Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#52 Feb 22 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
Jophiel wrote:
save myself the hassle of participating


But it is much more fun for everyone else if you do! You worm the best lines out of him. Smiley: lol
#53 Feb 22 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Also, if the whole "tax benefit" thing is such a problem, take it away from hetero couples, too.
It's a pretty nifty loophole. You can say we shouldn't allow it because it's a loss of rights to people who don't want it but still have to pay for it. At the same time, if you suggest removing it all together it's a loss of rights to the people that already benefit from it and we just can't do that.

Circular reasoning is fun, isn't it? Just goes around and around and around and around....
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#54gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 6:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh? That's some muddled thinking, right there. It's like you're just flinging buzzwords around without any thought behind anything. I believe that people (and corporations) should pay as little tax as possible. I accept, however, that some things are worth paying tax dollars for (for a variety of reasons). This means that I want to limit those things as much as possible so as to limit the amount of tax dollars required to pay for them as much as possible. Following me so far?
#55gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 6:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're close, but missing a key point: There is no loss of rights to the people who already benefit from it, if we remove those benefits. I keep saying this, but it's like it doesn't sink in. Those people have no right to get those benefits. We don't give them the benefits because we believe they have a right to receive them. That's the wrong way to view the issue. No one has a right to receive any benefits from the government. Ever.
#56 Feb 22 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're close, but missing a key point:
That missing key point being I'm not going to waste time on a circular argument with you tonight. So take it however you want.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 6:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'll take it as meaning that you don't know what a circular argument is.
#58 Feb 22 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're close, but missing a key point:
That missing key point being I'm not going to waste time on a circular argument with you tonight. So take it however you want.
I'll take it as meaning that you don't know what a circular argument is.
If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Feb 22 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
The Sheriff's lover was identified as Jose Orozco, quite the dish. Meanwhile, the Sheriff is claiming he was the victim of a crime.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#60 Feb 22 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Some might say he's guilty of love in the first degree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Feb 22 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
He isn't a thoughtless twink, he's just drawn that way.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#62 Feb 22 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because I understand the reasons why my tax dollars are used to provide benefits to heterosexual couples who choose to marry and I accept that those reasons are worth the infringement of my rights. I do not believe the same applies to gay couples who choose to marry, thus I oppose expanding those benefits to include them.


So, when people made this argument 50 years ago about interracial marriage, that was cool. Right?

I mean, because you do understand it's exactly the same non-argument, right? Oh, no, of course you don't!

What, explicitly can a heterosexual couple do which a homosexual couple can not? I can't think of a single thing which would justify your position. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to say "procreate".

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 8:10pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#63gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 7:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So, yet another case of a Republican being attacked for being gay. I'm sure all the gay rights groups will leap to his defense any day now. Because apparently, gay rights end at the right to choose your political affiliation. Hrm...
#64 Feb 22 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
gbaji wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
The Sheriff's lover was identified as Jose Orozco, quite the dish. Meanwhile, the Sheriff is claiming he was the victim of a crime.


So, yet another case of a Republican being attacked for being gay. I'm sure all the gay rights groups will leap to his defense any day now. Because apparently, gay rights end at the right to choose your political affiliation. Hrm...


I thought he was being attacked because of his hypocrisy.
#65gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 7:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?
#66gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 7:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What hypocrisy? I saw someone assume that since he's a republican he must be anti-gay, but isn't that circular? Does a gay man have a right to choose to be a republican if he wants? You seem to suggest that he does not. Which is an interesting stance to take IMO.
#67 Feb 22 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
The Sheriff's lover was identified as Jose Orozco, quite the dish. Meanwhile, the Sheriff is claiming he was the victim of a crime.

So, yet another case of a Republican being attacked for being gay.

I thought he was being attacked for allegedly harassing and threatening his ex-lover. It's not as though he just announced out of the blue that he was gay and everyone gasped and started in on him.

But if you guys didn't have your cross to climb up on every time something comes up, what ever would you have left?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Feb 22 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?

And yes: Procreate is the thing that heterosexual couples do that gay couples cannot. And just to show you how ridiculous your comparison was, one of the primary arguments for disallowing interracial marriages was the fact that they would produce mixed-race children who would then be at some assumed disadvantage in society. The ruling against those prohibitions strongly rested on the precedent that people had a right to choose both to procreate and whom they wished to procreate with.
Excellent, you said procreate. Do you support those same tax benefits that married people get going to single parents?

What about those people who marry, but don't/can't have children? What about heterosexual couples that adopt instead? Should they get the tax benefits?


gbaji wrote:
That's why *I* allow myself to pay more taxes to provide those benefits. You're free to disagree, but given that it's my rights being infringed, I get to decide why I'm ok with allowing it, not you.


Now, can you give me an argument as to why I should be ok with paying more taxes to extend those benefits to gay couples, like I asked? Or are you going to fall back on platitudes and claims of rights and other emotional appeals?

Sorry but you don't allow anything. If you think you do, go ahead and try not paying all of your taxes. See how that works out for you. When they ask you why, say it's because you don't agree with the government's social programmes.

I bet you whatever you like it doesn't fly, and the government take those taxes regardless.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#69 Feb 22 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because apparently, gay rights end at the right to choose your political affiliation. Hrm...
Of course. Your political affiliation is a disease. Your political affiliation is something you chose to do because you're sick. I'm going to pray for you to change your political affiliation. Quite frankly, it's an abomination and I know you're going to hell for it.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#70 Feb 22 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Excellent
We've already established pretty thoroughly that most if not all of the "benefits" are not related in any way to children.

The problem is that Gbaji has decided that for some reason children are his personal justification for having any benefits, regardless of why they actually were implemented, and that anything else just doesn't count. You can see it in this thread where he stated it right out, they are his reasons for not opposing them. The problem is that his contrived structure doesn't actually reflect the reasons for any of them, so they are pretty much useless. He won't engage though, because having constructed something he finds comforting, he won't leave it. /shrug.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 7:36pm 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
#71 Feb 22 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
We've already established pretty thoroughly that most if not all of the "benefits" are not related in any way to children.

The problem is that Gbaji has decided that for some reason children are his personal justification for having any benefits, regardless of why they actually were implemented, and that anything else just doesn't count. You can see it in this thread where he stated it right out, they are his reasons for not opposing them. The problem is that his contrived structure doesn't actually reflect the reasons for any of them, so they are pretty much useless. He won't engage though, because having constructed something he finds comforting, he won't leave it. /shrug.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 7:36pm by Xsarus

Of course they're not. Unless gbaji thinks that heterosexual couples which can't have children shouldn't get the same benefits. Or the ones which adopt shouldn't. Gays can, and do, adopt children. Quite successfully, actually.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#72 Feb 22 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
gbaji wrote:
What hypocrisy? I saw someone assume that since he's a republican he must be anti-gay, but isn't that circular? Does a gay man have a right to choose to be a republican if he wants? You seem to suggest that he does not. Which is an interesting stance to take IMO.


Interesting case indeed, but not the one I am making. Simply being republican is not the hypocrisy. I have friends who are gay republicans - one works on the hill for a republican representative. But my friend never sat by quietly eating up the support of anti-gay agenda politicians. Babeu is a hypocrite because he sat there saying nothing while being supported by people that openly spoke the opposite of what he believed. Now that he is outed? Oh, look, he is for marriage equality. He supported the repeal of DADT. Huh, now why didn't he say that before, I wonder?



Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 9:24pm by Dozer
#73gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 9:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This would be a hell of a lot more believable if you hadn't jumped at the first opportunity to report to us all that there was a Republican out there somewhere who was gay. Seriously Joph?
#74 Feb 22 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?

And yes: Procreate is the thing that heterosexual couples do that gay couples cannot. And just to show you how ridiculous your comparison was, one of the primary arguments for disallowing interracial marriages was the fact that they would produce mixed-race children who would then be at some assumed disadvantage in society. The ruling against those prohibitions strongly rested on the precedent that people had a right to choose both to procreate and whom they wished to procreate with.
Excellent, you said procreate. Do you support those same tax benefits that married people get going to single parents?


If they marry, sure. There's more than one criteria here.

Quote:
What about those people who marry, but don't/can't have children? What about heterosexual couples that adopt instead? Should they get the tax benefits?


Really? Do I actually have to give the exact same answers I've given before (to you at least once that I can recall)? Why pretend that you've forgotten the answers? I haven't changed my position, nor my reasoning for it. Sigh...

The objective isn't to reward people for having children. People will do that all on their own without us providing an incentive. The objective is to reward the set of couples who might produce children together for marrying (preferably *before* having children). That way, if/when they do produce children it'll be while bound to a marriage contract and in an environment most likely to result in those children being contributing members of society rather than burdens on it. Obviously, not every couple consisting of a man and a woman will produce children together. However, we can say with certainty that every couple not consisting of a man and a woman will *never* produce children together. Not as a natural consequence of being a couple.

You did learn how babies were made, right? No amount of two people of the same sex bumping uglies will result in pregnancy. Ergo, there is no reason to create an incentive for same sex couples to get married. They're free to do so on their own if they wish, but the state has no interest in the matter at all.


Quote:
Sorry but you don't allow anything. If you think you do, go ahead and try not paying all of your taxes.


Um... I was responding to a hypothetical which asked why I don't oppose providing those benefits for heterosexual couples. The whole train of thought assumes that my support or opposition has some meaning. I'm ok with my tax dollars being used to subsidize marriage benefits for opposite sex couples. I'm not ok with extending those benefits (and the cost) to same sex couples.

I was asked the question. I answered. And your response is to say that my opinion doesn't matter anyway? That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it?


How about you answer my question? I've asked it twice now. Why I should be ok with paying more taxes to extend those benefits to gay couples? Do you have an answer for this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Feb 22 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
You continually pretend that they make sense, why can't we pretend to forget them?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#76 Feb 22 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,518 posts
I like how he didn't even reference my post proving, from the text of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, that he was wrong concerning what the court was specifically objecting to with reference to separate but equal.

I'm a little disappointed, to tell the truth. I was curious to see where his 180 would take him.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#77 Feb 22 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Technogeek wrote:
You continually pretend that they make sense, why can't we pretend to forget them?
My favorite part is about how he's trying to convince someone that if he says the exact same thing just one more time, the answer that hasn't convinced anyone will convince them! Kind of like pushing on a door and getting nowhere. Instead of trying to pull to see how that works out, you just keep on pushing. Push push push. Eventually that door'll let you through!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 Feb 22 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,133 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's funny how often people flock to this exact scenario, despite it not even remotely requiring marriage to obtain. Anyone can grant a medical power of attorney to anyone else. You can be married, or not. This is a non-issue, but it's amazing how often it's the first "right" people jump to when this subject comes up.


I'm just stirring the sh*t here, but a medical PoA doesn't guarantee that the designee will be able to visit the patient in the hospital. I don't know why a hospital would act to prevent it; but the stipulation is not in the power of attorney, so if they wanted to be aSSholes, say on religious grounds, they could certainly delay a decision until too late.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#79 Feb 22 2012 at 9:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
We've already established pretty thoroughly that most if not all of the "benefits" are not related in any way to children.


First off, the benefits need not be directly related to children to create an incentive to enter into a marriage contract in the first place. However, a number of them are pretty directly related to the condition of a married couple with children. Specifically, the common case where one parent works full time and the other either doesn't work, or works part time. There are a whole set of benefits connected to that:

Tax rates. The income tax rates are actually disadvantageous to two people earning the same amount of money. But they are beneficial to a couple where one makes significantly more than the other.

Tax deduction for health benefits for spouse. This also makes it easier on couples in which one works and the other does (or doesn't work where health benefits are provided).

