|
On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:
[quote]
Can homosexuals be married where you live?
If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views.
Calling them "rights" may have been an error, but that's not the actual issue. Equality is what's at issue. Stopping at the start of someone else's argument because of what's ultimately a semantic error is pretty lame.
|
On June 25 2013 04:52 Zaqwert wrote:
Will TL begin advocacy for other issues? What is the official TL stance on animal rights? Or abortion? Or reperations for slavery?
I visit this page for news about StarCraft, not for advocacy of social causes.
Games are an escape from the real world, at least to a lot of people.
If thats the case, you might want to consider not spending so much time discussing gay rights.
|
On June 25 2013 04:52 Zaqwert wrote:
Will TL begin advocacy for other issues? What is the official TL stance on animal rights? Or abortion? Or reperations for slavery?
I visit this page for news about StarCraft, not for advocacy of social causes.
Games are an escape from the real world, at least to a lot of people.
Get over it kid. The site has always supported equality. If you have beef, PM Liquid Naz'Gul and tell us how that works out.
P.S. You might want to check out his twitter first and you will get a preview of the response you will get.
|
On June 25 2013 04:54 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:52 Zaqwert wrote:
Will TL begin advocacy for other issues? What is the official TL stance on animal rights? Or abortion? Or reperations for slavery?
I visit this page for news about StarCraft, not for advocacy of social causes.
Games are an escape from the real world, at least to a lot of people. If thats the case, you might want to consider not spending so much time discussing gay rights.
Or making second accounts to troll the same topics. I mean Zaqwe, and now Zaqwert? Not very original.
|
On June 25 2013 04:51 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:49 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:45 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:44 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:40 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:30 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities? Don't you realize how absurd that is? I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with." The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion. They are analogous; It's the very same reason Gov't doesn't allow federal funding for creating stem cells from embryos. Because it would be "wrong" for taxpayer money to be used on something that isn't universally agreed upon. I'm not saying I agree with the argument; but it's definitely something to think about. So it's wrong for the president to be black then because the KKK doesn't agree, therefore the entirety of the united states of america is not universally agreeing upon something? The federal government stepped in and did the right thing and desegregated schools across all states. The federal government did the right thing and abolished slavery. This is a human rights issue, so I couldn't give a rats ass what the "majority" thinks. Government takes a chunk of your paycheck, and then does something with it so horrendously wrong (at least in your point of view) with that money, that you would be just "ok" with it? Also; no one is saying this argument is the end all be all, for why homosexual marriage is still not allowed in majority of states. It's definitely something to think about though. If you go back a few pages you'll see that I do take apart this argument. Letting two men or two women marry is "horrendously wrong"? Having a black president is "horrendously wrong"? This is why it is an improper analogy. I'm sorry but you shot your argument in the foot. Are you really this dense? To some of those people who are paying into the taxes; yes they do have an issue with homosexual marriage, and yes they have an issue with a black president (he's always half white in my books). It is a horrendous wrong TO THEM. Just like I don't like my taxpayer money going towards guns to rebels in Syria, they have the right to have their money not be used with something they disagree with. Nope, thats incorrect. The majority has the right to use your money in more or less any way they want.
Then the majority should just oppress the minority right? Cuz they have the right to use what they want, because they're the majority.
|
On June 25 2013 04:51 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. So then why do infertile couples qualify for those privileges? Or how about couples that just don't have kids? Because laws aren't perfect. Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights. It's awfully convenient how the imperfections in the laws only leave out a minority and let the majority enjoy certain benefits whether or not they qualify.
With the birth rate dropping as it is, I would completely support removing many marriage benefits and only granting them upon a pregnancy.
However I wouldn't succumb to the delusion that government programs intended to increase the birth rate are rights. They are and always have been privileges.
|
On June 25 2013 04:52 Zaqwert wrote:
Will TL begin advocacy for other issues? What is the official TL stance on animal rights? Or abortion? Or reperations for slavery?
I visit this page for news about StarCraft, not for advocacy of social causes.
Games are an escape from the real world, at least to a lot of people.
Those google banners must really irk you.
|
I just don't see the issue. Firstly who cares its a logo don't take everything so seriously. Secondly so what who cares if they can or can't get married. How is marriage a human right its a legal contract its not like they cant love each other. There is literally hundreds of bigger issues let them do it don't let them do it. It should not be a major political point for politicians in their election campaigns or in any part of their policy
|
On June 25 2013 04:54 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:51 Stol wrote:On June 25 2013 04:49 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:45 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:44 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:40 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:30 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Aberu wrote:
[quote]
So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities?
Don't you realize how absurd that is? I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with." The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion. They are analogous; It's the very same reason Gov't doesn't allow federal funding for creating stem cells from embryos. Because it would be "wrong" for taxpayer money to be used on something that isn't universally agreed upon. I'm not saying I agree with the argument; but it's definitely something to think about. So it's wrong for the president to be black then because the KKK doesn't agree, therefore the entirety of the united states of america is not universally agreeing upon something? The federal government stepped in and did the right thing and desegregated schools across all states. The federal government did the right thing and abolished slavery. This is a human rights issue, so I couldn't give a rats ass what the "majority" thinks. Government takes a chunk of your paycheck, and then does something with it so horrendously wrong (at least in your point of view) with that money, that you would be just "ok" with it? Also; no one is saying this argument is the end all be all, for why homosexual marriage is still not allowed in majority of states. It's definitely something to think about though. If you go back a few pages you'll see that I do take apart this argument. Letting two men or two women marry is "horrendously wrong"? Having a black president is "horrendously wrong"? This is why it is an improper analogy. I'm sorry but you shot your argument in the foot. Are you really this dense? To some of those people who are paying into the taxes; yes they do have an issue with homosexual marriage, and yes they have an issue with a black president (he's always half white in my books). It is a horrendous wrong TO THEM. Just like I don't like my taxpayer money going towards guns to rebels in Syria, they have the right to have their money not be used with something they disagree with. Nope, thats incorrect. The majority has the right to use your money in more or less any way they want. Then the majority should just oppress the minority right? Cuz they have the right to use what they want, because they're the majority.
Yep, that's how government works. No where is it written that you only have to pay for what you agree with. Otherwise, we wouldn't fund congress.
|
On June 25 2013 04:55 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:51 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. So then why do infertile couples qualify for those privileges? Or how about couples that just don't have kids? Because laws aren't perfect. Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights. It's awfully convenient how the imperfections in the laws only leave out a minority and let the majority enjoy certain benefits whether or not they qualify. With the birth rate dropping as it is, I would completely support removing many marriage benefits and only granting them upon a pregnancy.However I wouldn't succumb to the delusion that government programs intended to increase the birth rate are rights. They are and always have been privileges.
Welp; that ends that argument. When you go that far deep, your arguments just fall apart.
|
On June 25 2013 04:55 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:51 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. So then why do infertile couples qualify for those privileges? Or how about couples that just don't have kids? Because laws aren't perfect. Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights. It's awfully convenient how the imperfections in the laws only leave out a minority and let the majority enjoy certain benefits whether or not they qualify. With the birth rate dropping as it is, I would completely support removing many marriage benefits and only granting them upon a pregnancy. However I wouldn't succumb to the delusion that government programs intended to increase the birth rate are rights. They are and always have been privileges.
But being treated equally by the government is not a privilege, it is a right. And if one group does not gets a privilege that another does, even though they are equal in every other way, that group has the right to demand the government treat them equally.
|
On June 25 2013 04:51 A Wet Shamwow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views. You realize that the bill of rights could be called a bill of privileges right? I mean we haven't extended them to everybody in the past, and still do not today. Changing a word around doesn't change the fact that our laws set a gay couple at a disadvantage when compared to a straight couple, for completely arbitrary reasons.
Human biology isn't arbitrary.
Maybe you would have a point in the distant future if every baby is born from an artificial womb and natural pregnancies were obsolete.
|
On June 25 2013 04:55 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:51 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. So then why do infertile couples qualify for those privileges? Or how about couples that just don't have kids? Because laws aren't perfect. Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights. It's awfully convenient how the imperfections in the laws only leave out a minority and let the majority enjoy certain benefits whether or not they qualify. With the birth rate dropping as it is, I would completely support removing many marriage benefits and only granting them upon a pregnancy. However I wouldn't succumb to the delusion that government programs intended to increase the birth rate are rights. They are and always have been privileges.
Oh I'm so sorry you found a convenient "win" over semantics. Is discrimination based on someone's sexuality they are born with okay or not okay? That's what this whole thing is about, stop trying to switch it over to "gimmemonies" or whatever bullshit strawman you keep coming up with.
|
On June 25 2013 04:58 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:51 A Wet Shamwow wrote:On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views. You realize that the bill of rights could be called a bill of privileges right? I mean we haven't extended them to everybody in the past, and still do not today. Changing a word around doesn't change the fact that our laws set a gay couple at a disadvantage when compared to a straight couple, for completely arbitrary reasons. Human biology isn't arbitrary. Maybe you would have a point in the distant future if every baby is born from an artificial womb and natural pregnancies were obsolete.
What in the hell does this have to do with pregnancy?
Infertile couples are allowed to get married. Couples that are incapable of having kids are allowed to get married. But if they are homosexual, they aren't?
That is the only issue, stop trying to shift the blame.
I have reported you for your double name scheme Zaqwe/Zaqwert. Now I am ignoring you because you have proven yourself to be incapable of thinking logically.
|
On June 25 2013 04:55 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:51 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. So then why do infertile couples qualify for those privileges? Or how about couples that just don't have kids? Because laws aren't perfect. Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights. It's awfully convenient how the imperfections in the laws only leave out a minority and let the majority enjoy certain benefits whether or not they qualify. With the birth rate dropping as it is, I would completely support removing many marriage benefits and only granting them upon a pregnancy. However I wouldn't succumb to the delusion that government programs intended to increase the birth rate are rights. They are and always have been privileges.
Ah. You also think you know about population growth. You're an expert on everything!
|
On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places.
Just like black people didn't have the privilege of going to decent schools. Or the privilege of sitting on public benches. Or the privilege of not being lynched. Maybe you would look like less of an idiot if the crux of your argument wasn't based on the semantics of a "privilege" you are fully able to enjoy. Perhaps you should make an argument as to why they don't deserve the privilege you wish to deny them. Preferably an argument that isn't as flat as "marriage subsidies are for child rearing". Sorry but you're confusing child tax credit with the benefit/risk of filing jointly.
Read these so you don't make the same mistake again:
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=111§ionid=720
http://www.urban.org/books/TTP/whittington.cfm
|
The Logo is at least half blue, and half rainbow, showing they support men and gays.
But what about women!?!?!
Some equality this is!
|
On June 25 2013 04:52 Zaqwert wrote:
Will TL begin advocacy for other issues? What is the official TL stance on animal rights? Or abortion? Or reperations for slavery?
I visit this page for news about StarCraft, not for advocacy of social causes.
Games are an escape from the real world, at least to a lot of people.
Good to know that stuff like this is less than 1% of the content on this site so people like you have somewhere you can go.
You really don't have to be in this thread, seriously.
|
On June 25 2013 04:59 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:51 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said.
The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies.
People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. So then why do infertile couples qualify for those privileges? Or how about couples that just don't have kids? Because laws aren't perfect. Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights. It's awfully convenient how the imperfections in the laws only leave out a minority and let the majority enjoy certain benefits whether or not they qualify. With the birth rate dropping as it is, I would completely support removing many marriage benefits and only granting them upon a pregnancy. However I wouldn't succumb to the delusion that government programs intended to increase the birth rate are rights. They are and always have been privileges. Oh I'm so sorry you found a convenient "win" over semantics. Is discrimination based on someone's sexuality they are born with okay or not okay? That's what this whole thing is about, stop trying to switch it over to "gimmemonies" or whatever bullshit strawman you keep coming up with.
It's the basic argument of capitalism vs socialism imo; how much money should the gov't be receiving, and how much power do they have over this money? Though I do think that it's a bit facetious to put monetary argument to a topic about human rights.
On June 25 2013 05:01 killa_robot wrote:
The Logo is at least half blue, and half rainbow, showing they support men and gays.
But what about women!?!?!
Some equality this is!
Rainbow stands for lesbians as well...
Which also brings up a point; I WANT MY RAINBOW BACK (as a straight person). Seriously, I want to sport rainbow colors without any of its modern connotation.
|
On June 25 2013 04:54 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc.
The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples.
Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views. Calling them "rights" may have been an error, but that's not the actual issue. Equality is what's at issue. Stopping at the start of someone else's argument because of what's ultimately a semantic error is pretty lame.
It's not a semantic error, it's a very deliberate emotional appeal.
They want to frame the argument emotionally to shut down criticism and portray opposition to their views as evil and morally reprehensible.
It's all very dogmatic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
