The W
Views: 95713287
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.4.14 0726
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and Woman (Page 4)
This thread has 56 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4(1888 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (75 total)
socalgail
Weisswurst








Since: 4.8.03
From: San Diego

Since last post: 3875 days
Last activity: 3719 days
#61 Posted on
OK, let's just clear up the tax thing. The tax laws are slanted in favor of marriages where one spouse works and the other doesn't. These duos get great big tax breaks compared to a single person just supporting someone else. As soon as the second spouse brings home a salary, the tax laws penalize them vis a vis two single wage earners.

Same deal on social security. If one spouse works and the other doesn't, when the working spouse retires, the couple collects 1.67% of the benefit of a single person who earned the same amount as the working spouse would get. If both spouses work, then they can choose, either take the 1.67% of the higher wage earner or each take their own.

Now as to the question why - what category do you think most members of Congress and the ruling elite fall into?



socalgail
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3563 days
Last activity: 3033 days
AIM:  
#62 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    So I presume that our recently-engaged Dictator, and every other married Wiener, is ignorant and superstitious?


Presume whatever you want, Palp, if it helps you feed your ego.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2645 days
Last activity: 2487 days
AIM:  
#63 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake

      Originally posted by PalpatineW
      So I presume that our recently-engaged Dictator, and every other married Wiener, is ignorant and superstitious?


    Presume whatever you want, Palp, if it helps you feed your ego.



I may have made a rather catty comment there, but the logical implication of what you said is that married people are stupid. I was just calling you on it.



"Georgie Porgie, he might buy the whole league, but he doesn't have enough money to buy fear to put in my heart."
Pedro Martinez
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3563 days
Last activity: 3033 days
AIM:  
#64 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    I may have made a rather catty comment there, but the logical implication of what you said is that married people are stupid. I was just calling you on it.


Only if you take it completely out of context.

Let's go back a bit.

"Marriage was ALWAYS about reproduction. That is the very reason the intitution was created in the first place."

"Marriage isn't about reproduction. It's about control. 'If you have a baby without our sanction, you're going to hell.' That's powerful stuff, when you're dealing with superstitious and ignorant people."

I was simply refuting your claim that marriage as an institution was about reproduction. Marriage was established as a means of controlling people, and in those times people were ignorant and superstitious, thus the religious "do it my way or go to hell" aspect was the way to go as opposed to the more honest political one. (You can't move away from your beliefs.)

Modern marriages have considerably less to do with fear of eternal damnation and more with a desire for commitment and (to a certain extent) societal acceptance - they've been the norm for so long they're an accepted part of society. But the origin of the institution remains the same.




Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni








Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 3841 days
Last activity: 3827 days
AIM:  
#65 Posted on
I've just skimmed this item and wanted to chime in with something that hasn't been brought up here yet.

The discrimination against same sex couples that disgusts me the most is when the "real" family opposes the wishes of a widowed partner. There have been many instances of life long partners being left out in the legal cold while uninvolved next-of-kins get "the loot" when someone dies.

I can dig if some people want (and if you want to know you could dig too) but there has been at least one case in relatively recent history where a court overturned the actual will of a gay person and turned the assets back to "the family".

There are many instances of life long partners not being allowed to make medical treatment decisions in case of an emergency because they aren't next of kin. Partners often aren't allowed visitation rights.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the tax benefit or penalty for marriage. These are the issues that make legally-recognized same sex unions necessary and I'll just leave it at that.




It's just you against the group mind.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 149 days
Last activity: 143 days
#66 Posted on


    Originally posted by Notorious F.A.B.
    I've just skimmed this item and wanted to chime in with something that hasn't been brought up here yet.

    The discrimination against same sex couples that disgusts me the most is when the "real" family opposes the wishes of a widowed partner. There have been many instances of life long partners being left out in the legal cold while uninvolved next-of-kins get "the loot" when someone dies.

    I can dig if some people want (and if you want to know you could dig too) but there has been at least one case in relatively recent history where a court overturned the actual will of a gay person and turned the assets back to "the family".

    There are many instances of life long partners not being allowed to make medical treatment decisions in case of an emergency because they aren't next of kin. Partners often aren't allowed visitation rights.

    I couldn't give a rat's ass about the tax benefit or penalty for marriage. These are the issues that make legally-recognized same sex unions necessary and I'll just leave it at that.



Most compelling arguement yet, Notorious one.

I agree in those cases that there would need to be some sort of governmental recognition in that case. Maybe something just short of a marriage, but a "legal partner" status right up there with "legal guardian". With that status, jointly entered into, those issues would have to be resolved with the life partners.





The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni








Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 3841 days
Last activity: 3827 days
AIM:  
#67 Posted on
Again I've only skimmed this topic but on the whole what I've read of your responses Eddie shows exactly why LGBT shouldn't try for "gay marriage." And for the most part I don't think we're doing that. (I blame: The Media.) "Civil unions" are fine, even if it's worded in a scary newspeak way that usually steers people toward a useless PC argument. Gays and lesbians will always refer to themselves as married (even if not "civilly united") and to their partners as their husbands or wives.

But I digress.

A quick web search reveals that there are eight documents gay couples have to file in order to gain some measure of the legal rights straight people automatically receive when they put on that ring. These are things (from living wills to power of attorney) that most people just don't think about, gay or straight. The problem here is that when a straight person doesn't think about it, there isn't a legal problem when the worst happens.

These are things that I don't think any rationally thinking person would deny a committed couple. But look at the debate that has waged on and on in this thread! It's focused on whether or not people get tax benefits or what the purpose of "the holy union" is.

And I'm not railing on anyone for it either. Why would any of you be aware of any of this? The media certainly hasn't given it to you. At least not that I'm aware of.



It's just you against the group mind.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 149 days
Last activity: 143 days
#68 Posted on

F.A.B., I cannot argue against anything you've posted here.

You have presented a truly compelling case for some sort of legal recognition that would cover the basics you talk about. I hope for the sakes of those affected that it can come about soon.



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3290 days
Last activity: 3284 days
#69 Posted on
I'm a little confused Eddie. You were making a good point wondering about where the line should be redrawn, or what the limits of marriage should be, after we legalize gay marriages, and you were wondering why no one is able to rationally address that issue. I'm not sure where your initial concern was answered sufficiently. Where did I miss that?

DMC



"One two three FOUR FIVE six seven eight NINE TEN eleven twelve!"
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 149 days
Last activity: 143 days
#70 Posted on


    Originally posted by DMC
    I'm a little confused Eddie. You were making a good point wondering about where the line should be redrawn, or what the limits of marriage should be, after we legalize gay marriages, and you were wondering why no one is able to rationally address that issue. I'm not sure where your initial concern was answered sufficiently. Where did I miss that?

    DMC



My concern was never answered! But, F.A.B. brought up several basic issues where a partnership could be recognized without having to establish the intimacy of the relationship. More of a "paired guardianship". It (if I read it right) falls just short of a gov't recognized "marriage" while still providing simple human basics, and as F.A.B. pointed out, the couples will call themselves married anyway.

Did I explain that ok?



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3290 days
Last activity: 3284 days
#71 Posted on
More or less. Thanks.

DMC



"One two three FOUR FIVE six seven eight NINE TEN eleven twelve!"
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni








Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 3841 days
Last activity: 3827 days
AIM:  
#72 Posted on

    Originally posted by Eddie
    ...a partnership could be recognized without having to establish the intimacy of the relationship.


I'm having trouble with this. Do you mean to say that a homosexual pairing is not as intimate as a heterosexual pairing or that the intimacy of it doesn't needed to be included in a legal-type definition of it?



It's just you against the group mind.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 149 days
Last activity: 143 days
#73 Posted on


    Originally posted by Notorious F.A.B.

      Originally posted by Eddie
      ...a partnership could be recognized without having to establish the intimacy of the relationship.


    I'm having trouble with this. Do you mean to say that a homosexual pairing is not as intimate as a heterosexual pairing or that the intimacy of it doesn't needed to be included in a legal-type definition of it?



The latter.

I don't want the gov't judging whether or not two people are in an intimate, loving relationship. Could you imagine what parameters they would come up with? It's make a bit of exciting CSPAN watching for awhile, I suppose...



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni








Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 3841 days
Last activity: 3827 days
AIM:  
#74 Posted on
Right on.



It's just you against the group mind.
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3516 days
Last activity: 3175 days
#75 Posted on

    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    I agree in those cases that there would need to be some sort of governmental recognition in that case. Maybe something just short of a marriage, but a "legal partner" status right up there with "legal guardian". With that status, jointly entered into, those issues would have to be resolved with the life partners.




This seems similar too...


    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
    Having read what both vsp and Pool-Boy have had to say on the subject, I wonder if perhaps, rather than discussing whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriages, what we really need to consider is whether or not the government should continue to recognize any marriages. Perhaps we've reached the point in history where the state needs to look at marriages the same way it looks at friendships, i.e, as personal relationships with which it should not get involved in any way, shape, or form. Maybe it's time for the law to stop drawing distinctions between individuals who are single vs couples who are married when it comes to matters such as taxation, estate settlement, etc. Now, this is just my opinion, of course, but I firmly believe that before the topic of whether or not the state should recognize same-sex marriages can be intelligently discussed we first need to define what (if any) benefits the state derives from recognizing any marriages, and if said benefits warrant the continuation of this practice.


Then just make this uniform practice among Hetrosexuals and Homosexuals. And if you want some kind of religious or social recognition, do it on your own time and dime.

I say let there be a "Legal Marriage" (or whatever you want to call it) and then a "Social/Religious Marriage." Then couples can choose if they want one over the other or both if they so choose.

Then the "Legal Marriage" would cover all Legal and Economic issues associated with joining. Think of it like if you incorporate yourself and merge with another person who has incoporated themself. This would not have restrictions based on sexual preference. (I say the only restrictions should be based on age and relation to the other person)

Then the "Social/Religious Marriage" could be for whatever reason the people involved want it to be. This can have any/all restrictions that the social/religious institute wants to impose.

Choose and mix as needed. Repeat if necessary.



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4Thread ahead: Denver to vote on Anti-Stress Initiative
Next thread: Gay HS Redux: Lawsuit Filed
Previous thread: More Politics
(1888 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Oh, he'll be a martyr. They'll blame it on some Israeli plot or something. Considering some of the stuff them blame on the Jews, this one'll be easy.
- MoeGates, Arafat Loses Consciousness (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and Woman (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.137 seconds.