couples will be able to have their own children.

That should cure all objections. Right?

:bounce:

[phylny]

6. One would think eh?

Sigh.

[Terran]

26. An important statistic to remember

when this bullsh*t comes up:

The 2000 US Census found that one-third of same-sex female households have children, and one-fifth of same-sex male households have children. So this person's 'rationale' is utter crap.

You can also say truthfully that all these children are being discriminated against as well because their parents are being denied economic benefits that heterosexuals take for granted.

[Hamlette]

4. And the marriage penalty (tax) was for what reason?

I think they have made it less bad, but for eons a married couple paid more in taxes than 2 single people living together.

[phylny]

7. We're actually going to see what the difference would be for us to file

separately next year. We got slammed this year, which is a good thing (higher earnings) and a bad thing (kept less of it).

However, I never thought of oppressing SOMEONE ELSE so that I could keep more of my money. I guess I need to get with the program.

:eyes:

[Hamlette]

22. married filing separately doensn't really help (I don't think)

you have to divorce.

Again, I heard Congress was trying to do away with the marriage penalty. It may be gone.

I hate to say this but I don't do my own taxes. I've not paid attention to it for many years. I do remember when we first considered getting married I checked it out. My husband was on the GI bill so we got an additional $110 each month from the GI bill for being married. The tax penalty was no bigger than the additional GI money.

I married my husband for his money, $110 a month. We were living together and in college. It seemed stupid to pass up what was then, 1974, a lot of money. Our rent was only $80 per month. Our montly income was less than $700 a month.

[LiberalFighter]

39. Just go back and check your tax returns

Take your gross income and figure out what the percent in taxes that you had to pay to federal govt. Do the same based on taxable income.

You will be surprised on what you pay compared to what they try to tell the public. My effective tax was 9.95%

[noiretextatique]

40. no, it does not help

marrried filing separate is higher than the single rate. i know married couples who file single.

[Kber]

25. You never thought of oppressing someone else to keep more of your money?

You just summed up the real republican agenda in a nutshell.

[FreedomAngel82]

72. So by that notion

if a gay person didn't want to pay higher tax's all they could say is the straight couple next door shouldn't be married?

[atre]

20. Maybe someone could explain that to me

... because, as someone who has recently taken a Tax law course in law school, I know for a fact that income taxe rates are much more favorable for married couples than single couples. Not even close. Compare the rates. Hell, if you have a gross disparity in income between spouses, each of the two can still take advantage of the more favorable rates for married couples by filing separately.

Whenever I hear a politician running on a platform of ending the marriage penalty tax, I would love to know what on earth they're talking about.

Of course, it's possible there is something I don't know. If that's the case, I would love for someone to educate me.

[lawladyprof]

34. It is my understanding that the standard deduction

Is part of the problem, that is, results in some marriage "penalty." The assumption is that unmarried people are living separately and so have a basic minimum of household expenses and that married couples are living in the same household and have some "economies of scale" (not sure if that's exactly the right use of the phrase. Single person gets standard deduction of X. Used to be married couple got X plus Y. Now (and correct me if I'm wrong) married people get 2X as if they were maintaining two separate households.

It really burns me when people say, "Well, two people who are living together pay less." That is so but two people who aren't living together pay more. Many, many single taxpayers are older women--living alone and NOT COHABITING.

House-sharing and cohabiting or living as a married couple are not the same thing. In the case of the cohabiting or married couple you are sharing living space with someone with whom you are intimate (not meant in a sexual sense). For a single person to share living space with an unrelated person means taking someone, who is to some extent a stranger/nonrelative, into to your home.

[Hamlette]

48. you are right, it is now 2X

$3100 per person. $6200 for a married couple.

And yes, 2 single people living together pay higher taxes and have probably the same expenses as a married couple.

The tax argument against gay marriage always makes me laugh because my stereotype has 2 gay guys who are not discriminated against on the basis of sex in the workplace (women make 70 cents or so for each dollar a man makes) and because they are not married they don't pay the "marriage penalty". So they make gobs of money, let's say 100K each, which puts them in the 28% tax rate, or (make it simple and ignore deductions) $56K in fed taxes. A married couple earning $200K is in the 33% tax rate and thus pays $66K. The gay couple saves $10K a year.

