Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS, Hilary and Same *** MarriageFollow

#152 Mar 31 2013 at 4:04 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
TirithRR wrote:
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".

Dear God of Man.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#153 Apr 02 2013 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
GOP Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) announced his support for SSM today. Apparently a near-death experience will do that for you.

Chicago Tribune wrote:
Sen. Mark Kirk on Tuesday announced that he supports *** marriage, joining a growing list of U.S. senators who offer such support.

In a statement, he wrote: "When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others.

"Same-*** couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back -- government has no place in the middle."

Kirk, a Republican from Highland Park, on Jan. 3 climbed the steps of the Capitol to return to the Senate almost a year after a major stroke and lengthy period of rehabilitation. He was elected in 2010 to the Senate after nearly 10 years in the House.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Apr 02 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Jophiel wrote:
GOP Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) announced his support for SSM today. Apparently a near-death experience will do that for you.

I bet his rehab doctor was ***. Then he "discovered they were real people, just like you and me. A little different, but still good hard-working Americans, only wanting the best, blah blah families striving something..."

Either way I'm sure it's a good story. Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#155 Apr 02 2013 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
Maybe the major stroke he lived through was more innuendo and less medical in nature.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#156gbaji, Posted: Apr 02 2013 at 2:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The rights regarding a child for a ******* couple is precisely the same as any couple consisting of one biological parent and one non-biological parent of the child. What you want is a special rule for same *** couples. So if I and a male friend agree to help work together to raise his child (let's assume the mother has passed away, or he adopted the child), but we're not ***, are we any more or less restricted than a *** couple right now? No? Then it's not bigotry, and it's not being unfair to homosexuals, is it?
#157 Apr 02 2013 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
What you want is a special rule for same *** couples.

What constitutes a special right? Is it something that will suddenly be denied opposite *** partners? Since that answer is no, we can clearly see that what is being requested isn't a special right, it's an equal right.

Quote:
So if I and a male friend agree to help work together to raise his child (let's assume the mother has passed away, or he adopted the child), but we're not ***, are we any more or less restricted than a *** couple right now? No? Then it's not bigotry, and it's not being unfair to homosexuals, is it?


If you and your buddy want to live together and raise a child, who is anyone else to deny you things that would make that task easier? Don't you think it would be so much easier on both of you and the child if there was a way for you to gain the benefits currently only afforded opposite-*** married couples? Then if your buddy loses his job, no problem you can put him on your insurance. If he dies? Custody of the child isn't even a question - you inherit the property and get custody of the child without fanfare.

Aside from the fact that the comparison is absurd at best, downright insulting at worst, you just made our argument for us. What happens in the bedroom shouldn't be a consideration in 2013 America. All that should be a consideration is two people agreeing to spend their lives together, no matter what the reason.

#158 Apr 02 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Torrence wrote:
Quote:
What you want is a special rule for same *** couples.

What constitutes a special right? Is it something that will suddenly be denied opposite *** partners?


Well, I said "rule", not "right", but whatever. Um... If I marry a woman who has children of her own, I don't automatically become the legal guardian of her children upon her death. I have to adopt them. Just like anyone else. Just like the partner of a ******* would have to.

Quote:
Since that answer is no, we can clearly see that what is being requested isn't a special right, it's an equal right.


No. It's a special right you're asking for because you want a same *** partner who we all know isn't the biological parent of a child to automatically be considered as so. There are legal processes for adoption of a child, or joint guardianship, that do not require marriage. That's the direction that is open to *** couples just as it's open to any other two people. Thus they are treated equally under the law in this regard.

Quote:
Quote:
So if I and a male friend agree to help work together to raise his child (let's assume the mother has passed away, or he adopted the child), but we're not ***, are we any more or less restricted than a *** couple right now? No? Then it's not bigotry, and it's not being unfair to homosexuals, is it?


If you and your buddy want to live together and raise a child, who is anyone else to deny you things that would make that task easier? Don't you think it would be so much easier on both of you and the child if there was a way for you to gain the benefits currently only afforded opposite-*** married couples? Then if your buddy loses his job, no problem you can put him on your insurance. If he dies? Custody of the child isn't even a question - you inherit the property and get custody of the child without fanfare.


Um... That's the point. The marriage status ceases to perform the function it currently does, and becomes something any two people can (and should) enter into based on convenience and benefit. Which is precisely the argument for *not* doing this. By extending the status to same *** couples, you eliminate the procreative angle, and thus have no reason to limit it in any real way. It becomes a "goodie" handed out by the government rather than an incentive to be responsible with regards to procreation.

Quote:
Aside from the fact that the comparison is absurd at best, downright insulting at worst, you just made our argument for us. What happens in the bedroom shouldn't be a consideration in 2013 America. All that should be a consideration is two people agreeing to spend their lives together, no matter what the reason.


I disagree (to the last bit). There's nothing preventing people from spending their lives together, whether they are a sexual active couple or not. The issue is that some sexually active couples will produce children as a consequence of that sexual activity, and it's in the states interest to get them to marry prior to doing so. Thus, the state creates a legal status with a marriage contract attached so as to encourage those couples to marry. The state doesn't care if *** couples marry, so there's no reason to provide benefits to them if they do so.

I just think that most people can't get past the assumption that marriage *is* the benefits and the status. It's not. It's the relationship between the two people. The legal status is a recognition of the relationship, a formalization of a three party contract (with the state being a party), and a set of benefits to provide people a reason to marry under that contract instead of one they just came up with themselves. You have to look at the history of legal marriage to understand that this is the case. Ask yourself why many states have common law marriage. Then ask why that's never been applied to two people of the same ***.

Step outside your assumptions about the issue and you might just realize that what I'm saying not only make sense, but is the far more logical way of approaching the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#159 Apr 02 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I just think that most people can't get past the assumption that marriage *is* the benefits and the status.

Yeah, it's not as though the Supreme Court defines it that way or anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Apr 02 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I just think that most people can't get past the assumption that marriage *is* the benefits and the status.

Yeah, it's not as though the Supreme Court defines it that way or anything.


Does it? I'm reasonably certain that the members of the court (most of them anyway) are smart enough to know the difference between a relationship between two people and a state status and the attendant benefits. That doesn't preclude examining what social impact the existence of that status has, or how it's perceived importance may influence things, but I doubt they're actually confused that they're both the same thing. In kinda the exact way that they're smart enough to know that qualifying for the legal status of "handicapped" isn't what makes someone handicapped. It's a status we apply to people who *are* handicapped and for whom we determine some set of benefits are needed.

What's next? People aren't carpooling unless they're actually driving in the carpool lane? You don't have a mortgage unless you get a mortgage deduction? Things are what they are, even when the government doesn't place its stamp on them. Shocking that in a supposedly free society so many people don't get this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Apr 02 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I just think that most people can't get past the assumption that marriage *is* the benefits and the status.
Yeah, it's not as though the Supreme Court defines it that way or anything.
Does it?

Yup. Cited it numerous, numerous times in related threads. Kind of sad that, years later, you still rely on the same tired and discredited arguments.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#162gbaji, Posted: Apr 02 2013 at 8:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And it's even more sad that you're falling back on the "I don't have to defend what I just said, cause I already did it before" argument. It's become the stock answer for liberals when they want to claim something, but can't defend it. Um... Whatever.
#163 Apr 02 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
gbaji wrote:
I also love how my arguments are "tired and discredited", and yet they're the same ones currently being used to argue the case in question.

And I couldn't be happier about it.
#164 Apr 02 2013 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
And it's even more sad that you're falling back on the "I don't have to defend what I just said, cause I already did it before" argument.
Yeah, he should copy and paste the same points verbatim like you do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#165 Apr 02 2013 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And it's even more sad that you're falling back on the "I don't have to defend what I just said, cause I already did it before" argument.

I did. Numerous times. It's not an argument, it's just fact.
Quote:
I also love how my arguments are "tired and discredited", and yet they're the same ones currently being used to argue the case in question

You mean the case that's very likely going to strike down DOMA? Nice argument Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#166 Apr 02 2013 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,255 posts
Hey, he never said that they were GOOD arguments, just that they are the arguments that are being used!

Ignoring the fact that the only reason they are being used is because if they just came out and said "gays are icky" and "homosexuality is a sin" then they really wouldn't have a case. So they have to do their little gymnastics to try and make it about something else when it's really not.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#167 Apr 03 2013 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
gbaji wrote:

No. It's a special right you're asking for because you want a same *** partner who we all know isn't the biological parent of a child to automatically be considered as so. There are legal processes for adoption of a child, or joint guardianship, that do not require marriage.
Adoption is largely discretionary. There is clear and undisputed evidence that a married couple is more likely to be granted an adoption than a 'living' together couple. So, special rights for opposite *** partnership is hindering the ability of same-*** couples to adopt.

Quote:
So if I and a male friend agree to help work together to raise his child (let's assume the mother has passed away, or he adopted the child), but we're not ***, are we any more or less restricted than a *** couple right now? No? Then it's not bigotry, and it's not being unfair to homosexuals, is it?
You're not more restricted than a *** couple because the *** couple is already restricted by discriminatory federal and state law. You are more restricted than a opposite *** couple who can marry and reap all those wonderful legal rewards.

If you and your friend are willing to sign a legally binding document that you're committed to spend your lives together (or at least the foreseeable future) taking on legal responsibilities for each partner and your child, then you should be granted all the same rights as a married couple with a child - why wouldn't you?


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#168 Apr 03 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,586 posts
I also love how my arguments are "tired and discredited", and yet they're the same ones currently being used to argue the case in question.

Really? Your arguments are identical to conservative establishment talking points? How shocking. How do you think they found out about your novel approach to this? I mean, probably it was like Newton and Leibniz discovering Calculus at the same time independently, right? Well, more like Olivia Newton John and Mannheim Steamroller both discovering the ********* way to generate music independently, but you get the idea.
____________________________
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.

#169gbaji, Posted: Apr 03 2013 at 6:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Speaking of bad arguments:
#170gbaji, Posted: Apr 03 2013 at 6:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Are they? I thought conservatives opposed *** marriage because of religious reasons and no one argued that it was about procreation? Which is it? Given the sheer number of times over the years that I've been told that my arguments on this issue aren't the arguments used by other conservatives, it seems strange to now have them labeled as "conservative establishment talking points".
#171gbaji, Posted: Apr 03 2013 at 6:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Good question. Why aren't *** couples doing that? Problem solved, right? It's almost like those leading the "cause" don't want the problem solved. They want the problem. Think about it.
#172 Apr 03 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
I think eating insects is icky and gross, despite all the arguments that they are nutritious (okay), tasty (if you say so), and abundant (can't argue with that.)

I'm always going to think eating bugs is gross and I want no part of it. But you don't see me out there crusading to have insect eating banned. It causes me no harm and no one is making me eat them. If people want to spend their food stamp money on insects should they ever become available, it's not my place to tell them how gross I think it is. If insect farmers want to claim farm subsidies, as many farmers do in the US, then more power to them.

I don't care of my tax dollars go toward something I personally think is distasteful (that has not been proven harmful) as long as I'm not required to participate in it.
____________________________
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
#173 Apr 03 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
If you and your friend are willing to sign a legally binding document that you're committed to spend your lives together (or at least the foreseeable future) taking on legal responsibilities for each partner and your child, then you should be granted all the same rights as a married couple with a child - why wouldn't you?

Good question. Why aren't *** couples doing that? Problem solved, right?

Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174gbaji, Posted: Apr 03 2013 at 6:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you're paying for it, you are participating though.
#175 Apr 03 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
Try again.

When *** marriage becomes legal nationwide, I'm not going to divorce my husband so I can get married to another chick instead.

