Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinner
Well it's politically correct to say "sure, why not".
But tell me why gays need to be married, for the benefits, and tax breaks?
Heteros get married because it's traditional and chances are they will have children that will inherit the family genetics and coincidentally the family name, something inherently important for generations... millennia.
With the increasingly growing tax burden on society, why extend the tax breaks and benefits designed to help families with the financial drain of raising a family, to gays?
Personally I voted no because I don't see a justifiable need that would outweigh the costs to society.
Gay marriage will take billions and billions out of the public and private pension funds, insurance companies and tax coffers. That money will have to be replaced by higher taxes, contributions and premiums... but hey, it's politically correct.
|
I already replied to this to make fun of you, but the more I think about it, the more ######ed I realize this argument is.
By your logic then, we should repeal the right to marry from the following groups.
1) Men and women who are infertile
2) Men and women who have no intention of having children
3) Men and women who are over, say 40, as they probably won't have children anyway
I mean, if the reason you're against gays getting married is simply because you think your taxes will go up, then logically you MUST be against the groups I listed getting married.
This to me just reeks of stretching to find a "legitimate" reason, so that you can be on the anti side, without just saying "I don't like gays, and don't want them to get married".