This woman is nuts if she thinks her taxes will go up because my stereotypical gay guy couple is paying less in taxes now than if they were married. Hence, using her argument, if they could marry her taxes would go down.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

edited for typo

[Hamlette]

42. favor married couples?

here's a link to 2004 rates.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

If a single person makes over $70,350 the tax rate goes up to 28%. If a married couple makes over $117,250 the rate goes up to 28%. (Below that it is the same.)

So a married couple making between $117,251 and $140,701 pay a higher tax rate than 2 single people making half that amount each. How is this favorable to married people?

[bornskeptic]

80. You're right about that, but on the other hand,

if the husband has taxable income of $40,000 and the wife has taxable income of $10,000, which is close to my family's situation,
then from the tax tables their tax is $6789. If they were single, he would pay $6744 and she would pay $1146, for a total of $7890. It's just not as simple as the "marriage penalty" slogan makes it sound.

[LiberalFighter]

37. It does cost more for a single person than a family

per person that is.

There is a limit as to how much one person can purchase for personal use at one time. Don't have the ability to purchase items on a regular basis that is on sale. Spoilage occurs more often. More likely to purchases more than once weekly.

[Mythsaje]

8. Ah, yes

The "What about me?" defense.

[maveric]

9. Co-worker told me that if gays marry, more will turn gay and eventually

the human race will become extinct. All because we let the gays marry.

Sad, aint it?

[Lex]

13. That person doesn't have much faith in opposite sex attraction,

does he?

I always wonder about these people who think that everyone would "choose" homosexuality if it were made "okay" by society.

They have to be closet cases if that is their premise.

[indigo32]

52. That excuse just makes me laugh

every time I hear it.

[LondonReign2]

83. I know that's what I'm waiting for!

Then I can divorce my wife! Because I just wanted to be married so badly that I faked heterosexuality. But once I can marry another guy, look out! :sarcasm:

[Straight Shooter]

10. So, people without children shouldn't have to pay for schools?

That's a big chunk of my property taxes. Am I supposed to resent people who have children? Should I start demanding population control so there will be less need for more schools? Should people pay taxes for schools on a pro rata basis?

Wow. Dumb is dumb. Does this woman ever consider how many gay people pay property taxes so her kids can get an education?

[donco6]

15. This gay man pays $1,800 in school taxes a year.

And I don't resent it at all, even though I don't and never will have kids. This nutcase woman would complain if she were hanged with a silk rope.

[JHB]

85. Actually, I'd complain about that silk rope thing myself...

...assuming I hadn't done anything to warrant a hanging.

[barb162]

33. People who have no children in the schools should get a reduced

property tax rate IMO. A big reduction!

[LiberalFighter]

45. Those around here do get a reduction in school related taxes

Those that have children pay for school books and other fees.

I don't agree with it but that is the way it is done here.

It is the responsibility of society to educate the children. Just as it it the responsibility of society to provide for protection, transportation and other services.

[barb162]

64. Yes it is the responsibility of society to educate kids but I think

the parents using the schools for the kids have a way larger responsibility than the childfree. I think property taxes should be for the childfree as they are for seniors as neither contributes to the use of the schools.

[Virginian]

67. As a person without children I find that unjust.

Our society is only as strong as its weakest link. To deny a child the best education possible because of selfishness is unAmerican.

I think of my tax contribution to schools as paying back my public school "student loan." The more money you make, the more valuable your education must have been, the more school taxes you pay.

The more sucessful the students of today become, the more they will pay in school and other taxes during their productive years.

For private school students, it is like reserving a hotel room and then not using it. You still owe, even though you didn't use it.

[barb162]

75. No one is denying children the best education. Perhaps the

parents should be more responsible for paying for it than childfree people? Perhaps parents should be paying more of their tax dollars for educating children than childfree people on the next block ???? I think childfree should be taxed as seniors are taxed as they are not burdening the schools with more children to educate.

[PassingFair]

76. Bravo, Virginian! I heartily salute you and your admirable stance!

I, too, gladly paid taxes for public education when I was childless. Now that I have two children in public schools, I am thankful for people like you (and my younger self) who understand and hold dear the ideal of free public education, what it means for our country.
A free, comprehensive, public education system is what made America great. I only wish we could extend the boon to higher education.

[donco6]

55. I think those who never have a fire shouldn't have to

pay for firemen.

And those who never need police shouldn't have to pay for them, either.

And if you don't drive, why should you have to pay for highway bonds? Makes no sense.

