Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#77 Feb 22 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,668 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
******
29,224 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 **** 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
******
34,867 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 *** 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
******
29,224 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 ***.

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 **** 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 *** 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
******
34,867 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 *** as the patient and therefor might just be ***, and the hospital has some evil hatred of *** folks.

Do you understand that a medical PoA would be more likely to ensure that the *** 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 *** 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
******
29,224 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
******
34,867 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
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-***. Thus, any *** republican is a hypocrite apparently.

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

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

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 *** 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 *** 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 *** (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 *** 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
******
29,224 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
*****
16,299 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
*****
15,268 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 *** 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
******
49,668 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 ***.

And yet when someone else mentioned hypocrisy...


Yeah. Grounded on the amazing logic that since he's a republican, he *must* be anti-***. Thus, any *** 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
******
34,867 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
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 *** require that you inform everyone that you are *** 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 *** people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are *** so that the whole "exposed as ***" 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: 66 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (66)