11-08-2008, 12:03 AM | #201 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Dola
Does anyone think that the lesbians kind of get dragged down by the gays in all this? I mean, if it was just an issue of letting chicks get it on and get married, all the sex-starved clergymen would be like "ahh, that doesn't seem so wrong. I'm pretty sure God is cool with that shit". Unfortunately the gay portion of homosexuality seems to be the more prominent one, so instead of hot chick-on-chick action the face of the movement is severe anal pounding. Not a good sell.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
11-08-2008, 12:09 AM | #202 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
wrong. you're incorrect. they do want to change the laws, only they want to change them into something discriminatory. nice try though.
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
11-08-2008, 12:24 AM | #203 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Quote:
Have you ever seen hot lesbians? Not the ones in pr0n. In real life. And no, Lohan doesn't count either. |
|
11-08-2008, 12:25 AM | #204 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
|
Quote:
It's not hatred, Buc. It's severe disappointment. There is most certainly anger involved, but none of it stems from hatred.
__________________
Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW) http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com |
|
11-08-2008, 12:26 AM | #205 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
|
Quote:
Most lesbians I know are not girls you'd want to see having sex.
__________________
Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW) http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com |
|
11-08-2008, 01:01 AM | #206 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
You're telling me no gay couples have ever sued for the right to be married? You're trying to tell me that we've HAD gay marriage all along and it's the religious nuts trying to ban it? C'mon now, that's just silly. Frankly, I'm suprised to see you arguing against a clear seperation of church and state. I would think in order to safeguard against religion having any say in the matter, you'd be all FOR my position of making marriage a religious institution that has no bearing on who is eligible for a civil union. Instead, you're arguing that we keep this odd mix of cultural meaning, legal meaning, religious meaning together, even though it means for one side to be happy, the other side will be miserable. It shows to me, frankly, that you're just as bigoted towards religious people as they may be towards gays.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. Last edited by CamEdwards : 11-08-2008 at 01:03 AM. |
|
11-08-2008, 07:00 AM | #207 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
The assumption has to do with a "household", where there are multiple people taking care of each other, meaning less people relying on the government for care. There is also "head of household" status for those situations that don't involve a married couple, showing the government recognizes the value of this. Yes, it probably all ought to be streamlined into a more uniform code that decides what behavior we want to reward, separated from hetero/gay/polygamy and centered on groups of people taking care of each other.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
11-08-2008, 08:13 AM | #208 | ||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-08-2008, 08:15 AM | #209 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
This thread was a clusterfuck from the first post, really.
|
11-08-2008, 08:16 AM | #210 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
The adoption question is interesting. Can you tell me the % of gay couples that do adopt? If the % is miniscule then your argument is moot. |
|
11-08-2008, 08:22 AM | #211 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Buffalo,NY
|
White people never been oppressed? Give me a fucking break!
|
11-08-2008, 08:22 AM | #212 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Just so every knows my stance. I am okay with civil unions. I am not okay with a 'religious marriage' if the church org opposes. I do not fully understand what gays 'do not have in terms of taxes, benefits etc.' but am generally okay with equal treatment in laws/taxes with certain exceptions.
|
11-08-2008, 08:24 AM | #213 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
|
11-08-2008, 08:28 AM | #214 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
|
11-08-2008, 08:37 AM | #215 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cary, NC, USA
|
Quote:
...leaving aside the severe bias against gay couples adopting. For instance, it's now illegal in Arkansas (as is any unmarried couple). |
|
11-08-2008, 08:47 AM | #216 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Fair counterpoint. If you have any stats though ... I would like to know if there are any studies/surveys on '% of gays that would adopt if legal'.
|
11-08-2008, 08:57 AM | #217 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
And gays can't do this? Not all hetro couples can sustain a childbirth... |
11-08-2008, 09:10 AM | #218 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
To your first question - probably not est 50% of them. To the other 50% who can, 0% with both partners egg/sperm. To your second question, true but see above on my position and assumed stats.
|
11-08-2008, 09:47 AM | #219 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Phoenix
|
My wife and I have made a conscious decision not to have children. Should we be forced to divorce? Do we not benefit society? We are also interracial. Two strikes!