And you shouldn't have to pay for city infrastructure improvements unless you use that stuff, too.

In fact, everything should be fee for service, period.

:sarcasm:

[barb162]

63. Cute, but basically it falls flat. Never pay anything does not equal

reduction and I clearly wrote reduction. Seniors pay a reduced tax, not nothing

[donco6]

65. OK, seriously, then.

In a lot of states, seniors are already getting property tax reductions (some called homestead exemptions). The problem is that our entire population is moving rapidly toward becoming seniors. When that happens, we'll watch property tax revenues fall through the floor, even though tax rates haven't changed. So, entities that depend on property tax to pay for their services will be forced to levy higher mills, which will cause taxes to increase, or services to disappear.

Which brings us back to my original post - what do you do? Value services such as schools, fire and police departments, which make our lives what they are today, or give them up in favor of keeping "our" money?

[barb162]

71. Obviously everyone should pay fire, police, emts, etc because

any of us could end up using them tomorrow even if we never used them in a hundred years. Schools are different,as someone can have 3 or 4 or more kids and live in the same house/same taxes as a single person who has her tubes tied. Why are both households paying the same school taxes. I think the latter household should be paying about 50% of the former.
Here's a story: two doors away is a family with 3 kids, 2 of whom are bipolar and they have one-on-one TAs assigned to them all day. I figure that household is easily costing the school district about 50,ooo a year. EASY! I cost the school district nothing and I never will. So the neighbor across the street starts talking about the 3 kids and complains how much it is costing in taxes with the special TAs and what kind of crap is this, blah, blah. She has one kid and I said well, at least you are getting something for your school taxes, you're coming out about even or a little less. And I assured her whatever she was feeling, I was feeling worse about the situation with the house with the 3 kids. Now is that household hurting? They just bought an expensive 3rd car, their income is 6 figures, the husband just bought himself a new grand piano... and I am paying for their TAs for their kids. There's another childfree couple 2 doors away and they are thinking also of moving the hell out of here too because of the high school taxes around here.

What is going to happen is if the childfree people keep paying the same amount as people with kids, the childfree people will move. There's literally nothing keeping us here other than to pay outrageous taxes in a very luxurious, high-rated school district. I think it would be a lot smarter fore the tax bodies to reduce the education tax for the childfree ( as they do for seniors)to keep the childfree here and pay some tax and not burden the schools with more kids. If all childfree move out, the taxes will go up extremely high for the parents who are left. I think it is better to keep the childfree here and lower our taxes for education. Right now, the childfree are being driven out

You pay gas tax for how many gallons you buy. That's fair. School taxes are the most mind-numbingly screwed up taxes I have ever seen. A person can have 5 kids and live in a small apt. to get in this district and pay virtually zero taxes through their rent. And people are playing that angle/ doing exactly that. But they are costing the district thousands a year. People should be taxed based on number of children using the schools versus size of property, with everyone in the district paying something. Maybe the birth rate would be lowered that way too, another benefit, IMHO. There needs to be a fair tax system in regard to education. It isn't fair now.

[donco6]

82. But the problem is

school attendance is mandatory. We may both agree that having a lot of kids is not the best idea in this day and age, but that's not really our choice, now, is it? And yet, the parent with 4 kids is required to get them to school. So what happens if the parent cannot pay the extra tuition money for school? Since every state has something in its constitution requiring free and appropriate public education, SOMEBODY is going to be paying for it.

It's a little disturbing that you seem to have a vendetta against the parent with the bipolar kids. My nephew is bipolar, as well as paranoid schizophrenic. I'm sure you're not saying that this is his mother's fault. Right?

The idea that you're paying for the TAs for their kids is pretty laughable. That family is paying as much tax as you - maybe more, since they have kids, maybe a larger house with a larger assessed valuation (I don't live there, so I'm just guessing on this). Plus the fact that bipolar kids have medications to pay for, doctor visits, fees not covered by school - all of which I have personal experience in witnessing. I certainly wouldn't trade places with them financially, though you seem to want to.

You know, maybe the best thing to do is to move away. I certainly wouldn't want to have children in the district and have to live next to you.

[barb162]

84. First of all

I have no vendetta against the people; they're nice people. Second, I don't want to trade places. Third, their excellent insurance covers all meds, MDs, etc. Fourth, I wouldn't want to live next to you either or within a thousand miles of you.

