> -----Original Message----- > From: LRSScout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:37 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: RE: Huckabee v Stewart: Gay Marriage > > I whole heartedly support gay marriage, across the board, at federal > level. > > I'm not religious, I have nothing against homosexuals (some of my best > blah > blah blah). > > There is a non-religious argument that is pertinent, and I know > non-religious people that feel that way about marriage as well. That > marriage, and the breaks associated with it, are there to assist in > getting > people to procreate. Course seems like no one needs any help, married > or otherwise, with that these days.
No - they're not. Name the breaks associated with marriage designed to get people to procreate? The breaks (taxes, etc) for marriage are for cohabitation and condensation of resources. The breaks given for child-bearing are available to people whether married or not. Even without marriage a homosexual couple can cross-adopt and claim children as dependents with ALL the breaks associated. I'm married, I have two kids: I didn't get any "breaks" before I had kids and those I got after are not limited to married couples. I'm sorry, but the argument is being tossed around a lot but I just find no support for it in reality. I'm calling bullshit. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:282728 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