__________________
The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they'll be when you kill them! Visit Stewart the Wonderbear and his amazing travels http://wonderbeartravel.blogspot.com |
11-08-2008, 10:01 AM | #220 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cary, NC, USA
|
|
11-08-2008, 10:08 AM | #221 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
You are drawing an argument that I am not proposing. The argument is should non-hetero couples have the same benefits as hetero. My stance is probably most but not necessarily all.
|
11-08-2008, 10:08 AM | #222 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Quote:
Ahh, the good old days. FWIW, in one of my classes this week (one I'm taking, not teaching), we were discussing Thomas Burke's Limehouse Nights and the question came up as to why young teenagers could marry comparatively recently in our history, but there was a shift to 18 in a lot of states. I took the lead in responding and pointed out that technological advances and the introduction of the post-industrial age necessitated more education and so a longer "childhood" period of sorts. Hence, you have the upward shift of ages of consent. A good example of this is in Lolita, where Humbert complains that he's in a US that permits a man of 40 to court a girl of 16, but not 14. This was back in the post-World War II era. Now it's changed to 18, but not 16 (depending on individual state law of course). Now, even given this scenario of more technology needing greater education, I still think 16 should be the age of consent standard, as it is in several states and many countries around the world, including the equally advanced European nations. I suppose one could rather flippantly say, "Old enough to drive, old enough to ride."
__________________
2006 Golden Scribe Nominee 2006 Golden Scribe Winner Best Non-Sport Dynasty: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty) Rookie Writer of the Year Dynasty of the Year: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty) |
|
11-08-2008, 10:25 AM | #223 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
Quote:
Yep, when I was in high school I went to a lesbian wedding and there were lots of hot women there including the bride and bride. In SC I worked with a police officer who was a lesbian and her girlfriend was model material. Now, I work with a cute as a button lesbian and her girlfriend who does not work there is a smoking leggy redhead. Visit Amsterdam if you want to see smoking hot lesbians/bisexuals in the wild. I'm just saying. Been there, done that. Now, I've certainly seen a lot of not so hot lesbians but from my perspective same thing goes for straight women but it seems this stereotype dies really hard.
__________________
There are no houris, alas, in our heaven. |
|
11-08-2008, 10:34 AM | #224 | |
High School JV
Join Date: Nov 2006
|
Quote:
So is your assumption that it only helps "continue the tax base" when both parents participate in the conception? |
|
11-08-2008, 10:52 AM | #225 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Show me some studies that indicates same-sex have the propensity to adopt and nurture children and I can be persuaded otherwise. I can't help but feel (admitedly without any stats) that same-sex for the large part would not care to be parents.
|
11-08-2008, 11:12 AM | #226 | ||
High School JV
Join Date: Nov 2006
|
Quote:
Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States Quote:
|
||
11-08-2008, 11:14 AM | #227 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
So if I want to marry my biological sister, is that okay? Or my biological brother? Are the gay marriage advocates cool with that? Just trying to figure out where they would draw the line, since what we are really talking about is where to redraw the line.
|
11-08-2008, 11:45 AM | #228 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Quote:
Who cares about chance to produce offspring? You either do or you don't. Lots of couples get married and don't ever intend to have children (I know many). Why should they get tax breaks a gay couple don't? Especially a gay couple that intends to adopt or otherwise acquire children? Or what about people that have children outside of wedlock? Aren't they helping grow society or whatever your point is? Shouldn't they get tax breaks for that? Or hey, let's go a step further. I'm sure that certain races statistically have far more children per family than others. I have no idea which ones, but lets pretend that Indian and African people pump out more children than Asian or Caucasians. Maybe we should give more tax breaks to the Indian and African people for marrying each other since they are more likely to help grow the population? And lets penalize people who marry whites or Asians since those groups tend to have fewer babies. Hell, we could use statistics to group people into all kinds of segments and then give incentives to the ones we want to promote. But the problem with all of that is it isn't fair.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
|
11-08-2008, 11:52 AM | #229 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Interesting study, thanks for the data. I concede that GLB do have the propensity to nurture and parent children. |
|
11-08-2008, 11:53 AM | #230 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Quote:
The incest argument is interesting. On the one hand, I really don't care if you want to marry your sister and get the legal/tax benefits of doing so. On the other hand, you may end up producing a cyclops, which is where it really takes on a different edge than the other unions we've discussed thus far. I think that's where it then becomes not an issue of morality but of public health, and that's when I don't feel it would be wrong for the government to legislate against it for the good of the population.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
|
11-08-2008, 11:59 AM | #231 | |||||
Coordinator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Quote:
There can't be common ground when one side is forcing their personal beliefs on another. bigotry is wrong, it doesn't matter if you dress it up as Christian, Islamic, buddhist whatever, bigotry is wrong, this country has said so repeatedly over its long existance. Quote:
Bingo! Quote:
Its still the same topic, just varying versions. When you bring in a new argument with a new segment of society )children, which are legally defined seperate from adults) then you change your entire argument and as noted earier, you fail Quote:
