High profile homophobic, hatemongering, gay marriage opponent caught posing topless (photo safe for work).
I feel sorry for her. She answered a question honestly and it cost her a judged competition. Why does it go beyond that? Leave the poor woman alone unless she pushes it along herself.
No thanks. Her opinion sucks and she should be raked over the coals for it just like everyone who shares it.
It should have never even been asked in the first place. Since when is a f**king beauty pageant a PC morality check??
Wow, those filters in Dubai are pretty serious. You've seen this picture before. It's been posted on this forum. It's pretty funny, unless you have no sense of humor -- personally, I'm outraged that VFish would treat the subject of this photo with so little respect.
There are two opinions that should be valid on gay marriage, you are for it because you are gay and you want to get married or you couldn't give two sh!ts because you are not gay and it doesn't effect you. Anything else is meddling where you don't belong. Perez Hilton asked the question full knowing the answer would be controversial. He wins and we all have lost a few minutes of our lives we will never get back.
What you're forgetting is that there are a lot of benefits (tax breaks, etc.) that married couples get from the government. Personally, I could care less. (Up to a point--I firmly believe it should be decided on a state-by-state basis and that it should be left up to either the legislatures of the states or to referendum, rather than dictated by judicial fiat. But what the actual outcome is in each state, I don't care.) But it's perfectly valid for someone to oppose their tax dollars being used for something they view as immoral, sinful, whatever.
how exactly would tax dollars being used to support something immoral or whatever if gay marriage was legal? btw, fair or not, the moral component has always been a part of beauty pagents, right up there with the back-stabing and the cheating. remember, it's not just about physical beauty.
Married couples get tax breaks from the federal government and from most states (hence, everyone else pays more to compensate). Incidentally, this is a valid socio-economic argument against gay marriage as well as a moral one. The reason married couples get tax breaks is that they are more likely to have children, and thus contribute new citizens to the society, than single people are. Gay couples can't do this, so why should they get the tax break?? (And yes, I realize that on a superficial level this would also apply to elderly couples getting married, married couples where one or both parties are sterile, etc.--but it's still technically possible for a medical advance to be found to allow these people to reproduce. This is not possible with gay couples.)
I've been married too long to remember for sure, but my recollection is that there is no real tax benefit to being married. The serious deductions come from things like kids and mortgages. Many gay people will never have kids and many gay people already have kids. . . . some through adoption but I would guess the majority from guys who were married and fathers before dropping the bomb on their spouses. In fact, I'm trying to remember for sure, but it seemed to me that when I was first married with no kids and no mortgage that we would have done slightly better from a fed income tax perspective if we stayed single. Maybe I'm wrong but that is my recollection. If that is the case, then check this one off of the "perfectly valid" list.
so some people pay more in taxes (which are used for morally upright things) to compensate for married gay couples paying less - I guess that's your point. but that's still not the same as your tax dollars supporting something immoral.
Chris, I think you are correct. the real breaks come from dependents and breaks on mortgage interest and taxes, not from being married. most modern day tax programs actually analyze it for you and tell you whether or not you should file jointly or separately if you are married.
I'm sure it varies on a case-by-case and especially on a state-by-state basis. But generally speaking, the average couple will pay less in taxes being married than single, all else being equal. Huh?? It's exactly the same. If gay marriage is recognized by the state, then all the gay couples will get the same tax breaks straight married couples do, which means everyone will be paying more taxes. Like I said, I personally could care less, other than that the federal government needs to keep their noses out of it. But it's intellectually dishonest to pretend there aren't perfectly valid arguments for each side.
It's called the marriage penalty -- if both spouses work, then a married couple will generally pay more in taxes on their combined income than if they stayed single and each paid individual taxes on their income. The marriage benefit comes when there is one income earner -- a single person pays more taxes on their income if they file as an individual than if they get married and the married couple files jointly but still have only the one income.
it is not the same. you said that if gay marriage was legal, then some people would feel that their money is being used for immoral purposes. how could that be if all it means is that married gay couples pay less in taxes. even if some people end up paying more as a result (supposedly - and I'm not sure that can be proven), gay marriage in now way effects how the tax dollars are used.