|
On June 29 2013 02:02 Cenecia wrote:
It's not about treating people equally, it's about equal opportunities. Sometimes treating people equally is unfair due to natural or uncontrollable differences such as income, where they live, gender, health, etc... There's a difference between inequality and discrimination. For example, the physical requirement to join the military is different for men and women. It would be unfair to treat them both equally. In the case for gay marriage, though, it would be unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently than hetereosexual relationships because there is no practical difference that would require them to be treated differently.
Wow this is some serious double think.
|
Frankly, I don't know why polygamy isn't recognized either. Bestiality and incest are —per se— unrelated to marriage though, and aside from that, have obvious reasons why they should be discouraged and be illegal. There's no significant obvious reason why polygamy or homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Polygamy can perhaps somewhat be a larger catalyst for spreading disease, but I wouldn't think it'd be much, especially when the polyamorous group stays committed to only that group, not intertwined with other individuals or groups —which as far as I know is the whole point polygamy prevents. So if anything, it's polyamory that is the problem, and polygamy helps fix that problem.
On June 29 2013 00:16 codonbyte wrote: Pennies, for example, cost 2.41 cents to make in 2012 ( source). The vast majority of this cost is the cost of the metals used to make them. This means that if it were legal to destroy money, you could melt down pennies and resell the copper and zinc for a profit.
saving space:+ Show Spoiler +
Not quite. Much of the cost is in the metal, but most of it is in the machinery and power and labor time used to shape and otherwise create the coin.
The value of modern pennies are significantly less than $0.01, or else like you said people would be doing it —despite it being illegal. There was a case (or more) in the past where USA had currency worth more than it's face value though and were melted down to resell; the biggest of which I can think of was old nickels a while back.
That said, old pennies may be what the Snopes article is talking about, but as far as I know it's hard to find a significant amount of pennies that are old enough (pre-1982). Particularly to find enough for it to be worth it also without getting caught (since if the pennies were common it would be much easier to avoid getting caught)
In Canada it may have been a bit easier though, since the metal value of pennies wasn't lowered to a really low value as quickly as it was in the USA. (pre-1999) However, Canada did lower the value of it's penny far more frequently, so that would have made it much harder at points in the past before copper increased as much in value.
...I don't know why I'm talking about this is a thread about marriage
|
Next step is taking another case to the supreme court to get it to make a ruling that state governments must allow gay marriage. That's the next fight since it has already succeeded in California. Californians amended their constitution to say no gay marriage and the 9th circuit court said an amendment to a constitution was unconstitutional.
Any and all anti-gay marriage laws passed by referendum or legislature in any states are very vulnerable to a legal challenge now, since the Supreme Court showed majority support for gay marriage in the DOMA decision, and also support for lower courts striking down anti-gay marriage laws by declining to overturn the 9th Circuit in the Prop 8 case.
|
On June 29 2013 13:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Next step is taking another case to the supreme court to get it to make a ruling that state governments must allow gay marriage. That's the next fight since it has already succeeded in California. Californians amended their constitution to say no gay marriage and the 9th circuit court said an amendment to a constitution was unconstitutional.
Any and all anti-gay marriage laws passed by referendum or legislature in any states are very vulnerable to a legal challenge now, since the Supreme Court showed majority support for gay marriage in the DOMA decision, and also support for lower courts striking down anti-gay marriage laws by declining to overturn the 9th Circuit in the Prop 8 case.
The Ninth Circuit's decision was vacated. It's the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of California that stands.
|
On June 29 2013 13:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Next step is taking another case to the supreme court to get it to make a ruling that state governments must allow gay marriage. That's the next fight since it has already succeeded in California. Californians amended their constitution to say no gay marriage and the 9th circuit court said an amendment to a constitution was unconstitutional.
Any and all anti-gay marriage laws passed by referendum or legislature in any states are very vulnerable to a legal challenge now, since the Supreme Court showed majority support for gay marriage in the DOMA decision, and also support for lower courts striking down anti-gay marriage laws by declining to overturn the 9th Circuit in the Prop 8 case.
Why does California have this stand?
|
Frankly, I don't know why polygamy isn't recognized either. Bestiality and incest are —per se— unrelated to marriage though, and aside from that, have obvious reasons why they should be discouraged and be illegal. There's no significant obvious reason why polygamy or homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed.
A representative in California's legislature already proposed listing three possible parents on every birth certificate. Open marriages and polygamy may be next, but it'll take some more popularity shift. Lobby public opinion, create the activists needed to get the news stories, push the cases forward with judges known for activism, get one to land on the supreme court. Discriminating against loving families with three parents creates a second tier relationship. The state/federal law saying marriage can only involve two partners has the effect of identifying a subset of constitutionally protected sexual relationships and making them unequal. The arguments will be close to the same. I'm the second mom in this marriage and I need the benefits. I was married (hetero-married, forgive me) before I found out I was gay and now I love them both. The law of only 2 in a marriage demeans our polyamorous relationship and my sexual choices are protected in the constitution.