Ding. Quote:
Thats part of the probloem Cam, you're being tolerant of something this nations history says cannot and cannot be tolerated. How does that help your position at all? Gays want to be treated equally under the law, nothing more. They're not asking to be recognized by churches or religion in any form, but the religious want to force them to not be recognized at ALL. Marriage is not about procreation, Marriage in this nation is about the legal rights afforded two people who choose to become a single legal unit. Prop 8 is purely discrimminatory against a faction of this ountry because...why? because the religious feel they are being threatened personally by someone NOT believing as they do and having the temerity to demand to be treated equally under the law. There is no compromise there. Prop 8 is legalized discrimination. It will take time I'm sure, but it WILL change. As for your outcry of "What have you done for me lately" We're doing what everyone does first, we're debating, we're arguming the point and trying to find out if either side has a fallical position. I know one does, but you seem to think its better to kiss both sides ass instead of do whats right legally. I don't understand that. its a very cop out position on a human rights topic. |
|||||
11-08-2008, 12:05 PM | #232 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
I am going to substitute your "produce offspring" for "parent and nurture children". Under that scenario, I concede based on the study above that tax breaks should probably be given. |
|
11-08-2008, 12:09 PM | #233 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
Quote:
I'm still confused why there are tax benefits for being married and/or having children. |
|
11-08-2008, 12:12 PM | #234 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Quote:
I can't answer that, it's strange to me as well. But if they are gonna be there, then everyone should get them no matter how many penises are involved.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
|
11-08-2008, 12:12 PM | #235 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Maybe you can explain why you don't believe that? |
|
11-08-2008, 12:17 PM | #236 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
Quote:
Having a child is a responsibility that you need to be able to afford. It's your decision to get married and/or have a child. Why is it fair to penalize someone that chooses to remain single or a couple that chooses to not have a child? If someone has a child that means they will be using more resources, which means said person should be putting more money into the system. Society should support all citizens and there should be no preferential treatment regardless of martial status or if one chooses to have a child. |
|
11-08-2008, 12:17 PM | #237 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Quote:
Same experience with me. Some of the hottest chicks I've known have been lesbians (and yes, I thought that before I knew they were lesbians), and I've met some really ugly ones. The ratio of good looking lesbians to ones that are not is the same as straight women. At least with the ones I've known. Maybe they just grow really hot lesbians in Jersey. |
|
11-08-2008, 12:19 PM | #238 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
See the problem with the No on 8 side was that they marketed incorrectly. If they had commercials with hot lesbians kissing they would have won.
|
11-08-2008, 12:24 PM | #239 |
High School JV
Join Date: Nov 2006
|
|
11-08-2008, 12:27 PM | #240 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
In general, the short term investment (18-22 yrs?) will be outweighed by the longer return on investment and the perpetuity it brings (grand children etc). Yes, there are exceptions (80-20 rule maybe?) and probably not valid in some societies/countries (ex. Somalia?). I may be misreading you, but it seems strange that you do not understand society has a self intest to help itself in this manner, especially because this is a case of parenting/nuturing a child. Lets agree to disagree. |
|
11-08-2008, 01:15 PM | #241 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Wow, this whole "tax benefits for marriage" red herring has gotten totally out of control. Like the fish that got away that gets bigger every time you tell the story - now it's a great white shark.
Okay, let's try to bring just a shade of common sense to this "tax" issue. Not that doing so will accomplish much, but just in the unlikely event that there's anyone who is genuinely ignorant about this topic and also has an open mind. The tax system is naturally and essentially built around individuals. How much do you make, in what ways, what can you write off, and then based upon all that what do you owe. That's the basic concept of income taxes, nothing shocking there. One way to set this up is to require each and every person to file independently. That would be fine, at one level. However, there's a secondary issue. It's an extraordinarily common practice for adults to marry and essentially enter into a mutual contract of community property. Together you own the house, pay the bills, buy the groceries, mow the lawn, and so on. You most likely even make income-earning decisions based on the *total* income from the two of you, rather than thinking of his income is this, ans her income is that. You essentially become one entity for most practical purposes. Now... back to the tax system. In large part because we have a tax system that has a variety of puts and takes in it (I know, everyone wants to rail against how terrible this is, that's for another day) this makes treating two married people who are in such a relationship -- where they essentially think of their income, property, and debts as shared -- sort of uncomfortable. Which person is paying the mortgage? Which person is paying the costs of the child's health care? Which person made that charitable donation? Who claims the kids as dependents? If you force every married couple to make decisions like this and award tax differences for each of them, you invariably create all sorts of stupid inconsistencies. Easy example: would it be fair that one couple with $50K + $25K incomes pays less in taxes than another couple with $75K + $0 incomes? Most people would agree that's not fair -- but it's exactly what happens if you force everyone to pretend he's an individual, regardless of his reality. And it goes on and on, where you could alter tax treatment just by moving "shared" things from one person to the other. That's just dumb, in many ways. So, in short, the government has made a prudent decision -- to recognize the fact that such people are really more effectively dealt with as one economic unit. Thus, the "married filing jointly" tax system is created. And every set of tax brackets or limitations is created with two limits involved -- that for individuals, and that for married couples. There was at one time a perceived "marriage penalty" but the specific elements of that were repealed -- now, in practice, most married couples pay a shade less in taxes filing jointly than they would filing as individuals (though this can vary a bit by circumstance). THAT is the reason for the tax treatment of married people. It just makes sense to recognize that the two-person shared-responsibility arrangement is extremely common, and to reasonably build the tax system around that fact. It's really got nothing to do with promoting babies, or endorsing religious institutions, or anything else either glorious or nefarious, depending on your position on the hot-blooded issues in this thread. As a practical matter, there is no particular reason why this filing status of "married filing jointly" needs to have any relationship at all to a religious term or ceremony. Obviously countless people get married in non-religious settings, and simply appropriate the same term that has been used by many religions for generations to express their two-person binding relationship. This has no bearing on how the government views their "contract" -- if they say they are married and fill out the license, it's done, and that's that. Not to suggest that the facts will end this particular stone from being thrown in the debate. I think this is like a lot of issues, where people take their position first, dig in their heels deeply, and only later on might they "think" about why their position is so important and defensible. In my view, the argument of "tax benefits for child-makers" is a product of some late stage in that process. We have lots and lots of ways to either promote births or support children, through the tax code and otherwise, that make tons more sense than just confirming unmatched genitalia at the time of a paper license that clearly has no necessary relationship to procreation. Last edited by QuikSand : 11-08-2008 at 01:35 PM. Reason: typos |
11-08-2008, 01:20 PM | #242 | |
High School JV
Join Date: Nov 2006
|
Quote:
What would you have guessed the odds of you typing "confirming unmatched genitalia" in sequence at when you woke up this morning? |
|
11-08-2008, 01:22 PM | #243 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
|
Quote:
This is the best post of the thread. Thanks QS, very informative.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime." |
|
11-08-2008, 02:08 PM | #244 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
Here I thought you failed since you weren't being consistent in your beliefs! |
|
11-08-2008, 02:19 PM | #245 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
The position that tax benefits for marriage is a red herring because the intent of the tax laws are for a more practical purpose, not specifically to promote marriage.Tax policy has changed throughout the years, shifting between marriage penalty and bonus, dependant on the other partner's compensation etc. Lots of factors. Tax policy has in recent years geared towards eliminating the marriage penalty. Other tax policy supports/benefits children through deductions, tax credits, eductional deductions, medical deductions etc. Although your premise that there was no master, comprehensive master plan to specifically help a family with tax policy, there is no doubt there are tax advantages to marriage and having children, which helps to offset the cost/burden elsewhere. What was the intent of Congress in evolving/structuring the tax policy as it is today? Don't ask me to read through the old news clippings but suspect a large part of that is because they wanted to support the family unit. |
|
11-08-2008, 02:20 PM | #246 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
you misunderstand my position Cam, which i have stated multiple times. I am all FOR a separation of church and state "civil unions for all". HOWEVER, UNTIL WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE THAT HAS HAPPENED that doesn't give us the right to discriminate in the interim. I've made this abundantly clear.
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
11-08-2008, 04:22 PM | #247 |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
Links on Prop 8 at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture
A really long omnibus post of links chronicling the initial motivation and title of this thread. Very insightful for those who are engaging this particular issue, especially the blamers. |
11-08-2008, 05:16 PM | #248 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Quote:
I'm not asking you to do shit. All I'm suggesting is that the tax system's "recognition" of married people is borne of practical reasons, not religious or partisan ones. The "no doubt" assertion that marriage is a tax-favored status is simply not as obvious as you make it out to be. By and large, the income tax system is designed to make a pretty fair translation from the simple single earner to the two-adult family unit without a material bias toward one or the other. Yes, there are a number of ways that the current tax structure provides support for children. In that sense,it encourages people to do so. And rather than refute my point -- that helps to make my point. My point is that if you want to make raising kids more affordable -- give tax credit for child care, or greater deductions/exemptions for dependent children. There's no reason to build all the pro-child incentives into the mundane act of retrieving a marriage license (or by doing so only with the government-approved type of person) in hopes that some of those people will follow through and have babies. Just reward the actual having of the babies. Seriously -- the logic in this whole argument is just inescapably weak. |
|
11-08-2008, 05:31 PM | #249 |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
|
11-08-2008, 06:01 PM | #250 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Yes.... most of the hard feelings is that in breaking through on one form of bigotry, a lot of those benefiting voted for another form of bigotry.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|