[Child_Of_Isis]

11. Republicans only care about their tax money

when it goes to the common people. When the big wigs on the Hill spend it on their own pay raises and the finest health care available for themselves, they have squat to say.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

14. A C-SPAN caller also used this type of logic for Soc. Sec.

He said that the reason SS was in trouble was because of all the abortions that have occurred since Roe v. Wade. His logic was that we need to have children to support us in our old age. I can't understand their warped reasoning.

[Lex]

12. I know lots of gay folks with children.

She ever heard of adoption or artificial insemination?

[noiretextatique]

43. most of the gay folks i know with kids had them "the old-fashioned way"

male and female. i have several friends who were married and/or straight before they came out.

[Toucano]

16. Former U.S. Senator John Glenn (D) - Ohio

Made it quite clear that his vote in favor of DOMA in 1996 was chiefly because payment of benefits to survivors of gay couples would bankrupt the federal government.

So if the solvency of the United States depends on a certain number of citizens being gay and lesbian, where I demand, is the monument honoring them on the national mall?

Money has a lot to do with opposition to equal treatment under the law, actually. If they went around saying that, however, they wouldn't get the same support their fire and brimstone speeches get.

[EFerrari]

21. It does and in translation, sounds like this:

"We've been saving a bundle discriminating against these people. Why stop now?"

[zbdent]

17. Easy counter to her "tax" issue

"Okay. How is this war in IRAQ - NOT ON TERROR - that is costing us a billion a week " (or whatever) "not going to raise your taxes?"

[phylny]

19. Heh, I did that.

I discussed that. Got us into a WHOLE 'nuther argument.

[moodforaday]

18. I've heard this argument in a slightly different form

I've heard this argument in a slightly different form. The state has an interest in ensuring its continuance. And while it sounds silly when put in this way, it boils down to: the state has an interest in making sure enough new taxpayers are born each year. It follows that it is in the state's interest to provide incentives for "traditional" marriage, but no interest in encouraging gay marriage, which will not produce taxpayers.

It does make some sense, short-sighted and warped as it is.

[EFerrari]

23. It's psuedo logic.

The State has no interests, the people do.

But if The State did, it would have an interest in making sure the optimum number of potential taxpayers were born each year, which is not at all the same as universal reproduction.

By more respectable logic, married gay or straight couples who are childless should get a tax break for not contributing to the burden of schools, public health care and housing emergencies.

Geeze.

[moodforaday]

27. I did say it was warped...

...and I certainly agree with you re state vs people.

But, veering off topic a little: it seems to me that every organization - each and every one - be it a state, a political party, a business, a lobby group, an hobbyist association or an internet mailing list, at some point starts to generate memes of self-interest. Members are being told what to do, say or think, because to do, say or think otherwise is "detrimental" to the organization. Don't rock the boat, don't foul your own nest. Some people quit at this point, others stay and obey. And those who stay keep reinforcing these memes, apparently to perpetuate the organization. Nationalism grows big on this, and the media meme-pool is brimming with such ideas - don't question the authority, you're giving comfort to the enemy.

In the long run this is of course idiotic, but lots of people strongly believe that the state is something unto itself, bigger than the sum of the people that make it up. Then they tell you what (not) to do, say or think. It's from this viewpoint that such arguments against gay marriage are made, too.

[Terran]

30. No, you are wrong about that aspect of it.

A great deal of law is written based on the assumption of a "compelling interest" held by whatever governmental entity is issuing the law. For example, many states' family laws state explicitly that the state has a compelling interest in promoting certain things like marriage, effective child support, etc., for the sake of creating stability and preventing poverty. But this is really a pro-same-sex marriage argument, because marriage of any sort creates stability and greater affluence, so there's no real reason to deny anyone marriage just because more taxpayers won't get created from it.

[EFerrari]

49. Ah. Thanks for the correction. n/t

[karlrschneider]

24. So democracy (or society...?) is just one big Ponzi scheme?

yikes...

[moodforaday]

28. Quite!

I think you nailed it.

[mwb970]

29. That's pretty desperate.

She's obviously uncomfortable with her own opinion and compensates with the casuistry you quoted.

[callous taoboy]

31. My brother, a repuke, claims that a gay flight attendant

is to blame for bringing aides to the U.S.

[donco6]

56. That's the old Patient Zero study.

So if it had been a straight flight attendant, that would have been OK?

