|
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.
There are certainly ethical aspects of how to treat another person directly in a democratic society, this is required to uphold the notion of democracy in the first place.
A persons money is however not a part of that individual and the majority can more or less do whatever it wants with other peoples money. Its basically what taxes are all about.
The general reason why tax money isnt used for "sensitive" issues has more to do with the fact that politicians arent really sure a majority of their own voters even agree. Sometimes its just easier to play things safe.
|
That last color in the rainbow doesn't look violet at all.
And the blue looks more like a purple.
|
On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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. 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.
And you, and only you have seen through the emotion filled lies of the gay agenda! You are smart enough to know that all the bullied kids, all the couples in love, all the people who are regularly abused day in and day out, all they want is money. My god how far does the rabbit hole go?! TELL ME MORE!
|
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!
Correction... baby blue. unisex. proceed.
|
On June 25 2013 05:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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:
[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. 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. And you, and only you have seen through the emotion filled lies of the gay agenda! You are smart enough to know that all the bullied kids, all the couples in love, all the people who are regularly abused day in and day out, all they want is money. My god how far does the rabbit hole go?! TELL ME MORE!
Do you take the red pill or the blue pill?
He has so much access to deeper transcendent knowledge that we don't even know man!
|
On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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. 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.
Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject.
|
On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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:
[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. 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. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject.
Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes.
|
Nice move TL. I like the support/recognition.
|
I don't like this, because this:
On June 24 2013 22:23 gingerfluffmuff wrote:
Please keep esports away from politics, religion, sexuality and other stuff.
|
On June 25 2013 05:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
That last color in the rainbow doesn't look violet at all.
And the blue looks more like a purple.
I agree! Total outrage!
|
On June 25 2013 05:07 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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:
[quote]
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. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject. Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes.
Rarely, and they don't get in the way of facts. Trying to catch someone in a semantic slip up, like misuse of the word "debtor", is a good way to get your ass handed to you by the judge for not focusing on stuff that matters.
|
On June 25 2013 05:09 Lucumo wrote:I don't like this, because this: Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 22:23 gingerfluffmuff wrote:
Please keep esports away from politics, religion, sexuality and other stuff.
So don't click the thread regarding it, and OMG, you've kept yourself away from this topic, you can view EVERYTHING ELSE on the front page without so much as noticing anything has changed. Kpop? still there. SC2 Forums? Still there! Dota2 forums? Omg, still there.
1 thread.
OMG LIQUID SITE SUCKS NOW.
|
On June 25 2013 05:09 Lucumo wrote:I don't like this, because this: Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 22:23 gingerfluffmuff wrote:
Please keep esports away from politics, religion, sexuality and other stuff.
Equality is not purely about politics.
|
On June 25 2013 05:07 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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:
[quote]
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. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject. Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes.
Good thing that a) The semantic discussion has been completely cleared up pages ago, and b) this is an ethics discussion and not a legal discussion huh?
|
On June 25 2013 05:05 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:04 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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:
[quote]
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. And you, and only you have seen through the emotion filled lies of the gay agenda! You are smart enough to know that all the bullied kids, all the couples in love, all the people who are regularly abused day in and day out, all they want is money. My god how far does the rabbit hole go?! TELL ME MORE! Do you take the red pill or the blue pill? He has so much access to deeper transcendent knowledge that we don't even know man!
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/01/98/00/00/0001980000117_500X500.jpg) + ![[image loading]](https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1641404068/image.jpg) Will lead you to the secret gay tax agenda! Ladies and gentlemen, I present HEAVEN'S GATEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ![[image loading]](http://www.heavensgate.com/img/hbhgtd.jpg)
On a more serious note, notable internet forum user 'Zaqwe' has discovered that the gay agenda is using logos, ethos, and pathos to sway more people to their diabolical cause. Will these three arcane spells lead them to victory? More on this at 11...
|
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.
There may be tolerant parts of society, but MANY homosexuals do deal with extreme levels of hate and discrimination on a daily basis.
|
Support support!
Just came here to express my support!
|
On June 25 2013 05:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:07 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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:
[quote]
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. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject. Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes. Rarely, and they don't get in the way of facts. Trying to catch someone in a semantic slip up, like misuse of the word "debtor", is a good way to get your ass handed to you by the judge for not focusing on stuff that matters.
But; a lot of the supreme court's ruling in regards to constitution are often based on semantics of the wording in the constitution. It's the job of the lawyers to frame the definition of what they're arguing to give a strong context to the judge (or jury).
|
Its a nice, neat little way to show support for a cause they support.  I like it.
|
On June 25 2013 05:13 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:11 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:07 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH 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:
[quote]
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. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject. Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes. Rarely, and they don't get in the way of facts. Trying to catch someone in a semantic slip up, like misuse of the word "debtor", is a good way to get your ass handed to you by the judge for not focusing on stuff that matters. But; a lot of the supreme court's ruling in regards to constitution are often based on semantics of the wording in the constitution. It's the job of the lawyers to frame the definition of what they're arguing to give a strong context to the judge (or jury).
Yes and in the eyes of the law, when one person gets something from the government (a right, privilege, benefit or whatever you want to call it), and another person doesn't get something, based on how they were born, what do you call that? I call it discrimination, and that's the case they are making. What else would you call it, if semantics are really this important?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
