Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS, Hilary and Same **** MarriageFollow

#102 Mar 29 2013 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
I think that if a couple gets married and does not procreate within say, three years, they should be forced to adopt a child or have their marriage benefits revoked.
____________________________
Banh
#103 Mar 29 2013 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
BrownDuck wrote:
Is Gbaji still arguing that government benefits granted to married couples exist solely for the promotion of procreation and child rearing?
Yes, but they have to be "natural" children of the couple. Adoption does not count. Susy and Sally using a third (male) party to get one (or both) preggers doesn't count.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#104 Mar 29 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If not that, then why do you think those benefits exist?

Kind of an economic partnership of sorts?


Which explains why the members of the partnership might want to enter into it, but I'm asking why the state would provide benefits for those who enter into the status. That's a different question. I'm asking why a parent would pay a child an allowance, not why the allowance would benefit the child. Answer the question I'm asking.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105gbaji, Posted: Mar 29 2013 at 4:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Also (and I'm confounded why people think this), I'm not arguing it's for the promotion of procreation. The state isn't trying to encourage people to breed, but to encourage them to enter into a legally binding marriage contract prior to breeding. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
#106 Mar 29 2013 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,751 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm asking why the state would provide benefits for those who enter into the status

Because that's what the people want; well assuming it is what they want of course.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#107 Mar 29 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
gbaji wrote:
If not that, then why do you think those benefits exist?

There are lots of federal laws that give benefits and responsibility to married people. There is no one reason why they passed all the different laws, or included married partners as a special group within a law. I doubt if anywhere in the historical court records though will you find that the married couple is given special status are because they are expected to make babies.
Why do you keep making this argument?!?

gbaji, would it be more practical for the federal government to simply not recognize marriage at all (versus recognizing it for only a special group)?

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 1:06am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#108 Mar 29 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm asking why the state would provide benefits for those who enter into the status

Because that's what the people want; well assuming it is what they want of course.


Ok then. Why do the people vote for representatives who then pass laws, which create these benefits for those who enter into the status? And saying "cause it benefits the people in the status" isn't a good answer because there would be no reason to create the status in the first place, just give the benefits to everyone. Clearly, at some point, the people decided that there was some need for a spouse to receive the higher value of the social security benefits between themselves and their spouse if their spouse passes away. Why do this and not just let anyone designate someone else to qualify for their benefits if/when they die?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Mar 29 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm asking why the state would provide benefits for those who enter into the status

Because that's what the people want; well assuming it is what they want of course.


Ok then. Why do the people vote for representatives who then pass laws, which create these benefits for those who enter into the status? And saying "cause it benefits the people in the status" isn't a good answer because there would be no reason to create the status in the first place, just give the benefits to everyone. Clearly, at some point, the people decided that there was some need for a spouse to receive the higher value of the social security benefits between themselves and their spouse if their spouse passes away. Why do this and not just let anyone designate someone else to qualify for their benefits if/when they die?

But why then would that spouse have to be of the opposite **** - why would it make a difference?




Edited, Mar 30th 2013 1:11am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#110 Mar 29 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If not that, then why do you think those benefits exist?

There are lots of federal laws that give benefits and responsibility to married people. There is no one reason why they passed all the different laws, or included married partners as a special group within a law. I doubt if anywhere in the historical court records though will you find that the married couple is given special status are because they are expected to make babies.


Wanna bet? EDIT: not court records, but how about written into the law itself?

Quote:
Why do you keep making this argument?!?


Because it's my argument.

Quote:
gbaji, would it be more practical for the federal government to simply not recognize marriage at all (versus recognizing it for only a special group)?


Depends what the objective is. You are correct that if the objective is for the government to just give people things cause they're nice, we should stop doing that. I guess what I'm getting at is that I argue this issue this way because the rationale I ascribe is the only one I accept as legitimate. It's the only reason why I would be ok with the government creating such a status and the attendant benefits in the first place. Thus, only conditions which match that criteria would be considered legitimate targets for the status in my mind. You're absolutely correct that if we expand it to other groups, in my mind, there's no reason to keep the status at all.