[Fescue4u]

61. Actually I think thats true.

Well the folks who study that sort of thing do.

I watched discovery channel episode on this awhile back.

Apparently, this guy was pretty promiscuous and had lots of partners in many many cities.

While he wasnt the first to get aids and clearly he got it from someone else, he did alot to advance the spread in the early days of it.

Or so the theory goes.

[barb162]

32. Hell, it's the people with kids who are killing me with property taxes

in my school district

[donco6]

57. What rate are you paying?

[Vinca]

35. As a heterosexual woman who has been married 32 years and

NEVER wanted kids, I feel justified in saying this woman is so full of shit she's apt to explode. Dumbest reason yet to oppose gay marriage.

[really annoyed]

36. She exemplifies the conservative philosophy

Stupidity and selfishness.

Totally :crazy:

[undeterred]

38. I think breeders should pay for all the taxes needed to support education

I never had kids, so why should I pay for it? :sarcasm:

(Totally not serious, just how I would think if I were a conservative.)

[donco6]

58. Actually, several posters on this thread actually do . . .

think that way.

[LibDemAlways]

41. So does she think that seniors who

remarry following the death of a spouse should be forced to adopt? I'm sure that would be a popular idea among those in their "golden" years. What about heterosexual couples who don't want kids? Who's to tell them they can't marry?

Interesting how repukes' interest in personal privacy only extends as far as their wallets.

[DanCa]

44. Unbelievable

What was her education level just curious? I have know heard of every reason to justify a person filthy bigotry. In my humble opinion a gay person is a human being and an american tax payer and is thus afforded all the basic rights as everyone us.

[phylny]

59. Quite well educated, in fact.

The ferocity of her argument totally took me by surprise, but not the ideology.

This is not the first time this person and I have clashed. I usually make it a point NOT to discuss politics in her presence, but as we were all talking, this story just sorta popped out, and I had a stream of consciousness moment wondering how the laws could possibly legally stand.

[Liberal Veteran]

46. Cheapest of rationalizations....designed for one purpose.

It helps people convince themselves they are not really bigots. Sadly, it's true. No matter how many different reasons I see for denying rights to gays, they always seem based on faulty logic which reinforces my belief that they are merely hiding behind a paper thin facade in order to protect themselves from the awful truth about themselves.

[noiretextatique]

47. why does she think her taxes will go up?

i'm sure she couldn't explain that. single parents have the head of household rate...i wonder if she thinks she pays more in taxes because of the tax breaks single parents get.

[leesa]

50. Always remember the argument that women who have reached menopause

or become infertile or men who have become infertile must stop having sex and should probably get divorced under this logic.
I love to ask my Fundie brother, who is well into his 50s and whose wife is post-menopausal if they have stopped having sex yet since the purpose of sex is procreation. Really pisses them off cause they have no rebuttal but of course they want sex.

[Pushed To The Left]

51. Sounds like she was making an excuse

for her viewpoint to cover up her prejudice. I have talked to people who are opposed to gay marriage, and I have yet to hear a solid logical reason from any of them.

[ruggerson]

53. Did you ask her why HER taxes were more important than a gay couples?

By her logic, and admission, gay couples do not have the rights to the tax advantages of marriage whereas straight couples do.

Besides clearly violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, on a simpler level this argument says that her right to financial aid (tax relief) from the government is more important and valuable than her gay neighbor's right.

In other words, she's willingly admitting to endorsing a governmental system which is financially ripping off her gay neighbors.

Ask her how she can justify stealing money out of the pockets of her neighbors?

Ask her how this fits in with the Republican mantra of "It's MY money". So, it's only YOUR money if you're heterosexual?

[SmokingJacket]

54. I'll bet she's a limbaugh ditto-head.

He excels at providing people with arguments that sound SO good, until someone with an actual brain examines them.

[Misunderestimator]

60. I have heard the tax increase argument before... from my ex's brother.

Crazy fools. You did good... you responded the only reasonable way possible. It's very encouraging that everyone but this one "fringe" ;) person supported equality. :thumbsup:

[Trajan]

62. WHERE the fuck did this come from ? ...

"Sustain our society through encouraging the formation and continuation of family units" ?

Where is THAT concept held ? ... WHICH section of the Constitution demands this ? ... Which founding document even MENTIONS it ? ...