Social Security benefits. A surviving spouse can draw on his/her own social security of that of the deceased, which ever is larger. A benefit for a couple where one may have given up a career to raise children.

Pension benefits. Same deal as above.

Military survivor benefits. Same deal as above.


Those are the biggies when it comes to marriage benefits. And they pretty directly relate to things which are helpful to a couple planning to have children.

Quote:
The problem is that Gbaji has decided that for some reason children are his personal justification for having any benefits, regardless of why they actually were implemented, and that anything else just doesn't count.


Ok. Then why do you think we provide state marriage benefits? Everyone always insists that I'm wrong here, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any alternative explanation beyond "because it would help them". As I've already stated, that's a stupid reason to provide benefits to a group of people. There is no end to the number of benefits we could provide based on that rationale. There *must* be a reason why we provide married couples with those benefits, but don't provide everyone a free pony.


It honestly boggles my mind that some people can't understand that "because it benefits them" isn't a legitimate reason to create a benefit.


Quote:
You can see it in this thread where he stated it right out, they are his reasons for not opposing them.


Yes. Why not take me at my word that this is the reason for not opposing those benefits when provided to heterosexual couples, and that they don't apply to gay couples?

Quote:
The problem is that his contrived structure doesn't actually reflect the reasons for any of them, so they are pretty much useless. He won't engage though, because having constructed something he finds comforting, he won't leave it. /shrug.


You've given me no reason to leave it though. None at all. You spend tons of time talking about how wrong I am and how I should change my point of view, but nearly no time at all actually presenting any sort of compelling argument in support of what you say. You need to do more than just say that I'm wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Feb 22 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,133 posts
I guess this is a reasonably good place to leave this. The couple here is in fact married, but it's an associated issue anyway.

teh article wrote:
"The Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse," White wrote in a 43-page decision that marks the third time in less than two years a federal court has declared the act unconstitutional.



Ah, the good old Ninth. Smiley: laugh

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#81 Feb 22 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure looks like your primary interest in the story was that he was gay.

And yet when someone else mentioned hypocrisy...
I wrote:
As sheriff, I doubt he has a record on homosexuality one way or the other.

But you wouldn't be you if you didn't cry like a good little martyr every time a Republican got his feelings hurt.

Sorry, cupcake. The story is the allegations about him threatening to deport his lover. Of course, he fact that Babou was so terrified of his lover speaking that he'd threaten to deport him rather than be revealed as a big ole homo says legions more about the GOP than your river of tears how unfair it is that this became a story.

Just imagine the glorious day when Republicans don't have to live in constant fear of being "exposed" as gay because they no longer belong to the party of rampant homophobia. It is to dream, eh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Feb 22 2012 at 9:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Samira wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
It's funny how often people flock to this exact scenario, despite it not even remotely requiring marriage to obtain. Anyone can grant a medical power of attorney to anyone else. You can be married, or not. This is a non-issue, but it's amazing how often it's the first "right" people jump to when this subject comes up.


I'm just stirring the sh*t here, but a medical PoA doesn't guarantee that the designee will be able to visit the patient in the hospital.


Of course it does. How can you exercise that power if you can't visit the person? It's part of the power of attorney. In fact, that power would grant that person the authority to choose who is or isn't allowed to visit said sick person in said hospital. That's what the medical PoA does. It allows you to make all decisions regarding the other persons health if/when that person is unable to make them him/herself.

Quote:
I don't know why a hospital would act to prevent it; but the stipulation is not in the power of attorney, so if they wanted to be aSSholes, say on religious grounds, they could certainly delay a decision until too late.


No, they couldn't. Because it would be illegal to do so. Yes, a hospital *could* choose to ignore the law and refuse to accept the PoA. But they could also choose to randomly kill their patients too. Both would be illegal. You have a pretty warped sense of the world if you think that because someone shows up with a legal paper saying they have medical power of attorney over a patient in a hospital, that the hospital would magically decide to ignore it because the person with the piece of paper happened to be the same sex as the patient and therefor might just be gay, and the hospital has some evil hatred of gay folks.

Do you understand that a medical PoA would be more likely to ensure that the gay spouse would have access and decision making power than any marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union? It trumps all of those. Which makes one wonder why homosexual couples are choosing to go the hardest and least sure route to gain this, when a much better solution is right there in front of them. One might suspect that gay couples are deliberately steered away from doing this precisely because if they did, they'd loose a powerful argument for changing the marriage laws (well, powerful emotional argument anyway).


If one were cynical, of course!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83Almalieque, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. That's much more accurate.
#84 Feb 22 2012 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,133 posts
Quote:
No, they couldn't. Because it would be illegal to do so. Yes, a hospital *could* choose to ignore the law and refuse to accept the PoA.


Again, and more slowly this time: the power of attorney does not cover visitation, only medical decisions.

Lots of people exercise that without visiting the hospital, in fact, in spite of your wide-eyed innocence. They take the attending physician's word for the patient's condition and sign off on the treatment. Used to see it all the time, especially with elderly and terminal patients.



Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 8:06pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#85Almalieque, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Given the racial tensions,If EVERYTHING were feasibly equal, there wouldn't have been a Brown vs Board to begin with. I wouldn't doubt a similar ruling wouldn't have occurred, but it would have definitely been much much later and under different grounds.
#86 Feb 22 2012 at 10:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure looks like your primary interest in the story was that he was gay.

And yet when someone else mentioned hypocrisy...


Yeah. Grounded on the amazing logic that since he's a republican, he *must* be anti-gay. Thus, any gay republican is a hypocrite apparently.



Quote:
I wrote:
As sheriff, I doubt he has a record on homosexuality one way or the other.

But you wouldn't be you if you didn't cry like a good little martyr every time a Republican got his feelings hurt.


This doesn't change the fact that you made a big deal about him being "exposed as gay". You were both being stupid, just for slightly different reasons. Why did you think being exposed as gay mattered?

Quote:
Sorry, cupcake. The story is the allegations about him threatening to deport his lover.


No. The story is about outing a gay republican. The objective is to draw exactly the sorts of responses that have appeared here. Including Aethein's comment about hypocrisy, I count 6 posts making various humorous comments about him being gay, speculating as to the occupation of Jose, etc. Aside from your initial mention of allegations of deportation, and your own update (which didn't include any details either), there were no responses at all to any aspects of the situation *except* jokes about him being gay.

But it's about allegations that he threatened to deport his lover. Riiiiiight. The liberal media maybe knows their audience better than you do Joph.

Quote:
Just imagine the glorious day when Republicans don't have to live in constant fear of being "exposed" as gay because they no longer belong to the party of rampant homophobia.


I thought it was about him threatening to deport someone Joph? It's funny how easily you prove me right.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 8:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Feb 22 2012 at 10:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. Grounded on the amazing logic that since he's a republican, he *must* be anti-gay. Thus, any gay republican is a hypocrite apparently.

So you understand that I actually didn't go laong with the idea that Babou is "anti-gay"! Hooray for progress from Gbaji!

Quote:
This doesn't change the fact that you made a big deal about him being "exposed as gay"

You and I obviously have vastly differing ideas of what's "making a big deal". I suppose you need the hyperbole to help your case at this point.

Quote:
Why did you think being exposed as gay mattered?

Maybe you should ask Sheriff Babou that question. He's the one supposedly threatening his ex-lover into silence.

Quote:
I thought it was about him threatening to deport someone Joph? It's funny how easily you prove me right.

The feeling is mutual Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 10:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ok. Did you *ever* see anyone who had medical PoA and who asked to visit the patient be denied? Have you ever heard of such a thing happening?
#89gbaji, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's circular though. It's an allegation. One you've accepted fully because it matches your own assumptions about republicans and homosexuality. Ever consider that perhaps Jose made that stuff up? Cause it wouldn't be the first time someone decided to get even with an ex, would it?
#90 Feb 22 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
This would have more weight if you hadn't just made a point about how republicans wouldn't fear being exposed as gay if they weren't the party of rampant homophobia.

Can't it be both?

Quote:
Quote:
You and I obviously have vastly differing ideas of what's "making a big deal".
Rushing into the middle of a thread and announcing that someone no one's ever heard of, but who happens to be a republican was exposed as gay (your words Joph) would seem to fit the bill nicely.

You and I very obviously have vastly differing ideas of what's "making a big deal".

Quote:
That's circular though. It's an allegation. One you've accepted fully because it matches your own assumptions about republicans and homosexuality. Ever consider that perhaps Jose made that stuff up? Cause it wouldn't be the first time someone decided to get even with an ex, would it?

Maybe you should ask Sheriff Babou why someone would be able to "get even" with him by exposing his sexuality.

Quote:
Kinda throws a hole in your whole "party of homophobia" bit, doesn't it?

No. Seeing that no more Republicans were ever "exposed" as gay because they could all openly express their sexuality would throw a hole in my argument. Let me know when that day comes.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 10:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Feb 22 2012 at 10:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Whoops. That's "Babeu" each time but I'm too lazy to fix it.

Heh. That "increased donations" is...
Quote:
The campaign has taken in around $3,000 from 46 donors since the scandal broke, said Chris DeRose, Babeu's campaign manager


Quite the outpouring of support, even assuming the unlikely scenario that each person was spurred to give by this story. Oh, and one guy wants his $2,500 back. So the safe harbor of GOP inclusion means a net gain of $500. Woooo! Smiley: laugh

By comparison, Babeu's fourth quarter in 2011 got him $263,000 or around $2,900 per day.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 11:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Feb 23 2012 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,133 posts
Interesting that a self-avowed strict Constitutionalist would assume privileges not explicitly stated in a legal document.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#93 Feb 23 2012 at 6:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
gbaji wrote:

The objective isn't to reward people for having children. People will do that all on their own without us providing an incentive. The objective is to reward the set of couples who might produce children together for marrying (preferably *before* having children).

Then why are single parents awarded more? Why do single parents get more benefits? I've said this before also. I got more government benefits when I was a single mother. Benefits went down and costs went up when I got married.
#94 Feb 23 2012 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?

And yes: Procreate is the thing that heterosexual couples do that gay couples cannot. And just to show you how ridiculous your comparison was, one of the primary arguments for disallowing interracial marriages was the fact that they would produce mixed-race children who would then be at some assumed disadvantage in society. The ruling against those prohibitions strongly rested on the precedent that people had a right to choose both to procreate and whom they wished to procreate with.
Excellent, you said procreate. Do you support those same tax benefits that married people get going to single parents?


If they marry, sure. There's more than one criteria here.

Yet the only one homosexual couples can't fulfil is the actual act of procreation. They can adopt, and children from homosexual households are actually more likely to be successful at school, than those from heterosexual couples.

I say, stop heteros from being able to raise families. Too many of them do it wrong! Smiley: nod
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#95 Feb 23 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
I suggest reading one of Jophs links.
____________________________
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
#96 Feb 23 2012 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Whoops. That's "Babeu" each time but I'm too lazy to fix it.
How is that pronounced? "Bah-boo" ? I'm going to continue pronouncing it that way because it's amusing, but curiosity what it is I just gotta know.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Feb 23 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
First off, the benefits need not be directly related to children to create an incentive to enter into a marriage contract in the first place.
Sure, but that's not what's happening. The government is not trying to encourage anyone to get married.

Quote:
Tax rates. The income tax rates are actually disadvantageous to two people earning the same amount of money. But they are beneficial to a couple where one makes significantly more than the other.
Mutual dependence means that it's not fair for one person to pay taxes if they are supporting two people. Nothing to do with kids.

Quote:
Tax deduction for health benefits for spouse. This also makes it easier on couples in which one works and the other does (or doesn't work where health benefits are provided).
Right. It makes it easier on the couple. Nothing to do with kids. Again this goes away if there is not a state of dependence.

Quote:
Social Security benefits. A surviving spouse can draw on his/her own social security of that of the deceased, which ever is larger. A benefit for a couple where one may have given up a career to raise children.
Or where one person wasn't as successful, where one person didn't want to work, or whatever. Nothing to do with kisd.

Quote:
Pension benefits. Same deal as above.

Military survivor benefits. Same deal as above.
See above. These are not designed with kids in mind. They might make it easier if you have kids, but that's irrelevant, especially as there are actual tax breaks etc specifically aimed at children that are unrelated to marriage.

Quote:
Ok. Then why do you think we provide state marriage benefits? Everyone always insists that I'm wrong here, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any alternative explanation beyond "because it would help them".
For most of the benefits you've listed it makes sense to provide tax splitting etc because it reflects the fact that I'm supporting someone. It nicely scales so that if I'm not supporting someone (equal wages) then I don't get a tax break. It also scales with kids, so I get other tax benefits for them. That's the whole idea of a dependant, doesn't have to be a kid.

More to the point though, these benefits exist primarily because people campaigned for them. Each one you can trace the reasons, but for some reason you claim non of it ever matters. You are the one insisting there is some overarching design goal but have provided zero evidence for this ever.
____________________________
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
#98 Feb 23 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure looks like your primary interest in the story was that he was gay.

And yet when someone else mentioned hypocrisy...


Yeah. Grounded on the amazing logic that since he's a republican, he *must* be anti-gay. Thus, any gay republican is a hypocrite apparently.


No, it wasn't and apparently you ignored my reply.
#99 Feb 23 2012 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Xsaurus makes me so proud. /sniff

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Feb 23 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
You and I obviously have vastly differing ideas of what's "making a big deal".
Rushing into the middle of a thread and announcing that someone no one's ever heard of, but who happens to be a republican was exposed as gay (your words Joph) would seem to fit the bill nicely.

You and I very obviously have vastly differing ideas of what's "making a big deal".


I'm not sure how repeating the same statement I just responded to accomplishes anything.

Quote:
Quote:
That's circular though. It's an allegation. One you've accepted fully because it matches your own assumptions about republicans and homosexuality. Ever consider that perhaps Jose made that stuff up? Cause it wouldn't be the first time someone decided to get even with an ex, would it?

Maybe you should ask Sheriff Babou why someone would be able to "get even" with him by exposing his sexuality.


Still circular Joph. The ex was getting even with him by hacking his websites. It was only after he was threatened with legal action if he didn't cease his illegal activities that he suddenly went crying to some gay-focused magazine with his sob story. There is *zero* indication that there was an initial threat to "expose" his homosexuality, or any response to such a thing.

Your automatic assumption of this it telling though.

Quote:
Quote:
Kinda throws a hole in your whole "party of homophobia" bit, doesn't it?

No. Seeing that no more Republicans were ever "exposed" as gay because they could all openly express their sexuality would throw a hole in my argument. Let me know when that day comes.


I'm not aware that he expended any special effort to conceal his sexual orientation Joph. Are you? Or are you just making an assumption because he's a republican. When did being gay require that you inform everyone that you are gay from the highest point and with the loudest megaphone? I thought you respected the rights of gay people. So what next? You propose we make gay people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are gay so that the whole "exposed as gay" issue goes away?

Or do you propose that only if the gay person is a republican? Some high class social ideology you've got there!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Feb 23 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm not aware that he expended any special effort to conceal his sexual orientation Joph. Are you? Or are you just making an assumption because he's a republican. When did being gay require that you inform everyone that you are gay from the highest point and with the loudest megaphone?

Oh, hi Excluded Middle. What's up? Gbaji got you working overtime today? Man, that's gotta be tough. Hang in there!
Quote:
You propose we make gay people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are gay so that the whole "exposed as gay" issue goes away?

Oh, hi Strawman. What's up? Carpooling with Excluded Middle? Well, gotta save gas, you know? Maybe you guys can hit the bar on the way home. Sounds like you'll need it.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2012 3:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT