I don't knoe about that man. I think theres a lot of blur attached to that.
.. I don't knoe man. Does anyone else agree with that?
I don't. I mean I think our government does some shitty things, but I don't think thats at all part of the equation.

To propose another point in turn. To be brutul about it. Our government looks at us as harvest cattle. Ultimatly they don't give a fuck about us in anyway. They want us cattle to just herd around happily providing them with their resources with as little complaint as possible. If this whole ordeal services them, they will pass it, if it doesn't they don't want to debate it.
Cold hard truth? They give marriages tax breaks so parents can spend more money on their children and support the economy, and conversely not giving them tax breaks will have recessive effects and cause families to become smaller and ultimatly less tax income for them. Government doesn't bother themselves with the details of our "humanity", man.

My post said nothing about children, tax cuts for children are complete separate.

BTW, Marriage taxes are not really a marriage tax cut. It's a cut if it's one income, it's an increase for two incomes.

Which part of my previous post do you say doesn't make sense?

"Marriage is religious." True, it doesn't have to be part of a diety religion, but marriage in itself is religious.

"Some taxes (as in tax rates) are based on Marriage." True.

"Therefore, the government is using religion to decide how much to tax who."

I've lost you again on the first half. Tax break=/= tax cut. I dunno.

Second half, it's not that I didn't understand the words. I just don't see that logic as bieng correct when applied to the situation.

Marriage, while enveloped in religious ceremony, is a life function. It represents dedication to a partner in which the two of you will help re-populate the human race. Some religions see treat this a polygamy but most base a virtue of homogamy with it.

It's just ends all. I just don't see it. A scheme meant for .... I don't knoe. I'm not necisarrily saying "you're wrong" but, I'm just saying, it doesn't add up to me, personally.

Seven,
I agree, except for the Marriage is religion thing. Marriage came from religion, but so did a lot of other things in life that we no longer tie to religion.

I can be an atheist, never enter a church, never mouth the word god, and me married. Hard to call that marriage based on religion.

I say just get rid of tax breaks involving marriage.

In fact. Just get rid of marriage as a legal standing all together, and make the "marriage benefits" like hospital visits and the like similar to the "Emergency Medical contact" list.

Of course that would get rid of the "Spousal privledge" thing... but honestly why does that law even exist?

I see it as clear discrimination as I believe that marriage is no longer a fundamentally religious thing in an increasingly secular world, instead it is a legal definition.

Even looking at it as a purely religious thing, several branches of Christianity (particularly the Episcopal Church of the USA) are moving very quickly towards accepting homosexual relationships (though the entire church hasn't quite got there yet) and other smaller churches have already reached that point. Why should these branches not be allowed to practice their religion in the way they interpret it?

I nominate this idea. Remove all financial and legal benefits and gay marriage supporters have no leg to stand on.

But, as it stands now, it's outright discrimination to restrict which adults can and cannot get married and to whom they marry. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Once marriage became a state-sanctioned entity, all rights for religious institutions to restrict the union to fit their moral code were thrown out the window.

Even if it is religious (which it's not, you can be married entirely separate from any religious entity and rely on the state entirely for it), your question begs another question:

Which religion? Do we go back to the Greeks? Or, for the sake of pandering to the religious right's argument, restrict it to monotheism?

People have been married long before Christianity ever came about. I don't see how they think it's okay to claim the practice as their own now, especially with all the crazy religions we have in the world today.

You know, it's this type of argument that makes me shake my head. Most people in this country are religious to some degree, and most still believe that keeping marriage as part of religion is important both to the religion they follow and the sanctity of marriage. Basically you're saying; "well, we took all thsi other stuff from the religions and stripped away everything religious about it, so we should be able to take anything we else we want too" and other people are going "well we already took it, so nyeah, they can't have it back" there was an amendment to the constitution to ban alcohol, but that was revoked by a later amendment. If they want to take it back, that's their right to do, provided they do it legally, which they are; by voting on it.

It's this type of attitude that is specifically driving the religious majority out to vote on issues like this to protect their beleifs. Would you be complaining about a law being passed to protect homosexuals from being forced to have sex with the opposite gender?

This is a case where the majority has come to a decision based on their moral views, which yes, are very likely to have been influence by their religion, but so what? Laws are supposed to reflect the morality of society, and protect those morals. Saying that this should be invalid simply because it may ultimately stem from a religious reason is basically saying you have no respect for their views, and if you have no respect for their views, why should they, the majority, have respect for yours?