| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
But that apparently is not what Sifo is complaining about. I don't get it. Is marriage tax law THAT advantageous to people? At what income level? Tax law is a part of it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/04/21/mar riage-children-tax-credits-and-the-alternative-min imum-tax/ In this context asking "is it THAT advantageous" is the same as asking "is it THAT unconstitutional". It either is or it isn't. It's not a matter of degree. There's another issue of survivor benefits for SS. Also as healthcare becomes more of a government program (pending what the upcoming Supreme Court decision) there will also be likely issues there too. I would guess that there may be numerous other issues that I haven't thought of. | ||
| Blake |
Danger, Don't sell me short! Endorsing and documenting are two entirely different things.  I recall a show, "Horders", about people who are owned by their stuff, some to the point that they choose their horde of junk over family. The shock of learning about the very real extremes of abnormal human psychology can be entertaining. Imagine the same documentary scrutiny applied towards promiscuous homosexual males. Dare you entitle that show? On a related note, a close friend did his internship at Southwest Medical Center in Dallas. Some of the cases he witnessed or learned about from colleagues in the ER were tough to believe, grown men with glass bottles, billiard balls, and even condom encased rodents lodged in their by then dangerously infected and impacted colon--the trip to the ER was usually delayed by days due to the obvious embarrassment factor. Apparently though, enduring such a horrific ordeal wasn't enough to dissuade some who turned into repeat ER customers and/or whose partner later followed suit. The ER doc said that from what he had learned from listening to the patients and their partners, there appeared to be a subculture among the larger homosexual male culture who figured that capacity for fecal canal sodomy was some kind of great achievement, so they had what amounted to an ongoing anal sodomy olympics. Sorry for the nasty digression. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ah! thank you Sifo. So already bad law. Poorly written and enhanced by generations of bribes to corrupt politicians.... ALREADY unconstitutional per Article 1, is unfair because it might grant to gay married couples the same confusing and unfair taxes that het couples have? Some complain of unfairness and want all brought down to the lowest. Some want all brought up. So, I suppose the question is, do we want to subsidize marriage, children, family stability? All three? Just one? None? A lot of this is moot. Barack is perfectly willing to talk about how his daughter's friends parents are gay couples, and therfor he has a sudden revelation that he now supports gay marriage, in speeches. He's willing to scrap Clinton's immoral "don't ask don't tell" policy, though he passes the buck there as to what rules he wants in his new improved world. But Barry is running for his ( and perhaps ours ) Last Election. The number of people who are Gay, support gay marriage as a core issue, or will give him money for a speech about it, is small. Not big enough for him to push hard for any law that will lower his poll number too much. I don't see this subject resolved by the Federal gov anytime soon. That may change if the polls show a big enough advantage, or if the Occupy riots this summer don't help Barry enough, or if his minion's attacks on Romney's wifes disease backfire. Blake, Hamsters & Ferris Wheels don't seem to be a good combo. Does texas still prosecute for sex toys? Is there then a Pet Shop Watch? ( should there be? ) | ||
| Moxnix |
Hmmm. A reality show called Tunnel Tubing? Showing us how gay men stuff pipes up their rear ends and push a live gerbil in for the joy of sexual stimulation? Where is PETA? And a special on "felching"? Hoarding is a psychological disorder, but felching and tunnel tubing should be a human right? Okay..... | ||
| Sifo |
So already bad law. Poorly written and enhanced by generations of bribes to corrupt politicians.... ALREADY unconstitutional per Article 1, is unfair because it might grant to gay married couples the same confusing and unfair taxes that het couples have? I'm not sure about your argument that the current situation is unconstitutional. That case could certainly be brought to the courts though. The issue here has all of the same issues, PLUS a very clear violation of the first amendment rights of those who find gay marriage objectionable. That is how progressivism works though. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sorry, I'm still unclear on your meaning too. ....very clear violation of the first amendment rights of those who find gay marriage objectionable. Are you being suppressed in speech or religion by someone else wanting the same rights? Some folks religions object to women being treated as equals. They are free to say so. ( AFAIK ) They are free to have that faith. Probably with more protection than your faith, making the assumption you are a Christian. ( those Christians are getting attacked a lot. It's the Way of the Leftists. Their religion is a jealous one, and can tolerate no others. ) We should not tolerate the enslavement of women. Period. I'll agree that the "gay rights" movement as a special protected class sure seems "Progressive" to me. Equal rights. Equal pay. ( not like the War on Women in the White House ) I understand not wanting to call 2 loving girls wanting to live together forever with the same partnership rights that a guy and girl have evolved in America over 2 centuries, Marriage. It doesn't matter what you want though, since they are going to call it that even if it has another legal name in a law. I just want the actual injustices addressed. There are some, and they are legit, and they should be dealt with. As to the lengths this will go too? The Limits? Group Marriage seems inevitable. The bit with the hamsters, that's just wrong. They should have PETA in their butts for that. ( can we agree that bestiality is wrong because informed consent cannot be given? ) | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Dare you entitle that show? << English Variety Television. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300640/tran sgender-five-year-old-mona-charen I have issues with this kind of thing.... it seems a lot like the mass diagnosis of ADD by school teachers bothered by those kids who keep asking "why?". There's some real bad science going on here. | ||
| Sifo |
Sorry, I'm still unclear on your meaning too. ....very clear violation of the first amendment rights of those who find gay marriage objectionable. Are you being suppressed in speech or religion by someone else wanting the same rights?
When Congress makes a law that funnels our tax dollars toward defining a religious institution such as marriage, to change it's meaning away from what is acceptable from some religions, they are in fact establishing a religious position established by our government. Simply put into this context... Marriage is a religious institution the pre-dates our government by a long shot. Many religions have considered marriage to be a contract between the man, the woman, and G-d. Government has stepped in to enforce certain aspects of that contract between the man and woman. So far, so good, or at least I don't know of anyone objecting to this part. Government has also included some of it's own social programs into this contract, Social Security for example. This is arguably not an issue as long as the spending of tax dollars on this religious institution is acceptable to all religions (I'm pretty sure all religions recognize the union between a man and a woman). Now we have government trying to redefine marriage to include, for example, a man and a man. Clearly, many religions don't recognize this union of two men, yet followers of those religions will have their tax dollars taken and used to promote this union with the above example of Social Security. This promotion of a religious institution with tax dollars, clearly violates the beliefs of numerous religions. I don't think it could be any more clear. Let's say for example Joe's religion tells him that a man joining with a man is sinful. When we tax Joe and give some of that tax money to Jack, who is the spouse of Jake, you are forcing Joe to support a marriage that is in clear violation of his religious beliefs. Put another way, the government has established new rules that Joe must follow in his belief on marriage (supporting man/man unions with tax dollars). I'm not sure that this can be clarified any further. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
The flaw in your argument Sifo is that , currently, marriage is generally defined as a religious or civil union throughout the civilised world. I'm perfectly aware that marriage predates your nation, I have lived in houses that predate your nation, neither fact is relevant to where we are today. I'm neither for nor against gay marriage or heterosexual marriage, or religious or secular marriage. As far as I can see, your government is either A; discriminating against religious institutions who are opposed to gay marriage, or B; discriminating against the gay community on religious grounds. Either way both are wrong in my eyes. but I'm a wishy washy liberal foreigner so my opinion's not worth squat.  | ||
| Sifo |
The flaw in your argument Sifo is that , currently, marriage is generally defined as a religious or civil union throughout the civilised world. No flaw in my argument. It is limited to the laws of the US under our Constitution. What other countries do with their laws is irrelevant. | ||