Maybe this will explain my thinking: Imagine you and I are buying a car together. I want a car that gets good gas mileage and you want one that is blue. So we find a blue car that gets good gas mileage and both agree that we'll split the cost for the car because it fits both our needs. Then we decide we need a new car and you argue we should buy a big blue SUV because it's blue and meets your criteria. I look at the mpg and say "no way, it's a gas guzzler!". The fact that I agreed to split the cost of a blue car the last time around does not mean that I must agree to split the cost of a blue car this time around. This is because my criteria and yours are different. But it seems like whenever we talk about **** marriage, the arguments I run into are the equivalent of "but you paid for a blue car last time". Um... That's not the criteria I'm using to make the determination.

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 4:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Mar 29 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm asking why the state would provide benefits for those who enter into the status

Because that's what the people want; well assuming it is what they want of course.


Ok then. Why do the people vote for representatives who then pass laws, which create these benefits for those who enter into the status? And saying "cause it benefits the people in the status" isn't a good answer because there would be no reason to create the status in the first place, just give the benefits to everyone. Clearly, at some point, the people decided that there was some need for a spouse to receive the higher value of the social security benefits between themselves and their spouse if their spouse passes away. Why do this and not just let anyone designate someone else to qualify for their benefits if/when they die?

But why then would that spouse have to be of the opposite **** - why would it make a difference?


You're getting ahead of the issue. Why did we allow that for spouses? What is the purpose? You're trying to leap to the "it's discrimination!" part of your argument without establishing why the thing exists in the first place.

And in case you're curious, this matters because the SCOTUS has a test for whether discrimination violates the constitution, and it rests completely on the purpose of the legislation. So if we can't say why the law exists and what it's purpose is, we kinda can't determine whether any given conditions or criteria are unconstitutional. It's never enough to say that groupA qualifies while groupB doesn't, therefore it's discrimination, therefore it's unconstitutional. Otherwise nearly all our laws would be unconstitutional on the grounds.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Mar 29 2013 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm asking why the state would provide benefits for those who enter into the status

Because that's what the people want; well assuming it is what they want of course.


Ok then. Why do the people vote for representatives who then pass laws, which create these benefits for those who enter into the status? And saying "cause it benefits the people in the status" isn't a good answer because there would be no reason to create the status in the first place, just give the benefits to everyone. Clearly, at some point, the people decided that there was some need for a spouse to receive the higher value of the social security benefits between themselves and their spouse if their spouse passes away. Why do this and not just let anyone designate someone else to qualify for their benefits if/when they die?

But why then would that spouse have to be of the opposite **** - why would it make a difference?


You're getting ahead of the issue. Why did we allow that for spouses? What is the purpose? You're trying to leap to the "it's discrimination!" part of your argument without establishing why the thing exists in the first place.

And in case you're curious, this matters because the SCOTUS has a test for whether discrimination violates the constitution, and it rests completely on the purpose of the legislation. So if we can't say why the law exists and what it's purpose is, we kinda can't determine whether any given conditions or criteria are unconstitutional. It's never enough to say that groupA qualifies while groupB doesn't, therefore it's discrimination, therefore it's unconstitutional. Otherwise nearly all our laws would be unconstitutional on the grounds.
Smiley: lol It's clearly discrimination, that's not at question. The question is, why is the discrimination justified?

Group B only exists because you defined Group A exclusively.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#113 Mar 29 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,751 posts
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, at some point, the people decided that there was some need for a spouse to receive the higher value of the social security benefits between themselves and their spouse if their spouse passes away. Why do this and not just let anyone designate someone else to qualify for their benefits if/when they die?

Good question, it seems less useful these days. So what should we do if we don't want it to work the way it used to?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#114 Mar 29 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
Clearly, at some point, the people decided that there was some need for a spouse to receive the higher value of the social security benefits between themselves and their spouse if their spouse passes away. Why do this and not just let anyone designate someone else to qualify for their benefits if/when they die?

They do. Children qualify, even adopted ones who didn't benefit from the procreation encouraged by Marriage benefits. Why can't people designate any child? Oh, right, that's an idiotic fucking question I was trying to pass of as some sort of novel thought experiment that makes no sense unless I want to discriminate against children.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#115 Mar 29 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And in case you're curious, this matters because the SCOTUS has a test for whether discrimination violates the constitution, and it rests completely on the purpose of the legislation. So if we can't say why the law exists and what it's purpose is, we kinda can't determine whether any given conditions or criteria are unconstitutional. It's never enough to say that groupA qualifies while groupB doesn't, therefore it's discrimination, therefore it's unconstitutional. Otherwise nearly all our laws would be unconstitutional on the grounds.
Smiley: lol It's clearly discrimination, that's not at question. The question is, why is the discrimination justified?


I thought I just answered this. Discrimination is not a violation of the constitution if it meets the following test:

1. The discrimination is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the law in question.

2. The purpose of the law in question is not itself discriminatory.

Therefore, in order to determine whether there's unconstitutional discrimination, we must first determine the purpose of the law in question

Without knowing why the law exists, we can't possibly determine if it's unconstitutional to say that groupA can qualify, but groupB can't. Yet in the case of **** marriage, everyone seems to want to leap right past that important step, "prove" that it's discrimination, and therefore declare it a violation of the constitution. That's not how it works though. If it did, nearly every law on the books would be unconstitutional. All laws discriminate in some way. Speeding laws discriminate against people who drive fast. Welfare discriminates against people who earn good salaries. Handicapped parking spaces discriminate against the non-handicapped. Affirmative action discriminates against non-minorities. The list goes on and on. In each case, in order to pass constitutional muster, you must show that the law has a purpose which is not itself discriminatory, but which requires discrimination to fulfill.



So I'll ask again: What is the purpose for the state creating a legal status called marriage and attaching a set of conditions and benefits to it? Why bother? It's not like people haven't been getting married all on their own for thousands of years. So what's the reason for the state getting involved?

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 5:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Mar 29 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
gbaji wrote:

Depends what the objective is. You are correct that if the objective is for the government to just give people things cause they're nice, we should stop doing that. I guess what I'm getting at is that I argue this issue this way because the rationale I ascribe is the only one I accept as legitimate. It's the only reason why I would be ok with the government creating such a status and the attendant benefits in the first place. Thus, only conditions which match that criteria would be considered legitimate targets for the status in my mind. You're absolutely correct that if we expand it to other groups, in my mind, there's no reason to keep the status at all.
But the status in your mind discriminates. There's no rational reason that a family unit, in order to fit into the little economic niche that we created for them by law and by practice, has to be headed by a man and a woman. You can't give one. Time and again you've failed at it.

You'd essentially be willing to write off the traditional family unit if it can't only include a family headed by a man and a woman?




____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#117 Mar 29 2013 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, at some point, the people decided that there was some need for a spouse to receive the higher value of the social security benefits between themselves and their spouse if their spouse passes away. Why do this and not just let anyone designate someone else to qualify for their benefits if/when they die?

Good question, it seems less useful these days. So what should we do if we don't want it to work the way it used to?


Argue that we should change the social security rules. What you don't do is justify changing the marriage rules by claiming (only after the fact) that all those other things just aren't that important anyway. Um... If they're not, then what are the **** marriage folks fighting for? You get that the only thing DOMA does is prevent the federal government from recognizing **** marriage, right? So we're specifically talking about social security benefits, military survivor benefits, some pensions, pre-tax health care, and maybe a couple other things I can't remember atm.

Arguing for repeal of DOMA is arguing that **** couples should qualify for those benefits. Saying "they aren't important and should be changed anyway" is a cop out. You need to argue why those benefits should be expanded from "married couples consisting of a man and a woman, but no one else" to "married couple including any two sexes, but no one else". So why **** couples, but no one else? At the risk of repeating myself, in order to even begin to make that argument, you have to first decide why the law currently says "married couple consisting of a man and woman, but no one else", then argue that **** couples should be included because the same rationale applies to them.

