Quote:
Fine, fine. You've got your reason. It's just archaic, short-sighted and homophobic
Just selfish
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay Marriage
Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay MarriageFollow
I disagree with gbaji totally in this but his reasons are not in any way shape or form homophobic.
Just selfish
56 of the 57 signers were practicing Christians
False, unarguably so, regardless of how many 8th grade home school papers you link from geocities.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
You should know by now that anyone who disagrees with any part of the homosexual agenda is obviously homophobic.
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
Fine, fine. You've got your reason. It's just archaic, short-sighted and homophobic
Just selfish
Why? Because he spoke of it through a thinly veiled example of currency?
hangtennow wrote:
and you're a pederast.
I support freshly arrived bowlers from Chino marrying 8 year olds.
hangtennow wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/frjimlloyd/JudeoChristianPrinciples.htm
This country was founded by devout Christians. To make the assertion that judeo/christian principles have no place in this govn/society vividly illustrates just how ignorant most people are about the origin of this nation.
This country was founded by devout Christians. To make the assertion that judeo/christian principles have no place in this govn/society vividly illustrates just how ignorant most people are about the origin of this nation.
Geocities? Really? 
Quote:
Why?
Protip: Homophobia is the fear of two people of the same sex endulging in sexual activity, not objecting to tax breaks which (he feels) are to encourage stable child rearing homes being given to homes that cannot possibly produce children.
I disagree both with the concept that the tax breaks are for what he feels they are and that homosexual relationships can not include offspring.
that doesn't stop me from seeing his side of the story for what it is and not labelling it with a slur it bares no relationship too.
two, too, to = brain hurts when you've worked a 13 hour day...
Edited, Apr 9th 2009 6:36pm by tarv
Smasharoo wrote:
There is no tax benefit to being married.
False. Demonstrably so. But whatever.
Quote:
There are structural changes that might benefit people in very particular situations, a wide income disparity between partners for instance, but from a demographic standpoint, if the gay people getting married are representative of the rest of the gay population, there will be no tax gain to them being married.
Ok. Let's test it then. Are you saying that if someone were to propose changing the tax code such that only opposite-sex couples could file under the "married" columns, this would be just fine with the gay rights folks?
I somehow doubt that would be met with anything other than cries about discrimination. But you go on assuming it would be just peachy...
Here's the thing. Taxes are just one of the benefits granted to married couples. And federal income tax really isn't the biggest one (it's just the one someone said had nothing at all to do with gay-marriage, so I responded to it). Let's expand this. I don't believe that gay couples who marry should get the following things currently granted to married couples:
1. Tax brackets
2. Programmatic loan rate benefits
3. Pension benefits of spouse
4. Social security benefits of spouse
5. Survivor benefits of spouse
6. Mandated inclusion on health benefits of spouse
I could probably come up with more, but that's just what popped into my head. All of those things are financial benefits granted to people who are married. All of them are things that single people foot the bill for in some way. None of them have to do with any sort of "right".
Do you think it would be acceptable to the gay rights folks to change all of these things such that the benefits are only granted to married couples who consist of a man and a woman?
Cause see. Those are the reasons I oppose changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. And if you remove these things, there really aren't a whole lot of things you actually gain from the legal definition, are there? But you tell me what you think...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
Why?
I love the gay guys! Cause that's like, more chicks for me! :)
See. It's a win/win for me. Being straight, I have no desire to have sex with a man, so I lose nothing by the fact that I'm not having sex with them (if that makes any sense). However, other men are potential obstacles to my ability to have sex with women. So there's no problem with homosexuality on that level. The more the better, in fact. And if some guy is trying to decide between being bi and completely gay, it's not rocket science which direction I'd point him in. And on the other side, let's be honest, most of the women I'd want to have sex with are either straight or bi, so it's like doubleplusgoodwin!
Quote:
I disagree both with the concept that the tax breaks are for what he feels they are and that homosexual relationships can not include offspring.
that doesn't stop me from seeing his side of the story for what it is and not labelling it with a slur it bares no relationship too.
that doesn't stop me from seeing his side of the story for what it is and not labelling it with a slur it bares no relationship too.
I appreciate and respect that too! I do tend to get a bit peeved when it's just assumed that if you oppose a specific agenda of a group that this means you hate/fear that group. Sometimes, it really is just about the specifics of the issue itself and *not* the people involved...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
See. It's a win/win for me. Being straight, I have no desire to have sex with a man, so I lose nothing by the fact that I'm not having sex with them (if that makes any sense). However, other men are potential obstacles to my ability to have sex with women. So there's no problem with homosexuality on that level.
You aren't factoring in the lesbians. :)
Ok. Let's test it then. Are you saying that if someone were to propose changing the tax code such that only opposite-sex couples could file under the "married" columns, this would be just fine with the gay rights folks?
I somehow doubt that would be met with anything other than cries about discrimination. But you go on assuming it would be just peachy...