| Aesquire |
Government has stepped in to enforce certain aspects of that contract between the man and woman. So far, so good, or at least I don't know of anyone objecting to this part. Well, there's all those Mormons who were forced to give up polygamy to join the U.S. There's all those Muslims who still believe in polygamy, concubines, and the utter total subjugation of women. Women in Islam are not only property, but must worship through the male as he is the only one worthy of worshiping G-d. A lot of U.S. laws ( that I agree with ) about womens rights, and marriage, "clearly violates the beliefs of numerous religions." Why can't I marry Betty AND Veronica? Why can't Angelina marry Billy and Brad? How about Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice? Unfair, anti religious marriage laws. I think Sifo is stretching it to say that badly written tax laws that incentivize marriage ( with good reason, or at least good intent ) in SOME cases, but not all, is an attack on religion. When the "stuck on adolescent rejection of parental authority" atheists and others attack religion, viciously, and with evil intent, they often complain that we give unfair tax advantages to medieval institutions. The Catholic Church, for example is one of the largest land owners in the City of Rochester NY. All of that formerly taxed property is now off the rolls. Why? To make the Pope richer? To strengthen religion at government expense? To evade estate taxes? ( actually, yeah, it's that one ) So, yes, tax laws give an unfair advantage to SOME married couples, but by no means all. To extend that same unfairness to all marriage, traditional or no..... seems as fair as you can expect. It's not like Congress is actually going to fix the unfairness, is it? While we're at it, I used "traditional" wrong. Other forms of marriage than "one man, one woman" are just as old, and just as traditional as one enshrined by "The Church" for the last 1500 + years. Priests used to marry. In fact, in the more Original Church ( Orthodox ) I believe they still can. The Roman heresy of celibate priests, and NO priestesses came in medieval times the Church decided that they did not want Priests passing down Church Property to sons. Logical, rational, but in no way Divine. Traditional, in some times and some religions, not all. 2 person, heterosexual, romantic marriage, is probably the rarest form used by man since the caveman days. ( which is 6000 years ago according to a fellow at work. ) Just because it's the basis of most Bollywood movies doesn't mean it's the way The Director intended. | ||
| Sifo |
Well, there's all those Mormons who were forced to give up polygamy to join the U.S. There's all those Muslims who still believe in polygamy, concubines, and the utter total subjugation of women. Women in Islam are not only property, but must worship through the male as he is the only one worthy of worshiping G-d. A lot of U.S. laws ( that I agree with ) about womens rights, and marriage, "clearly violates the beliefs of numerous religions." I won't pretend to understand if those issues you bring up are a violation of rights or not. I really haven't put much time into looking at those issues. They aren't really related to the issue at hand though, marriage being allowed among same sex couples, along with associated government sponsored benefits. I think Sifo is stretching it to say that badly written tax laws that incentivize marriage ( with good reason, or at least good intent ) in SOME cases, but not all, is an attack on religion. This may be the key to your confusion about my argument. I never made the argument that any of this is an attack on religion. I'm merely pointing out that the result is not Constitutional on first amendment grounds. So, yes, tax laws give an unfair advantage to SOME married couples, but by no means all. To extend that same unfairness to all marriage, traditional or no..... seems as fair as you can expect. It's not like Congress is actually going to fix the unfairness, is it? Should our laws strive to be fair, Constitutional, or both? I believe that Constitutional should be a given. After that hurdle, fair laws are a great thing. Yes, I can see that current laws create and unfairness to gay couples, polygamists, etc. I just don't see that making unfair laws unconstitutional to be a viable solution. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Do you really think they want you to 'obey' all the cannons and lines of legal ease in that bill....? There is no money in that, no controversy, no crisis that they can take advantage. The bill is written so that it contradicts both logic and itself many times; you could not enter into the beginning of the bill and be compliant.... and upon complete reading and review by a litigation team of their agenda that you could avoid fine, levy, seizure by the end of the audit. and that is there intent. This law creates NO health care. It improves NO delivery, it expands the reach and oppression of Medicaid - without any contention to cost, resources, or availability. It is a bad bill - worse that they want to frame it as a 'civil' right. If you 'like' the bill; you haven't read it, were paid off by it, don't have an understanding of history/economics/insurance; or the trifecta - all three. | ||