What a pantload ! ... (Compliments to MrBenchley ...) ....

[donco6]

66. I've never heard of that one either.

Probably a fundie Christian thing.

[Bigmack]

68. "So...men and women who get married ...?"

I think the most important part of your post was your reply. You asked a loaded question rather than just blasting back.

If you just unload on and lecture to those people, they love it..... "You're just a radical liberal..." Then they can discount what you say and play the little tape that Rush put in their head.

If you ask them those kind of questions that force them to confront, or at least defend, their beliefs, they end up saying the most bizarre things.

When my wife and I are driving to a dinner or party with friends or family of all persuasions, we actually practice loaded questions.

"You actually believe Iraq is better off now than before we invaded? How?"

"You actually want the government to make decisions on whether or not you're going to have kids? How about if it was Bill Clinton deciding?"

- - - - -
Actual conversation with relative...

Wife: "How will a huge military budget make us safer if terrorists are attacking busses and civilian targets with box cutters and explosive vests?"

Relative: "We have to attack them where they live and organize. That takes an Army and Navy and an Air Force."

Wife: "The bombers in England came from Leeds.. a British city... How would an F-16 have stopped them? The 9-11 guys were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Do you want to attack Saudi Arabia?"

Relative: "If we have to."

Wife: "With what Army? Haven't you read the papers?.... we're tapped out!"

Relative: "Well... "

[Ms. K]

69. I tried to follow her "logic"

Of course, as I kept trying, my head kept trying to explode.

So, HER tax bill is MORE IMPORTANT than anyone else's, right?

Well, lots of people are guilty of that thought pattern. "MY family/career/house/city/county/state is so much more important than YOURS."

However, this sounds like a takeoff on a typical pCm argument against gay marriage. The one I heard more often than not was, "Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't produce children, and that's the primary function of marriage, is to produce children." Goes along with the "full quiver" theory of breeding children, as many as you can pop out because OBVIOUSLY God hasn't "filled your quiver" yet. Of course, that argument against gay marriage is followed at a close second by this one, "We can't allow gays to marry, they'll destroy the sanctity of marriage."

Look, all this is, well, it's discrimination that just SOUNDS better. After all, their opinion is more important than YOURS because it's RELIGIOUSLY BASED. Because, according to these selfsame pCm's, this country was founded on Christian principles (Judeo-Christian if they're feeling generous), and we must return America to it's proper moral heritage.

The bottom line is, she doesn't have a good defense against gay marriage. She, like other Repukes and conservatives, just doesn't like gay people, and doesn't think they should have rights like the rest of us. We went through this with African-American people, we went through this with women, nothing has changed. Same group of bigots, just looking for a different target that it's okay to speak out against.

The last time I talked to a dittohead like her, I simply pointed out, "If marriage is a government matter, then bans against gay marriage will be overturned, because it's unconstitutional to discriminate against someone just because YOU don't like them. And frankly, as long as the government isn't forcing YOUR church, or any OTHER church, to perform gay marriage ceremonies, what does it matter to you, other than your bigoted position is threatened, because it's not okay to discriminate againt gays and lesbians anymore?" That shut her up, because I countered her irrationality with logic, and she couldn't come back with anything after I picked her stance apart, all she could do was call me a lesbian liberal hippie socialist.

Oh well, better to be a lesbian (I'm not, I'm happily married to a man, but I still find women attractive, does that make me bi?), liberal, hippie, socialist (not one of those either, but then, those are fine distinctions I don't expect Repukes to get) than a bigoted Christian Coalition wingnut.

[ISUGRADIA]

70. With 6 billion people in the world on the path towards 9 billion in 2050

It might not be the wisest thing for governments to be promting widespread bearing ofchildren.

[barb162]

74. ditto

[greblc]

73. I love baiting these types in groups...

most often they embarass themselves with their "twisted logic".

[barb162]

77. Did the woman ever explain how gays whether married or not

increase her taxes? Or for that matter, the childfree?

[Skittles]

78. wow

the sheer ignorance makes you just shake your head, does it not?

[LaPera]

79. A right-wing radio disciple, lies with no foundation to promote hate,

deception & bigotry.

[dsc]

81. I don't have the time to read the whole thread

so if this is a repeat sorry. But her taxes would likely, if anything, go down with same sex marriage. Quite a few medicaid patients that take AIDS drugs would be covered under their partner's insurance if they could get married.