Although if by participating you mean I'll attend a homosexual wedding, sure, why not. I bet their catering and theme is going to be fabulous.
____________________________
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
#176gbaji, Posted: Apr 03 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not sure why you're facepalming, unless you missed the question. I was asked if we could sign a legally binding document that would provide the same rights (privileges really, but I didn't write that part) as a married couple with regard to adoption and child rearing, why wouldn't we do it. My response is valid. *** couples couples could enter into those sorts of contracts, but don't because their political leaders have told them that the only way they can do this is if they sigh up to join the fight to change the state status of marriage.
#177 Apr 03 2013 at 6:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Catwho wrote:
Try again.

When *** marriage becomes legal nationwide, I'm not going to divorce my husband so I can get married to another chick instead.

Although if by participating you mean I'll attend a homosexual wedding, sure, why not. I bet their catering and theme is going to be fabulous.


Participating in the sense that you're being required to pay for it. I thought I was pretty clear what I meant. We take part in something when we fund it, even if not directly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Apr 03 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not sure why you're facepalming, unless you missed the question.

Not at all. *** couples aren't doing that because such contracts don't exist. Not much more complicated than that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179gbaji, Posted: Apr 03 2013 at 7:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) They do exist. They just don't exist in standard form that's easy/cheap to obtain. Of course, for an infinitesimal fraction of the money spent on political change to state marriage laws, they could have written such a contract and made it available to any *** couples who wanted one. And in the time they've spent, said contract could have been tested in court and become common enough to be recognized and accepted by all the various parts of society that *** couples want to recognize their marriages.
#180 Apr 03 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
gbaji wrote:



There is nothing preventing a standard contract from existing defining a marriage without the state being involved in writing that contract or legislating it. And there's nothing preventing hospitals, courts, adoption agencies, etc from recognizing those contracts within the framework of their own operations. If they'd done that 20 years ago instead of embarking on their current course of action, *** couples would today enjoy every single thing they claim they want from marriage.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2013 5:40pm by gbaji

Smiley: lol

So, instead of 'fighting' for equal recognition under the law gays should have been building an equal but separate system identical to the other (or close enough eh)?

Seems way easier to just drop the bigotry.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#181 Apr 03 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
No, gbaji, it doesn't exist. As it has been explained to you many, many times, the paperwork you are talking about does not address many of the things that a federally recognized marriage addresses, like green cards, hospital visitstions, the estate tax, social security and health benefits, and so on.
#182 Apr 03 2013 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They do exist.

For all the rights/privileges/etc enjoyed by married couples?

Nope. Not a contract out there that will transfer someone's veteran benefits to their non-spouse, for instance.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2013 11:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183 Apr 04 2013 at 6:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,586 posts

They do exist. They just don't exist in standard form that's easy/cheap to obtain. Of course, for an infinitesimal fraction of the money spent on political change to state marriage laws, they could have written such a contract and made it available to any *** couples who wanted one. And in the time they've spent, said contract could have been tested in court and become common enough to be recognized and accepted by all the various parts of society that *** couples want to recognize their marriages.


Not true, but let's pretend it was. It still wouldn't address the issue of equality and removing the societal stigma. Which is as important as the legal benefits. If black people had to go to a separate agency and fill out more complex forms to be granted a license to drive, you can see...sorry wait, let me rephrase, a reasonable person without significant brain damage could see how they might find that unfair even though the end result was identical. For the record, I have literally no interest to any "response" you offer to that.

Are they? I thought conservatives opposed *** marriage because of religious reasons and no one argued that it was about procreation? Which is it? Given the sheer number of times over the years that I've been told that my arguments on this issue aren't the arguments used by other conservatives, it seems strange to now have them labeled as "conservative establishment talking points".

Reasons? Reasons aren't arguments. The reason people oppose is *** marriage is one of the primary tenets of the Republican Party. There are three legs to the foundation of the GOP: 1. Distribute wealth from the poor to the wealthy through various structural means domestically. 2. Protect wealth abroad through military action. 3. Demonize classes of people to provide an opportunity for your base to feel better than someone.

3 is a very strong seller. It's the *only* reason the GOP expresses concern about Affirmative Action, Immigration, *** Marriage, etc. So that straight white us citizens can feel better than others by virtue of some innate characteristic. I mean, obviously if they could feel superior by means of accomplishment they'd be Democrats, so you have to offer the loser cowards some way to self esteem.

That's the *reason*. The arguments are wholly synthetic, obviously. No one really believes that immigrants are criminals or whatever the other ******** merchants are spewing out this week and you're blindly copy pasting. They change (as you should know) constantly. What doesn't change is that you can phrase all of them this way "Straight white citizens are better than these people for absolutely no reason beyond existing in the straight white citizen state" I suppose in some cases you could add "Christian" there, but the GOP has been pretty good about not blaming the Jews for everything in the last couple of decades.
____________________________
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.

#184 Apr 04 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
No. It's a special right you're asking for because you want a same *** partner who we all know isn't the biological parent of a child to automatically be considered as so.


The huge deal being made over kids is kind of comical. Humans have been growing up in weird families and thriving no matter the conditions for centuries upon centuries. Being raised by a non-biological parent isn't the end of the world. If this was REALLY what you were worried about, why not put your time and energy into convincing your fellow heteros to keep their babies and completely outlaw divorce?

Besides that, parental rights aren't automatically granted when straight couples marry anyway. When my mom got remarried after her divorce it didn't suddenly make him my "dad". He didn't have the rights my father did just because he married my mother, and wouldn't have such rights unless he adopted me. Hey, that's kind of the same as what would happen if my mom had married a woman, huh? Interesting how that works out. Same laws would apply, Gbaji. Same ones.

And finally, this is one of the dumbest **** you ******* retarded republicans spew out of your ignorant, neurosyphillis infested heads:

gbaji wrote:
Catwho wrote:
Try again.

When *** marriage becomes legal nationwide, I'm not going to divorce my husband so I can get married to another chick instead.

Although if by participating you mean I'll attend a homosexual wedding, sure, why not. I bet their catering and theme is going to be fabulous.


Participating in the sense that you're being required to pay for it. I thought I was pretty clear what I meant. We take part in something when we fund it, even if not directly.


Yea, paying taxes sucks, especially when it's for something you don't benefit from. I know. I've been paying for you and your kind to run around rutting in the mud making babies you can't afford to take care of for my entire adult life cause like, you just can't put on a ******* free condom from planned parenthood. I've been paying for your brats to have a public education and free meals while they are bussed all over the county. I've been paying for your tax breaks when you got married and will continue to pay for those for the foreseeable future. And then, and THEN, when I FINALLY say hey - can't I benefit just a LITTLE from all my hard work? You say **** you - you're ***! You don't count! I don't want MY tax dollars funding your perversion or w\e! Ha ha ! As if we don't pay taxes too! You think that somehow I checked a box on my tax return saying "I'm ***" and I suddenly didn't owe any taxes?

**** you Gbaji. **** you right in your ear.
#185 Apr 04 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Torrence wrote:

@#%^ you Gbaji. @#%^ you right in your ear.


Ear *** is the only abstinence *** Gbaji believes in.

____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#186 Apr 04 2013 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
If gbaji believed in any of the points he copies and pastes he'd be more about stopping marriages like Britney Spears' and less about George Takei.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#187gbaji, Posted: Apr 04 2013 at 5:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It does not address green cards, estate taxes, social security, tax breaks for health insurance, etc. But it *does* (or can) address hospital visitation and decision making, inheritance, guardianship, joint finances/property, adoption, and an overwhelming number of the things that *** couples argue are the reasons they want to marry. Not a lot of sympathy for the cause of *** marriage is gained by arguing "We have a right to avoid paying the estate tax", is there? Nope, it's always a sob story about a *** spouse being denied visitation in a hospital.
#188gbaji, Posted: Apr 04 2013 at 5:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) False.
#189 Apr 04 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,616 posts
gbaji wrote:
Not a lot of sympathy for the cause of *** marriage is gained by arguing "We have a right to avoid paying the estate tax", is there? Nope, it's always a sob story about a *** spouse being denied visitation in a hospital.


Link
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#190gbaji, Posted: Apr 04 2013 at 5:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This statement kinda indicates you either didn't bother to read my points, or you failed to understand my points. Is Takei going to accidentally get his partner pregnant (or accidentally be impregnated)? No? Then that's how you're wrong.
#191gbaji, Posted: Apr 04 2013 at 5:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. Because that's the case being brought. I just said that it's interesting that the case isn't something that's normally argued for by the *** rights crowd. if I'd asked you to list off 10 reasons why *** couples should be allowed to obtain marriage licenses a year ago, it's a good bet that this reason would not have been on the list. Or, we can go back and look at any of a number of *** marriage threads over the years here and see which arguments are made and which aren't.
#192gbaji, Posted: Apr 04 2013 at 5:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow you missed the point on that one. The reason you aren't considered your step fathers child is because your step father isn't your biological father. Your father was. And if he was married to your mom at the time you were born, you were automatically assumed to be his child by law (barring him challenging it). That's the point. Marriage isn't about raising children after the fact, but about the parents being married at the time the child is born because it ensures we have a father taking responsibility for the child.
#193 Apr 04 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
then you should be granted all the same rights as a married couple
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Not at all. *** couples aren't doing that because such contracts don't exist. Not much more complicated than that.
They do exist.
gbaji wrote:
It does not address green cards, estate taxes, social security, tax breaks for health insurance, etc.

Smiley: laugh

Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#194 Apr 04 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
This statement kinda indicates you either didn't bother to read my points, or you failed to understand my points.
I read them this time and the last several times you made them, and I understood them all those times as well. They're not any more true now than they were then, and manage to get less convincing each time you make them. I really don't believe you're a conservative. It's more like you've got Stockholm Syndrome.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#195gbaji, Posted: Apr 04 2013 at 7:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sigh. Same answer as before:
#196gbaji, Posted: Apr 04 2013 at 7:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's an argument dummy. Do you not understand how this works?
#197 Apr 04 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,586 posts

Yes. Because that's the case being brought. I just said that it's interesting that the case isn't something that's normally argued for by the *** rights crowd. if I'd asked you to list off 10 reasons why *** couples should be allowed to obtain marriage licenses a year ago, it's a good bet that this reason would not have been on the list.


Of course not, it's a stupid reason. If you'd asked for a list of good court cases to bring, it'd be near the top of the list. The best plaintiff is almost never the one with the most damages. Not novel or particularly interesting, unless you're a young child, I suppose, or operating under some illusion that court cases are scripted like Lifetime movies.
____________________________
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.

#198 Apr 04 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
@ Gbaji

I think the right to avoid paying taxes is something, that as a conservative, you should support. The fact that you support it for vanilla marriage & not *** marriage is because...?
____________________________
"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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#199 Apr 04 2013 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
@ Gbaji

I think the right to avoid paying taxes is something, that as a conservative, you should support. The fact that you support it for vanilla marriage & not *** marriage is because...?
Because straight couples could get accidentally pregnant and it's all for the children but ignore married couples over 60 or where one or both are infertile.
____________________________
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.
#200 Apr 04 2013 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sigh. Same answer as before:
[...]
Notice that those things that said contract would not do don't have anything to do with adoption and child rearing

That's not what Elinda said though. She said "granted all the same rights as a married couple". In which access to benefits is the same privilege married couples enjoy and is included. Not just the ones Gbaji deems worthy of same *** marriages or child rearing. So to answer "Yeah, they should totally just make contracts, how come they don't do that, huh?!" is either you being ridiculously stupid or you intentionally skipping the point so you can argue something else entirely.

Or maybe a little from Column A and a little from Column B. After all, you've been foolishly beating the "contracts!" drum for years now.

Edited, Apr 4th 2013 10:27pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Apr 04 2013 at 10:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Omegavegeta wrote:
@ Gbaji

I think the right to avoid paying taxes is something, that as a conservative, you should support. The fact that you support it for vanilla marriage & not *** marriage is because...?
Because with gbaji and his ilk, "Separate but Equal" is a-ok.

Edited, Apr 4th 2013 10:46pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CST
Almalieque, Debalic, Anonymous Guests (37)