You can't do that if you don't bother to do that first step.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Mar 29 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,751 posts
gbaji wrote:
So what's the reason for the state getting involved?

Another good question. Do the historical reasons the state was involved still make sense in today's society? Enough so to warrant involvement to this degree?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#119 Mar 29 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're absolutely correct that if we expand it to other groups, in my mind, there's no reason to keep the status at all.
But the status in your mind discriminates.


Yes, it does. Exactly like nearly every other law and legal status discriminates. Now tell me if the discrimination meets the criteria I wrote earlier.

Quote:
There's no rational reason that a family unit, in order to fit into the little economic niche that we created for them by law and by practice, has to be headed by a man and a woman.


Correct. There's also no reason that a family unit must qualify for a legally defined status and qualify for a set of benefits. This isn't about whether someone is a family unit, or married, or whatever else you want to talk about. It's about whether the status exist for a purpose, what the purpose is, and whether the qualifying criteria matches up with that purpose.

If our purpose is to try to encourage couples who might procreate to get married, then it makes complete sense to limit the qualifications to only couple who might procreate, right?

Quote:
You can't give one. Time and again you've failed at it.


Failed to not support an argument I'm not making. Guilty as charged!

Quote:
You'd essentially be willing to write off the traditional family unit if it can't only include a family headed by a man and a woman?


No. You've failed to understand my argument. Read what I'm writing. Don't assume I'm making any argument other than what I write.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Mar 29 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So what's the reason for the state getting involved?

Another good question. Do the historical reasons the state was involved still make sense in today's society? Enough so to warrant involvement to this degree?


And you're also leaping past the question to the next step instead of stopping and answering it. You seem to want to get to the answer you've already decided is the right one instead of actually taking all the steps required to get there.

In order to make that determination you'd also need to know what the purpose is. That's why I keep saying this is important.

What is the purpose of the state status? If you can't answer that, you can't really have an intelligent position on the issue of **** marriage.

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 5:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Mar 29 2013 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
gbaji wrote:


So I'll ask again: What is the purpose for the state creating a legal status called marriage and attaching a set of conditions and benefits to it? Why bother? It's not like people haven't been getting married all on their own for thousands of years. So what's the reason for the state getting involved?

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 5:24pm by gbaji
This has been discussed here ad naseum, but since the SCOTUS has been discussing it I'm all boned up. The states power is to regulate marriage, divorce and custody. The actually laws that govern the institution from state to state are likely as varied as bible interpretations. But clearly 'traditional' marriage has evolved.

Why are the feds hands in it? For myriad reasons. In most cases they boil down to shared finances and property, custody and ancestry. DOMA unilaterally says that only a man/woman union is appropriate in all instances.

Alito and the estate tax provision:

Quote:
Suppose we look just at the estate tax provision that’s at issue in this case, which provides specially favorable treatment to a married couple as opposed to any other individual or economic unit. What was the purpose of that? Was the purpose of that really to foster traditional marriage, or was Congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit?


Which do you think it is?

choose your answer carefully Smiley: sly
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#122 Mar 29 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,751 posts
gbaji wrote:
What is the purpose of the state status? If you can't answer that, you can't really have an intelligent position on the issue of **** marriage.

I'm saying I can't really to see a relevant reason. The reasons you've listed so far don't seem to be sufficient in my mind to keep the man+woman distinction (in the eyes of the state) without extending too two people regardless of sex, and I can't think of any good reasons on my own.

Care to help?

Really we have child tax credits already to encourage people to have kids if that's what the state wants. Birth control and the general changing of social values over the years have reduced the weight of traditional arguments for marriage. Marriage doesn't seem to last like it used to anyway. So why do we need to keep with an outdated model? If we aren't going to change it to meet our current needs why do we need the government there at all? Just make everything the equivalent of a civil union in the state's eyes?[/i]

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 6:25pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#123 Mar 29 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Good question, it seems less useful these days.

