Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
 How often must I repeat it? RELATIVISATION. A special status is being watred if the same special status is given to more than the orginially intended target group. Like gold is defined by its rarety, the less rare it is or the more the same moneys iy payed for lead or glas stones, the more invayluable gold becomes- becasue then it is nothing special anymore. Legalizing gay marriages is last but not least a fincial thingk, becasue it effects taxe benefits gays then enjoy that only were meant for family support, originally. And this lessens the signficvance of the special status families should have. It also is a discrimination of single like me, becasue then families enjoy these tacx benefitsa, gay couples enjoy these tax benefits - but single must pay more than gay couples and enjoy no tax benefits? Why? What importance do have gay couples over singles for the community that justifies them to enjoy superior status and superior tax duties?
The only tax relief I think gays shall enjoy is a tax relief I demand for everybody, gays, singles, hetero couples, families, and that is abandoning the inherticance tax, becasue it is a double taxing of property (at least double, if not more), and a partial compulsory expropriation. Additonally, quite some figures on the left side of the political spectrum use it to impress their clients and by that effectively turn it into an "envy tax". People should have any freedom and right to decidce by themselves whiom they give what of their property, without being punished with varying tax levels according to the genetic relation to the receivers. If people think they owe to the state or two the community, they are free to decide that certain shares of their welah after their death should be distributed to them. What the state does when making it obligatory, is highway robbery, if not body-stripping. |
You can repeat that often as you want. Relativism simply does not fit here. It's a non argument, completely pulled out of the water, without any kind of logical connection to reality. Love is
not a matter of relativism, it simply
is, and marriage is a conclusion out of that emotion. Children also are the result of love, not marriage. Marriage simply is a formalized agreement to this relationship without an impact on the real world behavior patters of a couple but a monetary one. And if we go the monetary route, I can start giving you sh*tload of a list of issues having a greater effect on children in this regard. And a far greater number of measures to improve childbirth without going the "no gay marriage" argument. What you want is to give out suncream to fight climate change. How often do
I have to repeat that? You can't contest that argument by going in circles and pulling out Article 6 as some kind of magical spell without making any real world cause and effect analysis, especially given the fact that this law was made during a time when homosexuality was also still considered a crime.
And I won't even start on the ever growing number of married heterosexual couples out there that neither have children nor have any plans to have them in the future. The logical conclusion of your argumentation here would have a deep impact on the future treatment of these people as well.
Quote:
|
Hm. Why? Must it be your business if they do not actively bother you? Youi could as well be uncomfortable with me drinking Japanese green tea. As long as I do not spit it in your face, or push it down your throat at every occasion and whenever we meat that you MUST love green tea yourself - what'S the problem? Just let me peacefully enjoy my tea while I let you drink what you want, and we'll be fine.
|
It appears you finally get the whole underlying point. As long as you can't give me a well founded, researched argument why gay marriage actually infringes upon your own well being, it simply is not your problem.