Gbaji wrote:
All laws discriminate.
Nebraska Law wrote:
It is Illegal to go whale fishing.
Those poor whalers. What will they do if they cannot fish for whales in Nebraska...
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex Marriage
SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex MarriageFollow
Those poor whalers. What will they do if they cannot fish for whales in Nebraska...
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
ITT: Conservatives only think straight people are taxed enough already and deserve more tax breaks.
Conservatives recognize that if you create a tax break for say buying an electric car, it's because the government wants to encourage people to drive electric cars. We also believe that the government should only do this if there is some overriding socio-economic reason to do so. We don't consider the fact that a gas guzzler doesn't get the same tax break unfair because the whole point of the tax break is to reward people for buying more energy efficient cars.
We may disagree on whether the reward/incentive should exist, but at least we don't fail to recognize why it exists in the first place and rationally assess why one type of car should get it and not another. Please tell me you can grasp why this applies here.
And don't you dare say babies, because they get a separate tax break for that.
#29gbaji,
Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 5:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Exactly. People complaining that gay couples cannot gain marriage benefits is just like people complaining that whalers are not allowed to hunt whales in Nebraska. Excellent analogy!
#30gbaji,
Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 5:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ok. I wont say it then. Damn. I will. The separate tax break is for the extra costs related to caring for a dependent. It's neither an encouragement nor discouragement for having dependents in the first place, nor does it address the relationship between the parents either currently, or at time of birth.
If you allow same-sex marriage, then those people would be encouraged to adopt a child, which would then bring about extra expenses necessitating a tax break for caring for a dependent, and at the same time relieves the burden of too many children in "the system."
Win-win-win.
Win-win-win.
#32gbaji,
Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 5:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) BTW, did I have to explain this, when I already posted this:
gbaji wrote:
BTW, did I have to explain this, when I already posted this:
That's the situation marriage statuses were created to deal with.
gbaji wrote:
When a member of a gay couple accidentally gets impregnated by the other and the government has to get involved to force the other to take responsibility for the child, I'll be the first in line to demand that we apply marriage status to gay couples.
That's the situation marriage statuses were created to deal with.
Well, that's your opinion. But you also said:
gbaji wrote:
Conservatives recognize that if you create a tax break for say buying an electric car, it's because the government wants to encourage people to drive electric cars. We also believe that the government should only do this if there is some overriding socio-economic reason to do so. We don't consider the fact that a gas guzzler doesn't get the same tax break unfair because the whole point of the tax break is to reward people for buying more energy efficient cars.
The socio-economic reason to allow same-sex marriage is:
I wrote:
If you allow same-sex marriage, then those people would be encouraged to adopt a child, which would then bring about extra expenses necessitating a tax break for caring for a dependent, and at the same time relieves the burden of too many children in "the system."
Win-win-win.
Win-win-win.
#34gbaji,
Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 6:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. Then we could move the discussion away from one that's contrived to make one group of people appear to be bigots and into actually ensuring that all the different people in our nation have access to the various legal conditions that they want and need to make their own lives happy and fulfilled. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
#35gbaji,
Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 6:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Again though, it's not the marriage status that is required, but a marriage contract. That's already available, but very few (nearly none in fact) gay couples pursue it, preferring to fight a legal battle for something they don't really need or want instead of getting what they want right now. This is where I inject my patented "leaders of a cause care more about the politics of the cause, than the people they claim to be trying to help".
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, it's not about providing the actual solution to the problem, but making the problem as big as possible and using it for political advantage. So... .grats on being used gay people!
That thought can keep you warm and smug when CA starts allowing (federally recognized) SSMs in the near future
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
preferring to fight a legal battle for something they don't really need or want
Gbaji, if the only thing you care about is gay couples not paying less taxes, why on earth are you making such a big deal out of it?
It's not like that money is particularly significant to the US budget as a whole.
Not that anyone actually believes that that's really the only thing about gay marriage you care about but whatever.
It's not like that money is particularly significant to the US budget as a whole.
Not that anyone actually believes that that's really the only thing about gay marriage you care about but whatever.
Gbaji is against it because the GOP is against it. He goes along with whatever they tell him to.
By the way, Gbaji, i've been wondering something.
Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?
Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?
If we really want to get into it, "traditional" marriage was far more about the acquisition of property than it was actual procreation. Children were too considered a property.
In a traditional Western marriage (as in, from the last 500 years or so), a marriage granted:
- Rights of the husband to the wife's property
- Right of the husband to the wife's children (also considered property)
- Rights of the wife to have her children someday inherit her husband's property, upon his death
- Rights of the wife to some of her husband's property on his death should the marriage be fruitless
The reality, especially among the upper classes, was that not all the kids a wife had really were her husband's, but by the property laws, he was obligated to treat them as such unless he had rock solid proof of her infidelity. In exchange, he could pretty much do whatever the **** he wanted with the kids. Abandon her and take them to another country? Sure, why not. Beat them senseless? Short of homicide, it was allowed. Legally, the wife had no say in what he did with them, or with her, so long as he didn't kill them or violate laws.
The very fact that we no longer view any children born of a marriage as the husband's property to do with what he will (nor the wife for that matter) means we've already changed the view of "traditional" marriage radically in the last hundred years.
In a traditional Western marriage (as in, from the last 500 years or so), a marriage granted:
- Rights of the husband to the wife's property
- Right of the husband to the wife's children (also considered property)
- Rights of the wife to have her children someday inherit her husband's property, upon his death
- Rights of the wife to some of her husband's property on his death should the marriage be fruitless
The reality, especially among the upper classes, was that not all the kids a wife had really were her husband's, but by the property laws, he was obligated to treat them as such unless he had rock solid proof of her infidelity. In exchange, he could pretty much do whatever the **** he wanted with the kids. Abandon her and take them to another country? Sure, why not. Beat them senseless? Short of homicide, it was allowed. Legally, the wife had no say in what he did with them, or with her, so long as he didn't kill them or violate laws.
The very fact that we no longer view any children born of a marriage as the husband's property to do with what he will (nor the wife for that matter) means we've already changed the view of "traditional" marriage radically in the last hundred years.
Rachel9 wrote:
By the way, Gbaji, i've been wondering something.
Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?
Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?
We've been over this before. His answer boils down to "It would be too difficult and costly to determine fertility, so it's easiest just to give benefits to men married to women." As opposed to giving benefits to those WITH children.
Clearly, it's not about providing the actual solution to the problem, but making the problem as big as possible and using it for political advantage.
Working GREAT, too. It's almost certainly the primary reason Romney lost the youth vote by such a massive margin. Don't worry, the next old white guy you guys offer up will be very quiet about this "personal" issue that government doesn't need to get involved in.
Working GREAT, too. It's almost certainly the primary reason Romney lost the youth vote by such a massive margin. Don't worry, the next old white guy you guys offer up will be very quiet about this "personal" issue that government doesn't need to get involved in.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
By the way, Gbaji, i've been wondering something.
Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?
Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?
We've been over this before. His answer boils down to "It would be too difficult and costly to determine fertility, so it's easiest just to give benefits to men married to women." As opposed to giving benefits to those WITH children.
But what about when it has already been established that one or both are infertile? Surely the cost of putting a mark into a file noting not to give them such benefits would not outweigh the extra taxes they would be paying?
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
If you allow same-sex marriage, then those people would be encouraged to adopt a child, which would then bring about extra expenses necessitating a tax break for caring for a dependent, and at the same time relieves the burden of too many children in "the system."
I have an issue with the phrase "allow same-sex marriage" though. My issue (and the issue of most people) isn't with "marriage", but with the legal status (also unfortunately called "marriage"). It's the suite of benefits and effects that are at issue. I have no issue with creation of a peer-to-peer marriage contract that includes any sex combination anyone wants. I have no issue with adoption agencies accepting such things, just as they accept the current marriage status. I just think we're getting hung up on labels at this point.
There's no need to apply the state created status to this though. What I'd really like to see is a separation of marriage contracts from the state benefits applied to opposite sex couples who enter into one. The former is something which anyone ought to be able to enter into. The latter only makes sense if the marriage exists between a man and woman.
So you basically want to completely change the current structure of marital unions in order to justify keeping same-sex couples from calling themselves married in the eyes of the government.
Wow.
Rachel9 wrote:
Hm, that makes sense.
No... trust me, it doesn't
Quote:
But what about when it has already been established that one or both are infertile? Surely the cost of putting a mark into a file noting not to give them such benefits would not outweigh the extra taxes they would be paying?
Nope, doesn't matter to him.
The latter only makes sense if the marriage exists between a man and woman.
Just so we're clear, it's really only this part everyone things is laughable ******** used to mask your latent homophobia. The other stuff is just filler.
Just so we're clear, it's really only this part everyone things is laughable ******** used to mask your latent homophobia. The other stuff is just filler.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Hm, that makes sense.
No... trust me, it doesn't
Quote:
Quote:
But what about when it has already been established that one or both are infertile? Surely the cost of putting a mark into a file noting not to give them such benefits would not outweigh the extra taxes they would be paying?
Nope, doesn't matter to him.
It's about not saying that gays are icky.
I'd like to see our marriage laws simply written to allow two people who want to partner eternally to marry - even sibs if they want. Lose the labels.
Also, would it be wondrous or regretful if gbaji no longer had resort to gross entanglement of logical thought to argue against ssm on the internets?
Also, would it be wondrous or regretful if gbaji no longer had resort to gross entanglement of logical thought to argue against ssm on the internets?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Deja vu all over again.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 370
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (370)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex Marriage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC