Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS, Hilary and Same *** MarriageFollow

#27 Mar 26 2013 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
All laws discriminate.


Nebraska Law wrote:
It is Illegal to go whale fishing.

Those poor whalers. What will they do if they cannot fish for whales in Nebraska...
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#28 Mar 26 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
ITT: Conservatives only think straight people are taxed enough already and deserve more tax breaks.


Conservatives recognize that if you create a tax break for say buying an electric car, it's because the government wants to encourage people to drive electric cars. We also believe that the government should only do this if there is some overriding socio-economic reason to do so. We don't consider the fact that a gas guzzler doesn't get the same tax break unfair because the whole point of the tax break is to reward people for buying more energy efficient cars.

We may disagree on whether the reward/incentive should exist, but at least we don't fail to recognize why it exists in the first place and rationally assess why one type of car should get it and not another. Please tell me you can grasp why this applies here.
So what's the difference between a straight couple and a *** couple that one deserves a tax break and the other doesn't?

And don't you dare say babies, because they get a separate tax break for that.
____________________________
#29gbaji, Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 5:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Exactly. People complaining that *** couples cannot gain marriage benefits is just like people complaining that whalers are not allowed to hunt whales in Nebraska. Excellent analogy!
#30gbaji, Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 5:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ok. I wont say it then. ****. I will. The separate tax break is for the extra costs related to caring for a dependent. It's neither an encouragement nor discouragement for having dependents in the first place, nor does it address the relationship between the parents either currently, or at time of birth.
#31 Mar 26 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
If you allow same-*** marriage, then those people would be encouraged to adopt a child, which would then bring about extra expenses necessitating a tax break for caring for a dependent, and at the same time relieves the burden of too many children in "the system."

Win-win-win.
#32gbaji, Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 5:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) BTW, did I have to explain this, when I already posted this:
#33 Mar 26 2013 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
BTW, did I have to explain this, when I already posted this:

gbaji wrote:
When a member of a *** couple accidentally gets impregnated by the other and the government has to get involved to force the other to take responsibility for the child, I'll be the first in line to demand that we apply marriage status to *** couples.



That's the situation marriage statuses were created to deal with.


Well, that's your opinion. But you also said:

gbaji wrote:
Conservatives recognize that if you create a tax break for say buying an electric car, it's because the government wants to encourage people to drive electric cars. We also believe that the government should only do this if there is some overriding socio-economic reason to do so. We don't consider the fact that a gas guzzler doesn't get the same tax break unfair because the whole point of the tax break is to reward people for buying more energy efficient cars.


The socio-economic reason to allow same-*** marriage is:

I wrote:
If you allow same-*** marriage, then those people would be encouraged to adopt a child, which would then bring about extra expenses necessitating a tax break for caring for a dependent, and at the same time relieves the burden of too many children in "the system."

Win-win-win.
#34gbaji, Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 6:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. Then we could move the discussion away from one that's contrived to make one group of people appear to be bigots and into actually ensuring that all the different people in our nation have access to the various legal conditions that they want and need to make their own lives happy and fulfilled. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
#35gbaji, Posted: Mar 26 2013 at 6:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Again though, it's not the marriage status that is required, but a marriage contract. That's already available, but very few (nearly none in fact) *** couples pursue it, preferring to fight a legal battle for something they don't really need or want instead of getting what they want right now. This is where I inject my patented "leaders of a cause care more about the politics of the cause, than the people they claim to be trying to help".
#36 Mar 26 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, it's not about providing the actual solution to the problem, but making the problem as big as possible and using it for political advantage. So... .grats on being used *** people!

That thought can keep you warm and smug when CA starts allowing (federally recognized) SSMs in the near future Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 26 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
preferring to fight a legal battle for something they don't really need or want
Says who?
____________________________
#38 Mar 26 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Gbaji, if the only thing you care about is *** couples not paying less taxes, why on earth are you making such a big deal out of it?
It's not like that money is particularly significant to the US budget as a whole.



Not that anyone actually believes that that's really the only thing about *** marriage you care about but whatever.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#39 Mar 26 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,000 posts
Gbaji is against it because the GOP is against it. He goes along with whatever they tell him to.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#40 Mar 26 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
496 posts
By the way, Gbaji, i've been wondering something.

Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?
____________________________
#41 Mar 26 2013 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
If we really want to get into it, "traditional" marriage was far more about the acquisition of property than it was actual procreation. Children were too considered a property.