| Aesquire |
....the issue at hand though, marriage being allowed among same sex couples, along with associated government sponsored benefits. Ok, Obviously I'm missing out on some aspect of government sponsoring marriage other than a sometimes tax break. I guess I don't get where the deal is? How does a tax break for marriage violate First Amendment rights? Seems like a desirable incentive for stability in society. Like one for Home Ownership. ( but not like, I think we can see, backing loans themselves for Home ownership.... or education. That seems a different discussion ) As far as Obamacare goes and how it treats Gays & Straights, I have no idea. Ask City... | ||
| Aesquire |
 | ||
| Sifo |
Ok, Obviously I'm missing out on some aspect of government sponsoring marriage other than a sometimes tax break. I guess I don't get where the deal is? OK. I'll say it again... SOCIAL SECURITY! There are survivorship benefits for a spouse. This is a direct payout of tax dollars to individuals. In the case being discussed, the individual would get this tax money for engaging in an act that many find morally wrong based on long standing religious beliefs. That tax money would be coming from those who, for religious reasons, don't believe this behavior should be promoted. This is a clear case of legislation that forces a person to pay for moral choices of others that go against their religious beliefs. This is no different than tax payer funded abortions. If you find abortions to be against your religious beliefs, you shouldn't have to pay for others to have them. Likewise, if you find gay marriages to be against your religious beliefs, you shouldn't have to pay for benefits that come from that marriage. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Those of us that are working, and paying taxes that object to what this government is doing - to give the a full dose of the notion depth and breadth of Civil Disobedience that Thoreau advocated. NOT IN MY NAME. I will not pay a cent of it. whether domestic or overseas - I am done paying taxes. Suck it. The bill is a full conscription of every man woman and child into forced medical servitude via contrived exploitation for the duration of life. I am surprised that the hippies that burned their draft cards are so f'n excited about it.... oh wait - NEVER trust anyone over 35. NOT IN MY NAME. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
gays and health care do a bit of research for the annual Allocations for PEPFAR, and the Ryan White clause... and then follow the NGO maze of all the heads in the kettle for AIDS/HIV detection,education, awareness, diversity, sensitivity and civil rights - it is the budget of many small countries. there is a fat wad of the pie slice that goes to this portion of the population. and with the exception of a negligible statistical sampling of those that got it from a transfusion in the 90s, or from birth of an infected parent - it is a selected disease. but then again so are smoking and obesity. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ok, Sifo, SS. That actually makes sense. Getting survivors benefits when your partner passes away, ONLY because you indulge in acts that offend some people, can be seen as an issue. ( and, if you are NOT indulging in said vile acts of religious horror, you probably are not in a long term relationship. For the first years, at least. That's true if you are het or bent. Hypothetically, if my significant other didn't do that thing I like to do on Ferris Wheels, we wouldn't be together long. So I see your point.) ( I also like mountain tops, warm grotto's while scuba diving, and some other things that just might be over sharing.... sorry. See cartoon above. ) Being a supportive and dependent person in a long term relationship shouldn't have a thing to do with it, right? If City, who has read the bill, says there are special favors for groups that contribute mainly to one party, I would not be surprised. That's why I failed to understand the whole tax thing. It's so dependent on how much in bribes your peers can muster to the right politicians. Pretty Unconstitutional stuff, but no one ( other than the defamed and maligned Cain ) has put forth any plans to end this lucrative practice. Barry plans to spend over a Billion$, above the table. Below? Way below, he's already spent a Trillion or so. The various Rep. pacs plan to spend a Billion$ too. Not one penny, you will notice, out of the politician's own ( usually millionare )pocket. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Lies from the front that they are finally admitting. If you like your doctor, you can keep him (Unless your doctor refuses to accept medicare- medicaid, and more are dropping that coverage line ) We want to make care 'affordable' “Premiums for health insurance in the individual market will be somewhat higher on average under (the healthcare law) than under prior law, mostly because the average insurance policy in that market will cover a larger share of enrollees’ costs for healthcare and provide a slightly wider range of benefits, Reports the CBO today. (duh) Now for the kicker .... the companies that are 'offering' individual insurance .... less than 50% are deemed 'compliant' and face fines come 1.1.2014 .... wanna bet how many of them elect to even CARRY individual lines of coverage after that date ? Washington State History and performance predicts.... NONE. In five years - the individual commercial insurance market is gone domestically. DONE. Make your money now - that ship is sinking... and they are finally noticing | ||
| Aesquire |
...the individual commercial insurance market is gone domestically. DONE. That is, in fact, by admission, the true purpose of Obamacare. Want to see the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfOWnZ82Pm4 Not enough? How about the former DNC chairman? http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-cont roversies/1384774-fmr-dnc-chairman-dean-admits-oba macare.html That and the trillion$ in higher taxes.... I don't recall if that was 5 or 10 years... Betting on 2...so, at least 500 Billion a year, after it gets actually going. Starting right after Obama gets re-elected, or sent home to Burma. ( that's right! starting a New Rumor, right here, today! ) Of course, THEN when we are all on socialized medicine, the "gay" advantage Sifo worries about will vanish. AIDS drugs are really expensive. ( the breakthroughs in developing anti-viral drugs may make us thankful for AIDS, someday, but it sucks now. ) No way will a system that is already planned to have "death panels" ( yep, they are going to exist.... but not how you think. ) to deny you care, since you are not "worth" it, pay for expensive drugs like the poor AIDS victims use. | ||
| Crusty |
There is a constant parade of Senators and Representatives running off at the mouth about reforming healthcare - cause "we don't want 'Socailzed Medicine'!" They want to REFORM YOUR HEALTHCARE - BUT TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR HEALTHCARE - They are on the best government run healtcare program in the country. This program is pure ......... (drum roll)...................SOCALIZED MEDICINE! ...........And, it works very well, thank you - (otherwise, they would have changed it years ago). These people are playing the old shell game with us - which walnut is the pea under? Don't fall for this..................these people are lying to you, pure and simple. | ||
| Sifo |
 Of course, THEN when we are all on socialized medicine, the "gay" advantage Sifo worries about will vanish. I keep pointing to SS as the problem, not health care. I thought we got to where you understood that. I guess not. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The 'death' panels are indeed in there. They are called 'Quality Review Assessment and Adjustment Committees' and they have already started making national standards of what is, and what is not considered authorized care. Washington State just posted a 700 dx list of illnesses, symptoms, and conditions that will NOT be paid.... acute chest pain is one of them. enjoy. | ||
| Aesquire |
SS won't exist much longer, at the current rate. Nor Private medicine, nor "god given" rights. Nor cardiac patients, looks like. Since so much of my hard earned income goes to idiots like Mayor salt,softdrink,& transfats, I find it hard to get upset at SS survivors benefits for people not of the norm. But, if that's your trigger, enjoy. I'm trying to figure out how to smuggle big gulps into Manhattan and cigs into CA. Would pretending to be gay help me with that? | ||
| Sifo |
But, if that's your trigger, enjoy. I never said it was my trigger. I'm simply pointing the Constitutional conflict that is created. I would have thought that this would be plain to see by now. If not, I have no idea what can be said to make it any more clear. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"I will not pay a cent of it. whether domestic or overseas - I am done paying taxes. " yeah right. quit lying to us. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html not a f*cking cent, farthing, shilling, yuan, pence, ruble, havarina, marc, yen, euro or Amero Nothing left to loose, nothing left to fear. F*ck it. | ||
| Moxnix |
The world-wide black economy (as in illegal and untaxed) is huge and getting more huge. Easy, squeezy. |