You still don't get it. It's not about benefits, it's about status. Equality, not a facsimile of equality.
Here's the thing. Taxes are just one of the benefits granted to married couples. And federal income tax really isn't the biggest one (it's just the one someone said had nothing at all to do with gay-marriage, so I responded to it). Let's expand this. I don't believe that gay couples who marry should get the following things currently granted to married couples:
1. Tax brackets
2. Programmatic loan rate benefits
3. Pension benefits of spouse
4. Social security benefits of spouse
5. Survivor benefits of spouse
6. Mandated inclusion on health benefits of spouse
I could probably come up with more, but that's just what popped into my head. All of those things are financial benefits granted to people who are married. All of them are things that single people foot the bill for in some way. None of them have to do with any sort of "right".
Do you think it would be acceptable to the gay rights folks to change all of these things such that the benefits are only granted to married couples who consist of a man and a woman?
Cause see. Those are the reasons I oppose changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. And if you remove these things, there really aren't a whole lot of things you actually gain from the legal definition, are there? But you tell me what you think...
Once again, moron, let me make it clear: Equality is about being equal. Equal rights, equal hardships, equal status, etc. That's the point. The benefits are easy to explain and make an effective emotional argument, but they have nothing to do with the real issue. Why do gay men want to openly serve in the military and put their lives at risk? Because the pay and benefits are so great?
It's not acceptable for there to be *ANY* difference in the legal status of two people of the same gender marrying and two people of opposite gender marrying. What the differences might be is absolutely irrelevant.
It's a child's game to deconstruct this issue into individual arguments and attempt some pointless reductionist critique or alternate solution. There isn't one. Just as there Apartheid and Jim Crow weren't acceptable alternatives to equality for blacks. There is no "gays want this because....." that's valid other than "...they want to be equal".
That's it. That's the reason. Secret's out! It's not about taxes, or medical insurance, or inheritance rights. It's about being treated as fucking EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RACE.
Why is it you can't comprehend this? I mean aside from your obvious intellectual handicaps, obviously. Frankly, this seems to be a bar that even your very, very, very average cognitive ability could surmount.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
You aren't factoring in the lesbians.
Most men seem to believe lesbians are a myth. Girls that just haven't found the right manly man.
"That's why I buy ****. Everyone needs a good deep ******** Lesbians? Bullsh*t posturing"
Edited, Apr 9th 2009 5:15pm by baelnic
Smasharoo wrote:
You still don't get it. It's not about benefits, it's about status. Equality, not a facsimile of equality.
Then they wouldn't mind not getting the benefits, right? You can't say that it's not about the benefits while fighting for a legal status requirement change which would provide benefits to a group of people, unless you're willing to allow the requirements for the benefits to change to exclude that new group.
Regardless of why gay couples want to be married, they *will* get those benefits unless there are other legal changes preventing it. And I, as a single person, will pay for them to get those benefits. So yeah. It's certainly relevant for me to bring this up, don't you agree?
Quote:
Once again, moron, let me make it clear: Equality is about being equal. Equal rights, equal hardships, equal status, etc. That's the point. The benefits are easy to explain and make an effective emotional argument, but they have nothing to do with the real issue.
Then let's take the benefits off the table.
Quote:
It's not acceptable for there to be *ANY* difference in the legal status of two people of the same gender marrying and two people of opposite gender marrying. What the differences might be is absolutely irrelevant.
Lol. So it really is about the benefits then. Cause the only difference here is what benefits you get based on the sexual makeup of the married couple.
I love how it's "not about the benefits!!!", until it is just those benefits on the line. And no. This is not a childish approach. I've stripped all the other aspects of the issue. You get the civil contract. You get the social recognition. You get the title of "married". Gay couples under this methodology get every single thing they argue that they want. The *only* thing I'm removing is the very benefits that you insist no one cares about.
If it's not important for gay couples to receive those, then why care if they can't get them? Haven't we kind of laid bare the issue at this point? Apparently, it really is about the benefits...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
See. It's a win/win for me. Being straight, I have no desire to have sex with a man, so I lose nothing by the fact that I'm not having sex with them (if that makes any sense). However, other men are potential obstacles to my ability to have sex with women. So there's no problem with homosexuality on that level.
You aren't factoring in the lesbians. :)
No, I didn't! I said that most of the women I'd want to have sex with are either straight or bi. I know a lot of completely lesbian women. Very very few of them do I find sexually attractive in any way at all.
I was trying to be subtle. Guess it was *too* subtle...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's all fun and games until black people get to ride in the front of the bus.
I love how it's "not about the benefits!!!", until it is just those benefits on the line. And no. This is not a childish approach.
It is. Infantile. Reduce something complex until you can pretend to understand it, that's how children deal with adult concepts they aren't ready for. Or, in this case, adults incapable of understanding, I guess.
Don't feel badly, most average people likely see it the way you do. Run along and watch American Idol now, or whatever it is you people do.
Edit: Let me try this. If you gave only gay couples an exclusive benefit, let's say $10,000 for having a civil union in addition to all of the other benefits Marriage conveys, it still would be unacceptable. Let me know when you understand why and we can continue this conversation.
Edited, Apr 9th 2009 9:35pm by Smasharoo
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
I'm ok with paying a higher rate of taxes so that opposite-sex couples who marry may gain the benefits of a lower tax rate. I am *not* ok with paying a higher rate of taxes so that same-sex couples who marry may gain lower rates.
But why is it okay for one and not the other? My fiance and I aren't having kids; the only one benefiting from lower taxes when we finally get into that column is us and us alone. We're being selfish bastards by getting married and not having kids and doing it entirely for the benefits (if it was for religious reasons I think we'd have had to have been married for seven years now.)
Discrimination is discrimination. It's saying "It's okay for you, but not okay for them." It doesn't matter what the reason is.
gbaji wrote:
There is no such thing as a marriage tax penalty, unless one or both (typically both) of you have a low enough income to qualify for a sufficiently large EITC.
The "married filling jointly" column simply doubles the width of each bracket. So it'll look kinda like this:
The "married filling jointly" column simply doubles the width of each bracket. So it'll look kinda like this:
tax_rate single married/jointly 5% 10k 20k 10% 25k 50k 20% 50k 100k 30% 75k 150k 40% 100k 200k
So, ironic as it seems, I was rewarded with less income tax for being a single parent than I pay now as a married person.
Edited, Apr 9th 2009 9:20pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Except that, as a single parent, I previously filed as Head of Household and now I need to file jointly as married. I just pulled out my last tax records prior to getting married and the amount of income tax I'm paying now as a percentage has doubled.
So, ironic as it seems, I was rewarded with less income tax for being a single parent than I pay now as a married person.
So, ironic as it seems, I was rewarded with less income tax for being a single parent than I pay now as a married person.
The head of household is a bit better than single, but not that much better. The actual tax rate couldn't have been what changed Joph. Were your deductions significantly different or something?
I'm looking at this tax calculator. I have no clue what your income was/is, but just plugging in 60k, I get the following:
Single: 11,344, 18.91%
Head: 10,063, 16.77
Married: 8,198, 13.66
While I suppose it's possible if both your incomes push you up to a significantly higher tax bracket, this might be the case, but then the joint effect on both your taxes should still be lower as a result. The only exception I can think of is if *both* of you were single heads of households. So the Brady Bunch got screwed on their taxes. But then the cost savings of consolidating the costs of raising the kids under one roof has got to massively outweigh that IMO...
It's not just about what your share of the taxes did Joph. It's what your combined shares did.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smasharoo wrote:
It is. Infantile. Reduce something complex until you can pretend to understand it, that's how children deal with adult concepts they aren't ready for. Or, in this case, adults incapable of understanding, I guess.
Um. You're the one simplifying this down to a simple case of "But they're not treated EQUALLY. Whaaaaah!".
I'm making the adult realization that some things are valuable to society as a whole and therefore worth funding, and other things aren't. And I'm also adult enough to recognize that we should make those assessments honestly, even if the results cause a group we like or feel is deprived to not get something they want.
You, on the other hand, are just picking a side and defending it no matter how ludicrous your position gets.
Quote:
Edit: Let me try this. If you gave only gay couples an exclusive benefit, let's say $10,000 for having a civil union in addition to all of the other benefits Marriage conveys, it still would be unacceptable. Let me know when you understand why and we can continue this conversation.
Here's the difference Smash. I don't see it as "wrong" purely because one group is getting a benefit and another isn't (which I'm going to assume is your reasoning). I would oppose that purely because I don't believe the societal benefit to encouraging gay people to enter into civil unions is worth paying them $10,000.
I'm assessing the cost versus the benefit. Which, silly me, is the only rational way to make a spending decision. You're basing your decision on an incredibly subjective emotional appeal to a false form of equality.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The head of household is a bit better than single, but not that much better. The actual tax rate couldn't have been what changed Joph. Were your deductions significantly different or something?
I'm capable of working the simple math on my own tax forms. Getting married and filing jointly has changed my tax bracket up from Head of Household. Hers would have remained the same, resulting in a net loss for me. You can play junior accountant over there all you wish
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Hey Gbaji, remember the last thread about this? Remember when Joph made an excellent post about why same sex marriages were just as beneficial to society as opposite sex ones? Remember when you ignored it? yeah, that's the issue. You're wrong.
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
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
Hey Gbaji, remember the last thread about this? Remember when Joph made an excellent post about why same sex marriages were just as beneficial to society as opposite sex ones? Remember when you ignored it? yeah, that's the issue. You're wrong.
Just because you hold a different opinion doesn't mean you are wrong.
Recent Visitors: 299
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (299)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay Marriage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC