Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gore sexual assualt Follow

#177 Jun 29 2010 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ya got my back, Belkira!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#178 Jun 29 2010 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:

Irrelevant. I asked what the "right to marry" entailed, and Bard said it was the right to enter into a contract with your partner (presumably a marriage contract). He did not mention receiving benefits from the state with regard to military pension transfers.

you forgot the part where I said it has to be recognized by the state. Not sure how you missed that, seeing how my post was only like 2 sentences long.

Quote:
And regardless of the size of a contract, the "right" to enter into it isn't infringed as long as it's legal to enter into said contract. The size is the same btw, it's just that you don't normally print out the whole state default marriage contract when you apply for a marriage license. Signing it is the same as signing said contract though, regardless of whether it's printed out for you or not. Similary, it takes no more time to sign the last page of a hundred page contract than a one page contract. If those are all the conditions and legal bindings you want, then that's what you're getting. I'm not sure what the complaint is here. You're free to sign a less complete marriage contract if you want...

Show me how to set up a contract between me and another person where we get tax incentives.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 3:28pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#179 Jun 29 2010 at 2:30 PM Rating: Decent
Tulip,

Yes we know the courts are working to overturn the will of the people.
#180 Jun 29 2010 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Tulip,

Yes we know the courts are working to overturn the will of the people.


Yep. It sucks when the majority of people in a state want to oppress the minority. Good thing we have courts for that sort of thing!
#181 Jun 29 2010 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
The "right to marry" is the right to sign a marriage license through the state and receive all of the benefits that entails. Nothing else, in this country, is recognized as a marriage.


First off, I disagree that any set of benefits can ever be considered a "right", but for the sake of argument, let's accept your definition and go with it:

And that right cannot be infringed at all, or restricted? So under no circumstances can anyone be denied the right to sign a marriage license and receive the benefits that go with it? Is this an individual right? Or can only two people enter into it jointly? Cause that's a restriction, right? Can siblings enter into it? How about adults and children?

I'm curious what the "right" entails in your mind. How do you define it in a way which allows us to only change our laws to include *** couples but no one else, while still saying that you're only removing an infringement of the right itself. I just think that far too many are focused on the specific issue in front of us and aren't really looking at the whole picture.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Jun 29 2010 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'm curious what the "right" entails in your mind. How do you define it in a way which allows us to only change our laws to include interracial couples but no one else, while still saying that you're only removing an infringement of the right itself. I just think that far too many are focused on the specific issue in front of us and aren't really looking at the whole picture.

OH HAY

RELEVANT
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#183 Jun 29 2010 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Irrelevant. I asked what the "right to marry" entailed, and Bard said it was the right to enter into a contract with your partner (presumably a marriage contract). He did not mention receiving benefits from the state with regard to military pension transfers.

you forgot the part where I said it has to be recognized by the state. Not sure how you missed that, seeing how my post was only like 2 sentences long.


You said the contract was recognized by the state. I didn't miss that at all. You did not mention at all the completely separate issue of the state granting special benefits to couples who entered into said contract.

Quote:
Show me how to set up a contract between me and another person where we get tax incentives.


There isn't one. Thus the "contract" you enter into when you marry someone doesn't grant you tax incentives. See! We're in agreement. Those tax incentives aren't part of the "right to marry". They are, in fact, simply incentives created to encourage people to marry.

Marriage doesn't cease to exist if the tax incentives (or pension benefits, or SS benefits) are eliminated. Ergo, those things aren't "marriage". It's amazing how many people just can't seem to wrap their heads around this. It's like you can't see that the game is different from the trophy you get if you win. Take the trophy away, and it doesn't remove the game, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#184 Jun 29 2010 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
Marriage doesn't cease to exist if the tax incentives (or pension benefits, or SS benefits) are eliminated. Ergo, those things aren't "marriage". It's amazing how many people just can't seem to wrap their heads around this. It's like you can't see that the game is different from the trophy you get if you win. Take the trophy away, and it doesn't remove the game, right?


No, what's amazing is how completely and utterly @#%^ing obtuse you are.

1. Marriage is a fundamental civil right of man.
2. Marriage, in a legal sense, is constituted by a license and solemnization issued by the state.
3. Any laws that apply certain benefits to legally married couples should extend to all legally married couples, not merely those that fall under some completely arbitrary and non-legal definition of marriage as posed by you or any other culturally retarded individual.

ETA: the creation of "civil unions" in order not to offend the delicate sensibilities of idiots everywhere (or in your case, to sidestep marriage benefits) constitutes "separate but (questionably) equal", which as we have established, was struck down by the Supreme Court long ago as inherently "not equal".

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 3:47pm by BrownDuck

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 3:47pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#185 Jun 29 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
I wish I had Joph's resistance to banality.

Quote:
There isn't one. Thus the "contract" you enter into when you marry someone doesn't grant you tax incentives.
Therefore, it isn't the same contract that I want to be in. Therefore, I don't have a right to it like others do.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#186 Jun 29 2010 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I'm curious what the "right" entails in your mind. How do you define it in a way which allows us to only change our laws to include interracial couples but no one else, while still saying that you're only removing an infringement of the right itself. I just think that far too many are focused on the specific issue in front of us and aren't really looking at the whole picture.

OH HAY

RELEVANT


If I answer that question, will you answer mine?

Since we're talking about the state benefits and not the contract itself, we can argue that the state benefits exist as an incentive or reward used to encourage couples to marry. While you're free to disagree, my belief is that said incentive is motivated by the social need to encourage heterosexual couples to marry prior to producing children. Applying those rewards only to same race couples does not improve the utility of that purpose (in fact it diminishes it) *and* it serves a primarily racist purpose of separating people by skin color. It effectively discourages mixed-race couples and thus can be seen as a violation of equal rights.

The rationale for eliminating restrictions on interracial couples does *not* justify same-*** couples, because the primary rationale for said incentives does not apply to same-*** couples. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that discrimination is only unconstitutional if the discrimination does not serve a purpose relevant to the law in question. For marriage, restrictions against interracial couples did not serve a purpose, and thus the restriction was unconstitutional. *** couples cannot produce children together, thus the same need to encourage them to marry does not exist, thus it's not only not constitutional, it's wholly appropriate to limit those benefits to those couples who do.


By extension, this places the restriction on all combinations of couples/groups which do not consist of those which would otherwise naturally produce children on their own and for whom we desire to encourage to marry before hand. Thus, we don't provide those benefits to siblings since we don't want siblings producing children together. We don't provide them to child/adult relationships because they can't produce children either (assuming one is too young of course). The restrictions become logical and reasonable and stem from the simple examination of the basic purpose of the benefits themselves.


Can you do the same? Can you justify why those benefits should be granted to same-*** couples yet not also apply to siblings and child/adult relationships? How about multi-partner relationships? What is the rationale you'd use for restricting this change to *only* include *** couples?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Jun 29 2010 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I wish I had Joph's resistance to banality.

Quote:
There isn't one. Thus the "contract" you enter into when you marry someone doesn't grant you tax incentives.
Therefore, it isn't the same contract that I want to be in. Therefore, I don't have a right to it like others do.


There is no contract you enter into which grants you this though.

Let me ask you a question:

If tomorrow the US government and every state changed their laws so as to eliminate all state benefits for marriage, would this eliminate the institution of marriage? Would couples no longer be able to get married? If you answer "yes", then how did people get married before those laws were created?


Think. Then form a position.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#188 Jun 29 2010 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And that right cannot be infringed at all, or restricted?

We infringe upon rights all the time when we feel it's appropriate to the common good. I can't create child pornography, sacrifice my son to Moloch, make death threats against the president, fire off a bazooka or do any number of other things that are covered by existing rights. The difference here is that you're so committed to the idea that your ideology is flawless that you refuse to admit that you're infringing upon the "fundamental right to marry". Maybe there's a reason to do so in the common good (not that I've heard one yet) but you won't even start down that road and instead insist on some silly debate about how it doesn't really exist or can be satisfied by just saying "Yay! We're married!"

Quote:
Marriage doesn't cease to exist if the tax incentives (or pension benefits, or SS benefits) are eliminated. Ergo, those things aren't "marriage"

Those things are part of the legal concept of marriage and, when discussing whether or not our government should permit homosexual couples to legally wed, the legal concept of marriage is infinitely more important that whatever bits of sophistry you can dream up to shift the debate. It has already been decided that the fundamental right to marry includes those aspects and so, for as long as those aspects exist, they are a integral part of the debate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#189 Jun 29 2010 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
First off, I disagree that any set of benefits can ever be considered a "right", but for the sake of argument, let's accept your definition and go with it:

And that right cannot be infringed at all, or restricted?


I don't recall saying that. There are already restrictions in place, but sexual orientation shouldn't be one of them.

gbaji wrote:
So under no circumstances can anyone be denied the right to sign a marriage license and receive the benefits that go with it? Is this an individual right? Or can only two people enter into it jointly? Cause that's a restriction, right? Can siblings enter into it? How about adults and children?


You realize how stupid you sound, I assume, but let's play along, shall we? Right now, marriage is only between two consenting adults (male and female in most states), and they cannot be related. In my opinion, it should be open to however many people wish to participate, and sibilings (or other relations) should be allowed to enter. But children are not allowed to enter into these types of major contracts, and I don't see why that should change.

gbaji wrote:
I'm curious what the "right" entails in your mind. How do you define it in a way which allows us to only change our laws to include *** couples but no one else, while still saying that you're only removing an infringement of the right itself. I just think that far too many are focused on the specific issue in front of us and aren't really looking at the whole picture.


I think that you're just looking for a reason to discriminate against same-*** couples, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. But then, I am looking at the "whole picture," and I'm ok with removing more than just one restriction to who can participate in our rights.

Now, my turn. I'm curious why you don't want any same-*** couples to marry.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:00pm by Belkira
#190 Jun 29 2010 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
The benefits of marriage did not come about to encourage people to get married, but as a reaction to people being in the state of marriage. They are not a carrot, They are not there to convince anyone to get married, they are there as a recognition that a shared property partnership requires different rules.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:06pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#191gbaji, Posted: Jun 29 2010 at 3:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope. Benefits granted to married couples can certainly be hinged upon other conditions if the state so desires and if those other conditions make sense within the context of the benefits themselves. If that was not true, the you'd have to argue that no state benefits can be denied to anyone at all. Which is absurd.
#192 Jun 29 2010 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
So if we create a set of benefits to encourage heterosexual couples to marry prior to getting themselves pregnant, isn't it equally nutty to insist that we must extend it to *** couples? Yes. It is...
Again, the benefits aren't for that.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#193 Jun 29 2010 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If tomorrow the US government and every state changed their laws so as to eliminate all state benefits for marriage, would this eliminate the institution of marriage?

It would fundamentally change the concept of marriage in the United States.

It's like saying "If we killed off every breed of dog except collies, would it mean there's no more dogs?" No, it wouldn't. But that doesn't mean that beagles, dachshunds and poodles aren't equally part of the canine family.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#194 Jun 29 2010 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
2. Marriage, in a legal sense, is constituted by a license and solemnization issued by the state.
False.

No, he's absolutely correct. The civil government aspects of marriage are included in this fundamental right.
Quote:
So if we create a set of benefits to encourage heterosexual couples to marry prior to getting themselves pregnant...

That's not why the benefits exist. When you start with a false premise, you're just going to keep embarrassing yourself.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#195 Jun 29 2010 at 3:11 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts

I think what gbaji is trying to say is that he is a poodle hater.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#196 Jun 29 2010 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The benefits of marriage did not come about to encourage people to get married, but as a reaction to people being in the state of marriage. They are not a carrot.


They're both really. They are a set of incentives, but they also make some of the potential negatives of marriage a bit less harmful. Interestingly enough, they do so to the most degree in a "traditional" marriage in which one person works and the other stays at home and raises the children. The SS and pension benefits are there specifically because one person might have stopped their career and therefore didn't have the opportunity to gain SS and/or pension benefits for themselves and their retirement. The tax brackets are only a benefit for couples in which there is a large gap between their incomes. Same deal with the tax break for health care benefits. If both work, they're often not needed, but if one isn't working, it's important.


They absolutely are an incentive, specifically to any couple intending to have children. Otherwise, most of our laws actually make marriage unattractive. Frankly, I'm most mystified why so many *** couples *want* to get married. They don't have to and could choose to define their relationships any way they want, but in some kind of "kid demanding the other kids toy" way, they demand that they get the somewhat incredibly restrictive marriage rules and laws we impose on heterosexual couples. Um... Ok. It's dumb, but whatever. But when you apply the benefits to *** couples, you just get a waste of money for no reason at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#197 Jun 29 2010 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
well, you can't blame someone for hating poodles.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#198 Jun 29 2010 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They absolutely are an incentive, specifically to any couple intending to have children.

No, they're not. When the best evidence you have ever shown to support this claim is to whine "It's ooobbvviioouuussss!!!" over and over, maybe you'd be best off dropping this assertion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Jun 29 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
You are confusing what marriage *is* with incentives the government might create to get you to marry. Those are not the same thing.


Yes, they are the same thing. Marriage, as it stands today, is a contract that you and your spouse enter into, which is recognized by the state, and which comes with certain tax and social benefits.
#200 Jun 29 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
They absolutely are an incentive, specifically to any couple intending to have children.
Nope, they are not in place to convince anyone to get married. Perhaps some people get married to get the benefits, but that is not why they are there.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:21pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#201 Jun 29 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
2. Marriage, in a legal sense, is constituted by a license and solemnization issued by the state.
False.

No, he's absolutely correct. The civil government aspects of marriage are included in this fundamental right.


Nope. It's a violation of equal rights for the government to offer them to couples based on their racial makeup, but not to others based on a different racial makup. That's what the rulings say. It would not be a violation for the government to remove the benefits entirely (as long as it was done equally). Thus, those benefits cannot be part of the "fundamental right" of marriage.

You're mixing words around.



Quote:
Quote:
So if we create a set of benefits to encourage heterosexual couples to marry prior to getting themselves pregnant...

That's not why the benefits exist. When you start with a false premise, you're just going to keep embarrassing yourself.


Are you suggesting that the benefits don't themselves exist based on an assumption that they'd be needed and used by heterosexual couples who would themselves have children? Cause if not, then why do you suppose they exist? What purpose do they serve?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)