Tony Dungy woudn't want to "deal with" Michael Sam

What am I, some kind of Constitutional scholar?

I just fix the coffee machines. I try not to give my opinion on subjects where I'm not an expert.

 

I'm not sure if this was intentional humor or not, but either way, it is funny.

 

Yes, it does.

Allowing hundreds of thousands of gay couples to marry who before could not marry affects me (and you) in that they will be able to file jointly and thus reduce their tax burden, which reduces government revenues. I'm not crazy about that.

Allowing an additional group --- a much, much smaller group by all indications --- to do the same would have a similar effect, but on a much smaller scale. I'm not crazy about that, either, but . . .

Who am I to deny the latter and allow the former? The latter will have a much smaller effect on me. So it would be completely hypocritical to use that as an excuse.

 

Pretty clear example of mocking the "experts" around here.

 

Any doubts I had about lumping you in with those who raise the polygamy argument because they oppose gay marriage but are afraid to admit it, you just erased them.

Next you'll be arguing we should stop imposing age restriction and allow farm animals. Nice path you are headed down there.

For the record, I have no problem limiting the definition of marriage so it only includes two people, but if the choice is to allow both polygamy and gay marriage or neither, I would say both is more appropriate. I simply think it is foolish to lump them together and the only people who do so seem to be the folks trying to find an excuse to fight against gay marriage.

 

Probably, but YF sometimes tries to pass himself off as an expert on many subjects he knows nothing about, so it is tough to be sure.

 

Consenting adults. That has been and always will be the compelling argument.

If you're going to allow consenting adults A and B to marry but deny consenting adults C, D and E to marry, you better have a good reason. I'm still waiting to hear one. Other countries allow it. Countries in which our nation does business, in fact. So it can't be that off-the-charts ridiculous. We're just not "ready" for it. That makes sense, and heck, it's been a handy excuse for decades of discrimination. But it has never been an acceptable one. Need a better one, please.

 

What's the problem with polygamy, anyhow?

I'm asking seriously. I get that many old-ass polygamist leaders force underage girls to marry them, and that's both creepy and illegal. Not in favor of that, obviously.

But if you're dealing with consenting adults who desire to be part of a polygamous relationship, who are we to say they don't deserve the same legal rights and protections the rest of us have?

 

Polygamy would add multi-fold to the tax revenue based on the marriage penalty...the problem with that, though is that polygamy usually goes hand in hand with large numbers of kids and therefore, deductions that diminish that marriage penalty.

Gay couples won't have to worry about kid deductions because they can't procreate. Therefore, they'll pay more taxes.

Which, if you'll be honest about it, is why some legislators who are against it personally but will allow it (particularly on the left side of the aisle where they never have met a tax revenue they didn't like) are staying silent about their personal attitudes toward it. Hell, that may have even changed precisely because of the cash it will feed them.

 

I think we can all agree that same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed unless they're revenue-neutral. Indeed, same-sex couples taking advantage of the tax code are, at present, little more than traitors who should have their citizenship revoked.

 

Outing alert! I found Paynedearse!

http://tbo.com/list/columns-mackinnon/dungy-a-victim-of-liberal-witch-hunt-20140725/

Former Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach and NBC football analyst Tony Dungy is the latest person to feel the wrath of liberals and the liberal sports world.
Why? Because he exercised his First Amendment rights and gave his honest opinion to this newspaper regarding whether he would have drafted openly gay football player Michael Sam.
...
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under attack in our country from the far left, and a number of sports reporters and sports sites have joined the witch hunt.

 

Any more than say, who? You, for instance.

And, I know I've said that my knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep.