Same Sex Marriage

[El Cid]

Is it a misquote?

 

I copied and pasted, so it cannot be a mis-quote.

 

Have you read the link?

[Cyclone]

The Government are the judge, and I disagree. I believe marriage should be supported in the tax system, and so does David Cameron.

I can see no reason why the Government should support 2 people living together, unless they have children.

That's nothing to do with marriage. I'm married and have no children.

 

I dont believe that the Government should give tax breaks to brothers living together, or gays living together, because that would be discrimination.

Discrimination against who?

 

BTW - what tax breaks do you think marriage brings?

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:24 ----------

 

People seem to want equality for everyone, it cannot happen. It seems that the reason for marriage is disapearing, yet some want it, just to be equal.

 

Are you actually saying that you are against equality for all?

 

At least we can just end this conversation then, having got you to clearly state that your position is to be against equality.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:25 ----------

 

I am sure there is more than one reason.

 

So then those other reasons presumably apply to gay couples.

[El Cid]

It also might not be suitable for some particular straight couple, but you wouldn't presume to not allow them to do it I hope (or indeed to judge)

 

I wouldnt change the marriage laws, either way, because it might offend a small groups rights

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:27 ----------

 

That's nothing to do with marriage. I'm married and have no children.

 

Life is not always fair, or equal.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:33 ----------

 

BTW - what tax breaks do you think marriage brings?

 

It does bring rights, and David Cameron promised to recognise marriage in the tax system, but there are no longer any tax breaks. Lets see what the politicains promise on the run up to the election. But why would thy promise to give a tax break to people living together, unless it was to benefit children?

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:40 ----------

 

 

Are you actually saying that you are against equality for all?

 

 

Are you saying that you think everything can be equal?

[Halibut]

I wouldnt change the marriage laws, either way, because it might offend a small groups rights

 

The phrase ''offend a small groups rights'' is pretty meaningless.

 

Whose rights are you claiming would be offended if gay marriage is allowed?

[Cyclone]

I wouldnt change the marriage laws, either way, because it might offend a small groups rights

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:27 ----------

 

 

Life is not always fair, or equal.

No it's not, but we should avoid making it less fair or equal.

Nobody has a right to not be offended, so who gets offended at equality (you maybe) doesn't matter.

 

.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:33 ----------

 

 

It does bring rights, and David Cameron promised to recognise marriage in the tax system, but there are no longer any tax breaks. Lets see what the politicains promise on the run up to the election. But why would thy promise to give a tax break to people living together, unless it was to benefit children?

Are you confusing people living together and marriage now?

And you've just admitted that there are no tax breaks.

You've also had it explained why marriage is not only about children...

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:40 ----------

 

 

Are you saying that you think everything can be equal?

 

I'm not saying that everything is or can be equal.

Now can you answer the question you were asked instead of just asking another one.

 

Are you actually saying that you are against equality for all?

 

Because that what you appeared to say. Don't be shy, just answer the question.

[jfish1936]

Its not good to discuss on the grounds of personal experience, but on facts and principles.

.

 

Where do you get the facts, if you exclude personal experience?

 

Do you accept the figures of a statistician, who might be bringing in their own bias?

 

We had a referendum a few governments ago, which proved that most Australians want to remain under a monarchy; not really, the clever guy that phrased the question made it (paraphrased): "do you want the model of republic which has been shown to be least popular, or to remain a monarchy?"

The answer was, of course, the one he wanted. Had he asked "Do you want us to work out the best form of an Australian republic?" the result would have been opposite.

So the statistics often reflect the questions used in the survey.

[El Cid]

 

And you've just admitted that there are no tax breaks.

You've also had it explained why marriage is not only about children...

 

Marriage was once important, partly because of the tax breaks, it would be good if David Cameron brought that back, because children are the most important factor in marriage.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Are children not important outside marriage?

[El Cid]

Are children not important outside marriage?

 

People with children get many benefits, but supporting marriage is about about helping long term relationships succede, marriage has been shown to be the best method to bring up children.

That comes from studying large numbers of families, and not personal experience.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Okay, fine. Give tax breaks to married couples. I'm up for that.

 

What does that have to do with same-sex marriage?