Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry

The point is to STRENGTHEN the couple that produces the kids in the first place. I have absolutely no interest in giving tax incentives to anyone else. There are thousands of adoptive parents and children who would disagree with you. These children don't matter?

The point of tax incentives is to nurture stability among those who create the children. It is always best for the biological parents of a child to raise the child. There is no benefit in telling society, "Oh, forget your kids. We have folks who will foster/adopt them?" But, like I've said, since a NRST is more fair to everyone, then there would be no issue here because NO ONE would be getting tax incentives.

Certainly, no one deserves a tax break because they're attracted to rectal orgasm. A nice smutty way to put it. Then you think the reason that marriage benefits are given to people because they like to boink fur burger? I've never seen the justification put quite that way.

Oh, please. I see no reason for giving a tax incentive to someone because they're attracted to male/female orgasms either. If I give them to gays, why not just give them to every shacking, swinging, Dick/Jane in the whole nation? Why not to guys who sleep with their dogs....so long as they're committed, of course (/sarcasm).

Slander? That's a pretty bold statement considering you don't have the supporting documents from the study...

uh, i never said the study itself is slanderous, just that anti-gay spin based on it is slanderous.

when someone writes a "news" story about the proclivity of young, male, unmarried gays in amsterdam and titles it "Study finds gay unions brief" i can only take it as a deliberate attempt to smear gays in this coutry who are involved in civil unions or marriages or petitioning for that right. and just in case the title did not get the intended point across to the reader (that all gays are inherently promiscuous), the "reporter" spells it out in the article by suggesting that this study of young, male, unmarried gays in amsterdam is somehow relevant as we weigh the appeals of gays in this country for civil unions and marriage. there is nothing bold about calling that slander - what else could one possibly call it?

Do you consider this is a junk study?

no, and i never suggested that it was.

Do you think it's possible you don't understand the study?

no, i read an abstract of it and i think i understand it well enough. btw, the study was not centered on the length of gay relationships as the washington times piece was. this again leads one to believe the times piece was a calculated smear, as opposed to straight reporting.

look, i would be the first to admit that the gay culture in this country has been a culture of more promiscuity than the country at large. you don't need dishonest spin on an AIDS study from holland to prove that. there are a host of reasons why that has been the case, and the moral weakness of the individuals themselves plays no small part in it.

what i object to in the anti-gay camp is not that they point out this weakness, but that they are unwilling to acknowledge that the gay culture (1) is not monolithic (2) can move towards the mainstream (3) is moving towards the mainstream (4) is accelerated towards the mainstream by public acceptance of gay relationships.

i think you should keep a link to this study on your archive page - just make sure you title it accurately.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.