Maybe in another generation we'll be talking about that.
|
On June 29 2013 00:16 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 20:50 Stol wrote:On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently. Affirmative action is actually a pretty clear case of discrimination. Its more or less only allowed as a counterweight to all the other statistically proven discrimination already occurring. On another note I have really never understood how progressive taxes has anything do to with discrimination. You are not paying more taxes because of your skin colour or sex, or anything else for that matter which can in any way be related to you as a person. Money as a concept is not a part of a person, more or less all currencies today has it's value directly derived from government regulation or law. Its pretty much the reason why destroying money is generally prohibited across the world, you only own the value which is ensured by the government, not the actual coins or bills in your hand. Another major reason why destroying money is illegal is that in some cases the coins or bills could actually cost more to make than their face value. This would only really happen with coins, but take the penny for example. Pennies, for example, cost 2.41 cents to make in 2012 ( source). The vast majority of this cost is the cost of the metals used to make them. This means that if it were legal to destroy money, you could melt down pennies and resell the copper and zinc for a profit.
Yes, thats true in some rare cases and while even bills cost money to make they're usually also worth more than their cost. The destruction of bills is on a separate law, much because of the large quantities of pennies it would require to influence the economy by destroying them. Before the metal prices increased to the point where melting pennies down became profitable, it was probably argued that there was no real need to prohibit this. Its most likely also the reason for why only melting coins and exporting them were prohibited, while the law about the destruction of bills is a lot more limiting.
Even the situations with pennies only furthers my point however, you do not own the coins or bills, only their worth, a symbolic "I owe you" from the government. And in this case the government is only willing to pay you a penny, not two and a half cents.
|
On June 29 2013 08:21 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 20:50 Stol wrote:On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently. On another note I have really never understood how progressive taxes has anything do to with discrimination. You are not paying more taxes because of your skin colour or sex, or anything else for that matter which can in any way be related to you as a person. Money as a concept is not a part of a person, more or less all currencies today has it's value directly derived from government regulation or law. Its pretty much the reason why destroying money is generally prohibited across the world, you only own the value which is ensured by the government, not the actual coins or bills in your hand. Thats not true at all. You are saying you can tax certain individuals for any reason and have it not be discrimination. Congress can not say "Lets only tax the team liquid store and no one else" Progressive Taxing is arguably unconstitutional. Your last paragraph explains why getting off the gold standard and having a federal reserve is dumb.
No, I'm saying you can tax certain individuals for general monetary reasons, not any reason.
When it comes to your wild statement about only taxing the team liquid store, the congress could probably say that. As far as I'm aware there are no laws about discriminating against certain types of businesses. I believe alcohol and cigarettes got a higher tax to them in most countries, while other businesses like farming for example often receive governmental support.
That is however beside the point I was making. Taxing someone because they make more money has nothing to do with discrimination as money is not a part of a person.
|
How much money somebody earns, what kind of sexual behavior they want to engage in, what kind of insurance they want to buy, what kind of insurance they don't want to buy. You're on a slippery slope when you talk about discrimination. The constitution makes no exceptions for general monetary reasons. Congress has the power to enact excise taxes, capitation taxes, income taxes, and whatever you want to call the new one the Supremes invented last year (nonpurchase of certain services). If you look hard enough, you'll find some that would [url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/is_a_progressive_tax_constitutional.html]take the position that any progressive income tax is unconstitutional. You might even call it [url=http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-progressive-income-tax-in-us-history#axzz2XaqigIDy]appalling to the founders[/url]. It's a pipe dream if you think it'll ever by found by a supreme court to be unconstitutional in the next hundred years.
|
On June 29 2013 13:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Next step is taking another case to the supreme court to get it to make a ruling that state governments must allow gay marriage. That's the next fight since it has already succeeded in California. Californians amended their constitution to say no gay marriage and the 9th circuit court said an amendment to a constitution was unconstitutional.
Any and all anti-gay marriage laws passed by referendum or legislature in any states are very vulnerable to a legal challenge now, since the Supreme Court showed majority support for gay marriage in the DOMA decision, and also support for lower courts striking down anti-gay marriage laws by declining to overturn the 9th Circuit in the Prop 8 case.
The prop 8 case was done on standing, not on merit. It was a really odd SCOTUS split that it didn't get decided. It'll be another year or two before a similar case comes about with proper standing. You can't use that kind of technicality to declare a win for either side.
|
No, I'm saying you can tax certain individuals for general monetary reasons, not any reason.
Not true at all.
When it comes to your wild statement about only taxing the team liquid store, the congress could probably say that. As far as I'm aware there are no laws about discriminating against certain types of businesses. I believe alcohol and cigarettes got a higher tax to them in most countries, while other businesses like farming for example often receive governmental support.
Cigarettes isn't an individual business. Marlboro is. Congress can not say, "We are going to tax Marlboro and only Marlboro while leaving other cigarette brands untaxed." Nor can they tax TL for having an online store and then not tax some other online store.
That is however beside the point I was making. Taxing someone because they make more money has nothing to do with discrimination as money is not a part of a person.
Complete and utter bullshit and quite frankly, fucking retarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