In a traditional Western marriage (as in, from the last 500 years or so), a marriage granted:
- Rights of the husband to the wife's property
- Right of the husband to the wife's children (also considered property)
- Rights of the wife to have her children someday inherit her husband's property, upon his death
- Rights of the wife to some of her husband's property on his death should the marriage be fruitless

The reality, especially among the upper classes, was that not all the kids a wife had really were her husband's, but by the property laws, he was obligated to treat them as such unless he had rock solid proof of her infidelity. In exchange, he could pretty much do whatever the **** he wanted with the kids. Abandon her and take them to another country? Sure, why not. Beat them senseless? Short of homicide, it was allowed. Legally, the wife had no say in what he did with them, or with her, so long as he didn't kill them or violate laws.

The very fact that we no longer view any children born of a marriage as the husband's property to do with what he will (nor the wife for that matter) means we've already changed the view of "traditional" marriage radically in the last hundred years.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#42 Mar 26 2013 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
By the way, Gbaji, i've been wondering something.

Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?

We've been over this before. His answer boils down to "It would be too difficult and costly to determine fertility, so it's easiest just to give benefits to men married to women." As opposed to giving benefits to those WITH children.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#43 Mar 26 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Clearly, it's not about providing the actual solution to the problem, but making the problem as big as possible and using it for political advantage.

Working GREAT, too. It's almost certainly the primary reason Romney lost the youth vote by such a massive margin. Don't worry, the next old white guy you guys offer up will be very quiet about this "personal" issue that government doesn't need to get involved in.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Mar 26 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
By the way, Gbaji, i've been wondering something.

Why do we give tax breaks to infertile couples when they get married?

We've been over this before. His answer boils down to "It would be too difficult and costly to determine fertility, so it's easiest just to give benefits to men married to women." As opposed to giving benefits to those WITH children.
Hm, that makes sense.

But what about when it has already been established that one or both are infertile? Surely the cost of putting a mark into a file noting not to give them such benefits would not outweigh the extra taxes they would be paying?
____________________________
#45 Mar 26 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
If you allow same-*** marriage, then those people would be encouraged to adopt a child, which would then bring about extra expenses necessitating a tax break for caring for a dependent, and at the same time relieves the burden of too many children in "the system."


I have an issue with the phrase "allow same-*** marriage" though. My issue (and the issue of most people) isn't with "marriage", but with the legal status (also unfortunately called "marriage"). It's the suite of benefits and effects that are at issue. I have no issue with creation of a peer-to-peer marriage contract that includes any *** combination anyone wants. I have no issue with adoption agencies accepting such things, just as they accept the current marriage status. I just think we're getting hung up on labels at this point.

There's no need to apply the state created status to this though. What I'd really like to see is a separation of marriage contracts from the state benefits applied to opposite *** couples who enter into one. The former is something which anyone ought to be able to enter into. The latter only makes sense if the marriage exists between a man and woman.


So you basically want to completely change the current structure of marital unions in order to justify keeping same-*** couples from calling themselves married in the eyes of the government.

Wow.
#46 Mar 26 2013 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Hm, that makes sense.


No... trust me, it doesn't Smiley: lol

Quote:
But what about when it has already been established that one or both are infertile? Surely the cost of putting a mark into a file noting not to give them such benefits would not outweigh the extra taxes they would be paying?

Nope, doesn't matter to him.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#47 Mar 26 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
The latter only makes sense if the marriage exists between a man and woman.

Just so we're clear, it's really only this part everyone things is laughable ******** used to mask your latent homophobia. The other stuff is just filler.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 Mar 26 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Hm, that makes sense.


No... trust me, it doesn't Smiley: lol
I was just going along with it so i could bring up my next point, of course.

Quote:
Quote:
But what about when it has already been established that one or both are infertile? Surely the cost of putting a mark into a file noting not to give them such benefits would not outweigh the extra taxes they would be paying?

Nope, doesn't matter to him.
Oh, so it isn't really about cost?
____________________________
#49 Mar 26 2013 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
It's about not saying that gays are icky.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#50 Mar 27 2013 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
I'd like to see our marriage laws simply written to allow two people who want to partner eternally to marry - even sibs if they want. Lose the labels.

Also, would it be wondrous or regretful if gbaji no longer had resort to gross entanglement of logical thought to argue against ssm on the internets?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#51 Mar 27 2013 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Deja vu all over again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 84 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (84)