Sunday, December 27, 2009

The cost of homosexual "marriage."

One of the reasons that the definition of marriage should remain unchanged is because of this.


  1. That's right! Gays should have to pay the same taxes as straights but not get the same benefits! That sort of discrimination is exactly what America's about!

  2. Polygamist pay taxes too. Also, homosexual marriage doesn't create the FUTURE taxpayers that most true marriages create. When I was young and single, I was paying $608 a month in Federal taxes, and my rent was $585 a month. When I bought this up to an older coworker he said, "You're not creating any future taxpayers (like a married man)." After pondering his words for a while, I shut my mouth on the subject and stopped being angry about the situation because he was right. Being a taxpayer doesn't give you the right to change the definition of marriage.

  3. "You're not creating any future taxpayers." So? You need to develop that into an actual point.

    Besides, lots of gays and lesbians are both creating and raising future taxpayers. By your reasoning, gay and lesbian couples with kids should get benefits, while straight couples without kids should not.

    "Being a taxpayer doesn't give you the right to change the definition of marriage."

    Um..huh? Who said anything in this post about changing the definition of marriage. Try this on: "Being a taxpayer does give you all the rights and benefits of citizenship."

  4. Um...everybody pays taxes. Don't you think that the definition of marriage should be changed to accomodate the GLBT community? Right now, in CA, marriage is only legal between one man and one woman...don't you want that changed?


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.