Much like this debate. Thrilling as it is to watch the same flailing Gbaji arguments over and over, it's nice to know that the debate itself is becoming increasingly obsolete.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124 Mar 29 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So I'll ask again: What is the purpose for the state creating a legal status called marriage and attaching a set of conditions and benefits to it? Why bother? It's not like people haven't been getting married all on their own for thousands of years. So what's the reason for the state getting involved?

This has been discussed here ad naseum, but since the SCOTUS has been discussing it I'm all boned up. The states power is to regulate marriage, divorce and custody. The actually laws that govern the institution from state to state are likely as varied as bible interpretations. But clearly 'traditional' marriage has evolved.


Which doesn't answer the question I asked. I know we've discussed it ad nauseum, but I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why the state is involved in the first place. I'm not asking for the details of the involvement, but why it's involved. What purpose does it serve?

Quote:
Why are the feds hands in it? For myriad reasons. In most cases they boil down to shared finances and property, custody and ancestry.


Again, you are answering "what", but I asked "why?". Why get involved? What was broken/missing in society that required that the state (at any level) involve itself in marriage?

Quote:
DOMA unilaterally says that only a man/woman union is appropriate in all instances.


For purposes of federally defined benefits. And what DOMA does isn't in question. Why it does it, and whether that why matches with the why of the marriage status it applies to kinda does.

Quote:
Alito and the estate tax provision:

Quote:
Suppose we look just at the estate tax provision that’s at issue in this case, which provides specially favorable treatment to a married couple as opposed to any other individual or economic unit. What was the purpose of that? Was the purpose of that really to foster traditional marriage, or was Congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit?


Which do you think it is?


Hard to say. It's a valid question to ask. What he's asking is whether there's some quality of "traditional marriage" (meaning a man and woman) that matches the intended purpose of the estate tax provision or was it just convenient. I happen to think, whether overtly stated or not, that it was some quality of male/female marriages which was the target. If it was just a convenient target for unified economic units, then why bother with it in the first place? It would be easier to just say that you can designate anyone as your heir and avoid taxes (in other words, eliminate the death tax). Why apply this to a spouse, but not any random person one designates?

The answer would presumably be that there's some quality or criteria for "spouse" that is not met by "any random person I designate, or a roommate". The next question becomes "what is that quality or criteria"? And that brings us back to the question of what the state is trying to accomplish with marriage. Specifically, why might we want to exempt an estate from taxation if there's a surviving spouse? If you have two people, both with equal likelihood of working, and nothing specific to their relationship which might preclude one from being able to advance their career versus the other, then there's no reason to allow one to hand their property to the other tax free than it would be for one to hand that property over tax free to any other random person they want to.

Hmm.... If the two had a child together, and were married, we can presume that one of them likely had their career opportunities impacted as a result. So it makes sense to allow them to share the fruits of the career focused spouse in terms of pension, health insurance, and estate to a degree greater than any other random friend. Surely, some could take advantage of that and get married purely for the financial benefits. A young woman marrying an elderly man in order to inherit his estate without having to pay taxes. It happens. Similarly, someone might wish to adopt a child, or otherwise becomes a single parent, and would like to define someone else as co-guardian without meeting the traditional requirements for marriage. That happens too. But do we make our rules based on the potential for exceptions, or based on the most common occurrences? I think the latter.

There's a lot more I could write on this, but that's enough, and honestly it's late on a Friday, and I want to head home. So have a nice weekend, and eat some eggs and candy! ;)

Quote:
choose your answer carefully Smiley: sly


I'm not tailoring my answer based on what Alito may have said, if that's what you're thinking. My answer is my answer. I don't need to chooses it. It's already there. My challenge is writing it out so that others understand where I'm coming from.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Mar 29 2013 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Good question, it seems less useful these days.

Much like this debate. Thrilling as it is to watch the same flailing Gbaji arguments over and over, it's nice to know that the debate itself is becoming increasingly obsolete.

I remember when I used to respond over and over and try to explain things in different ways. Now it seems like arguing with the past. No women should be allowed to vote!
____________________________
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
#126 Mar 29 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
gbaji wrote:

There's a lot more I could write on this, but that's enough, and honestly it's late on a Friday, and I want to head home. So have a nice weekend, and eat some eggs and candy! ;)

Quote:
choose your answer carefully Smiley: sly


I'm not tailoring my answer based on what Alito may have said, if that's what you're thinking. My answer is my answer. I don't need to chooses it. It's already there. My challenge is writing it out so that others understand where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I'm sure you could write more - you have. You've given valid reasons for having an estate tax provisions for married couples, but failed to give a reason why a same **** couple should be excluded. They own homes together, share property, insure one another, raise kids together, they have their career opportunities impacted by one another, etc.........

Really gbaji, you can't rationalize this without declaring yourself a bigot. You simply refuse to acknowledge that two people of the same **** can chose to live their lives together in the very same manner that differing sexes can. Not from a purely legal standpoint. There's only religion left and homophobia left.

If anything, it would be an economic boon to allow same **** spouses all the same rights and responsibilities of opposing **** spouses. I mean, as it stands now, if a **** couple can't get legally married, but still has a child together, the non-birthing parent has no legal responsibility for that child. If the birth mother dies or is found unfit the other parent has no rights or responsibilities. If the couple should simply divorce, no child support needs is mandated, no visitation rights for the non-birth parent. It's ludicrous.

Let it go. Come Out if that's what you need to do and find a partner to share your life with. Straight people are not more able to contribute to the welfare of our society than **** people. White people are not better than other colors and men are not superior to women. ...and the children are all above average.

edit - i dont feel like correcting all my typos right now.




Edited, Mar 30th 2013 4:42am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#127 Mar 29 2013 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,354 posts
In the last few months I've found out I'm officially barren. (Good, didn't want kids anyway.)

Per gbaji, since the historical reason for marriage was or what procreation, my marriage ought to be worthless in the eyes of the law.

There are other economic benefits besides tax credits that are given to married units, not because the married couple in question may ultimately have children, but because the behavior of married people tends to shift a little. For example, the car insurance break that married men under thirty get. They give it to married men regardless of whether they've had kids or not, because once married, men tend to drive a little safer. Not just in anticipation of future children that they have, but also because they realize if they get themselves killed, they have a wife they're going to leave behind and she may or may not be in a position to provide for herself.

Ultimately, I think the tax breaks and other economic benefits given to married couples are not benefits to entice them to have kids, or to encourage them to get married because they procreate. It's because couples in long term relationships tend to be more stable and for the most part tend to be more model citizens. That has historically been the cast for the last three centuries, and the insurance actuaries bear it out to this day.

(Apologies for typos, I got pretty drunk at the Human Rights festival at the brewery tonight. Smiley: boozing)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#128 Mar 29 2013 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
catwho wrote:
In the last few months I've found out I'm officially barren.


So... what are you up to later? Smiley: wink
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#129 Mar 29 2013 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I remember when I used to respond over and over and try to explain things in different ways.

Sad thing is that, years later, Gbaji still asks the same critically flawed questions and thinks they mean something. Horse to water, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Mar 30 2013 at 12:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,560 posts
gbaji wrote:
Torrence wrote:
When that happens it's usually called "Child Support" not "Marriage".


Yes. And it's a **** of a lot easier to do this if the man was married to the woman when she gave birth than if he was not. Do you understand why the state might want to encourage them to get married?


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

EDIT: ehe, heh, whew...

kind of winded now!

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 11:50pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#131 Mar 30 2013 at 1:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Someone recently passed around the truism: The "traditional" Nuclear family is two people trying to do the work of a village".
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#132 Mar 30 2013 at 4:43 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Someone recently passed around the truism: The "traditional" Nuclear family is two people trying to do the work of a village".


Ya lost me...

Is that supposed to be based on the Clinton village quote?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#133 Mar 30 2013 at 4:47 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Someone recently passed around the truism: The "traditional" Nuclear family is two people trying to do the work of a village".


Truism is one of those words that makes me want to eat my own face.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#134 Mar 30 2013 at 4:55 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
Or the face of the person saying it?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#135 Mar 30 2013 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I'd like to see him try to eat his own face. I bet it would make for a good dinner show.
____________________________
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.
#136 Mar 30 2013 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
One of my ex friends got upset with me when I used the word "melancholy" in a sentence, and confused the third person in the conversation.

Oh, I've got a good Vore book, if anyone is interested.


Edited, Mar 30th 2013 10:28am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#138 Mar 30 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
I remember as a kid understanding what melancholy meant, but thinking that the word did not match it's meaning very well.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#139 Mar 30 2013 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Melancholy seems very apt to mean "quietly sad" to me. It's the sort of word that rolls around in my mouth, like "Wisteria" and "Chocolate". Bemused is very good for "puzzled and engaged". It annoys the heck out of me that so many contemporary writers misuse "bemuse".
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#140 Mar 30 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
I think it was a context issue. Since I'm sure as a kid I heard the word used well before I actually looked up or was given a definition of it.

My brain always associated it with something like "peaceful".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#141 Mar 30 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Ok, I can see, that, because it's such a nice word, and very balanced tonally.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#142 Mar 30 2013 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Since I'm sure as a kid I heard the word used well before I actually looked up or was given a definition of it.
I always associated it with being whiny because of the Smashing Pumpkins.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#143 Mar 30 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
I miss the Smashing Pumpkins. Not as much as Live, or The Stone Roses.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#144 Mar 30 2013 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Aripyanfar wrote:
Melancholy seems very apt to mean "quietly sad" to me. It's the sort of word that rolls around in my mouth, like "Wisteria" and "Chocolate". Bemused is very good for "puzzled and engaged". It annoys the heck out of me that so many contemporary writers misuse "bemuse".
Melancholy to me is often tied to nostalgia.
____________________________
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
#145 Mar 30 2013 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Another good word. I think nystagmus has a slight edginess over it, though.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 11:46am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#146 Mar 30 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
I remember being mildly impressed to see someone use the word invidious recently.
____________________________
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
#147 Mar 30 2013 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
They belong in Slytherin, obviously.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#148 Mar 30 2013 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
On the "If marriage is so sacred, how about divorce?" front, we have a couple GOP fellers standing up for the sanctity of matrimony...
Quote:
A pair of Republican lawmakers want to make it harder to get a divorce in North Carolina by making estranged couples wait longer and go to counseling.

The Healthy Marriage Act would extend to two years the current one-year waiting period in order for a divorce to be finalized. During that time, the couple would have to complete courses on improving their communications skills and conflict resolution.

If the couple has children, they would have to take at least a four-hour class on the impact of divorce on children.
[...]
It would also strike from the current law a provision that says “isolated incidents of sexual intercourse” don’t count against the one-year waiting period. It’s not clear if that means an occasional fling with your estranged partner does count against you under the proposed law.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Mar 30 2013 at 2:41 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
644 posts
Only word that is fun trying to fit into conversation is defenestration. I always found a way to put it in papers in high-school, and the teachers would mention they had to look it up to make sure I wasn't making it up. Thank you Lobo comic.
#150 Mar 30 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
I used the word "precognition" in a 7th grade paper (appropriately, I might add) and the teacher marked me down saying I meant to use "recognition".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#151 Mar 30 2013 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:
What was broken/missing in society that required that the state (at any level) involve itself in marriage?


Christian Fundamentalism.

At the time most people in this country discriminated against Mormons & Minorities, thought it was "icky" if they married more than 1 person/someone of another race, & made regulations to prevent it. They even used obscure bible passages to support their racism/discrimination.

As evidence, I give you the fact that most people who wrote the legislation defining marriage were in fact Christians.

And 200 years later, Christians who use their religion to justify discrimination are still trying to be assholes. It's a good thing society has become less religious & more accepting, eh?



Edited, Mar 30th 2013 7:36pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Samira, someproteinguy, xantav, Anonymous Guests (47)