If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   All you need to know about the seven cases the Supreme Court has on its menu for gay-marriage day   (motherjones.com) divider line 325
    More: Interesting, California Supreme Court, personnel management, Lambda Legal, domestic partners, Office of Personnel Management, US House of Representatives, California Constitution, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

10829 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



325 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-30 02:20:40 PM  
You know what the Bible says about gay marriage...
 
2012-11-30 02:20:53 PM  

I drunk what: until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about)


First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.

Second, whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" (a misleading term in and of itself) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else.
 
2012-11-30 02:21:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: ANSWER THE DAMNED MATH QUESTION.


Wow, okay. I don't see where anyone in your math question has a child.

Dr Dreidel: are you claiming they'd pay half the effective rate as Jonesy


I'm not claiming anything about childless persons. So I guess the answer is no? Yes? Whichever will prevent you having a stroke?
 
2012-11-30 02:24:35 PM  

natazha: steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. .

The Obamacare mandate was ruled constitutional as a tax. DOMA has much less to stand on. I'm amazed it has taken this long to be struck down. (Yes, I'm anticipating the ruling.)


Actually, it's not a tax, it's a penalty, but the taxing clause gives Congress the power to impose such penalties.

The media coverage of that one was ridiculously awful at explaining the distinction, primarily because the Republican party was set on conflating the two for political purposes.
 
2012-11-30 02:25:32 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: 1. The government doesn't have to shoulder the entire burden of supporting them. Adopt an orphan and you get child tax benefits. Care for your disabled cousin and you get a dependent deduction. Neither example incentivizes making a baby.

Agreed. Subsidies for adopting should stay in place. Caring for a disabled cousin should still depend on your need. Are you low income, or have a demonstrated financial need then yes, you receive a dependent deduction (as i already said, btw).


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?
 
2012-11-30 02:27:49 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: I drunk what: until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about)

First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.

Second, whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" (a misleading term in and of itself) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else.


IDW is simply going to deflect, give you the run-around, and repeat himself until you grow tired of talking to him. He's a professional troll who constantly redefines things to suit his trolling needs.
 
2012-11-30 02:27:49 PM  

I drunk what: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Imma gonna gay marry a pygmy goat.

Free Radical: Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!

[cdn.front.moveon.org image 400x246]

lulz....wait a minute

/derp?


Major derp, dude. But in all seriousness, why don't we do the Malaysia thing, just for kicks and giggles? A friend who is a frequent traveler type person told me they have two separate justice systems there. One for the Muslims, one for everyone else. So while I could apparently dance on tables and drink in a bar with impunity, if you're Muslim, you're in trouble if you do that. She said there was even a model (Muslim women can be models? The hussies!) that was publicly caned for being caught drinking there. So let's just do the Christian version of Sharia law here in Cali, but only for the Christians. That way my Vidar worshiping ass can dance to black metal, drink booze, gay marry if I ever catch teh gey, and other such shenanigans and it would be totally legal for me, but totally not legal for the nearest Baptist or some types of Lutheran or Church of Christ member or whatever weird, Judaic-Pagan religion they had joined and claimed as their own.

See? Problem solved. My religion stays over here, everyone else with their religion (or lack of religion, but for some odd reason, total jackholes who think it is their business who others marry) over there or I'll have to discard my Cali heritage and go with the Norwegian heritage and start destoyin' stuff. I'll start by setting a garbage can alight, but it may just end up with churches (or countries) being set on fire. People need to just leave one another alone unless they're helping, and things like the "gay marriage debate", which shouldn't even be a debate, is not considered "helping".

/hasn't gone full Viking yet, but could
//don't push it, I'm armed with a skateboard and a bottle of akvavit!
///GRAR!!! Dudes, just GRAR!!!
 
2012-11-30 02:30:52 PM  

I drunk what: lennavan: I'm with you.

i highly doubt that, however the following word salad wasn't much help in indicating whether or not that is true

can someone translate his post for me? i don't speak gibberish


I said I agree with you and then just reiterated what you said -- if let orphaned kids call themselves a family, then parents will abandon their kids more often.
 
2012-11-30 02:31:38 PM  

mbillips: steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.

Hahahahaha, good one! ::wipes eyes:: Oh, I needed the laugh today.

/Get answer from back of the book, work backwards to show your "research." It's the Scalia way.


When will this cockmunch decide to retire! I only hope Obama get to replace 3 in this term to swing the court to a more normal mindset.
 
2012-11-30 02:31:45 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50


Ok, so he does have a point, just not the point he thought he was making.
 
2012-11-30 02:32:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: IDW is simply going to deflect, give you the run-around, and repeat himself until you grow tired of talking to him.


He and I go way back. You'll notice that I'm not taking the time to write detailed responses in full paragraphs.
 
2012-11-30 02:33:40 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?


Continued tax breaks for lower income families is. I'm not sure I would go so far as to sign off on any communist manifesto though. That seems like an awful thin stretch from what was simply a statement about removing a tax deduction. ???

Again, if you disagree, it's okay to just say you disagree. :) You don't have to try to create some elaborate and weirdly unrelated political trap. :)
 
2012-11-30 02:34:19 PM  

BigBooper: Free Radical: Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!

/derp

I thought it was marriage to turtles that we wanted to legalize. Cause you know they go all the way down.


What the hell is wrong with you people. It's ducks. (sound).
 
2012-11-30 02:36:12 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.


Let's not pretend nothing is known about homosexuality. Possibility has nothing to do with it, homosexuality is both genetic and environment. Pretty close to 40/60 genetics/environment.

It's really easy to do with twin studies. Identical twins share genetics and environment. Fraternal twins do not share genetics but do share environment. If it was entirely genetic, if one identical twin was gay, the other twin would be gay.

Link
 
2012-11-30 02:46:42 PM  

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people.


Jefferson did, going by one of his more well known documents

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,"
 
2012-11-30 02:46:42 PM  

lennavan: Well honeypie, he did. And you did when you agreed with him. I claimed families are struggling and he replied "Stop nitpicking, I'm not talking about people at or below the poverty line." And you agreed.


Sugarplum, if I say that the alphabet extends "from A to Z" am I denying the existence of the other 24 letters?

Nits, you're picking them.
 
2012-11-30 02:50:11 PM  

lennavan: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

So I'll admit, I saw this post and evaluated it as far too obvious. But with the sheer volume of replies that I never saw coming, I am forced to revisit my initial assessment. I was wrong, you were dead on.

11/10, bravo. You taught me something today.


People actually believe his shiat. I think the opportunity is just too tempting.

/After years of hearing it, though, my reply would be far less eloquent
//And involve a one-fingered salute and lecture on how America is not a theocracy
 
2012-11-30 02:54:02 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Whichever is your "core-value."


2 Parents + offspring (biological)

while i do encourage neighbors taking care of each other, we aren't going to label them family so that people think you can just play silly little semantic games to "argue" your point

BarkingUnicorn: So your answer is "Yes, they are families."


1/2 Parents + offspring, yes it still falls under the "family" core

BarkingUnicorn: We're talking about the definition of "family."


Actually everyone in this thread is talking about Marriage, Family is a related term, that has some bearing on the discussion but is not equivalent to the topic

if you'd rather put the marriage topic on hold i suppose we can just focus on family for now

BarkingUnicorn: So your answer is "Yes, they are families."


in the "blood relation" sense sure, but the core def.? nope

that's why we call them extended "family", and if you extend it out far enough everyone is your family

BarkingUnicorn: So your answer is "Yes, they can claim to have families."


in an artificial sense, there are parents + children, though they aren't a core family (biological parents + children)

BarkingUnicorn: We're talking about the definition of "family."


so if wolves raise children, those children aren't allowed to claim them as "family"? interesting

BarkingUnicorn: Should infertile people be forbidden to marry?


WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY"

see? i can be a butthead, too :)

BarkingUnicorn: No anwer to my question.


family - parents = offspring

they can claim to be siblings, since all people on earth can claim to be family, it tends to make that word lose meaning

though it regains that meaning in a spiritual sense, but aren't anywhere near that point yet

good so far?
 
2012-11-30 02:55:07 PM  

qorkfiend: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Clearly the writers of the Constitution intended all citizens to have equal protection under the law. Sorry.


I'm pro-equality, but that's plain incorrect. The writers on the Constitution intended white property-owning Protestant men to have equal protection under the law. Slaves, Indians, and women weren't considered people. This is why contextual interpretation is important regarding the Constitution.
 
2012-11-30 02:56:15 PM  

monoski: He has been banging his dog for years and in cohabitation so they could claim common-law marriage.


Once again, and in a truly icky context, I have to point out that open and notorious cohabitation is insufficient to establish common-law marriage (in those states which allow it, and not all 57 do): the parties have to openly and notoriously refer to themselves as spouses.

And while Fido, here, may "speak", he/she cannot give consent nor advise anyone about the level of his/her spousal commitment, so I'm afraid that common-law marriage is right out.
 
2012-11-30 02:57:20 PM  

lennavan: Possibility has nothing to do with it, homosexuality is both genetic and environment.


I'm aware of studies like this, (though not as familiar with the current field as I should be.) I was simply responding to the false dichotomy that you either have a gene that's guaranteed to make you flaming gay, or you wake up one day and willfully decide "I hate God, therefore I think I'll start craving cock." Lots of things happen during development, (which is your point, of course.)

I'll look over the article when I'm not at work. Thanks!
 
2012-11-30 03:03:12 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: You'll notice that I'm not taking the time to write detailed responses in full paragraphs.


splendid and now you'll notice that i put an equal amount of effort into responding to your posts

/seeing how we go back
//{mirror.jpg}

Martian_Astronomer: First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.

Second, whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" (a misleading term in and of itself) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else.


1st genetic == innate
2nd choice =/= genetic (false "dichotomy")

//enjoy
///the quotes were a freebie
 
2012-11-30 03:09:32 PM  
While there's no need to address any of the scum sucking immoral homophobes in a direct sense, I would like to just point out that you guys are going to lose. You are also going to be despised by everyone else after you've lost.

You are going to witness the very public collapse of your disgusting ideology and then will be shamed for ever having held it. In your lifetime.

Personally, I think that's awesome.
 
2012-11-30 03:12:23 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: repeat himself until you grow tired of talking to him.


it's almost as if his words have meaning and he actually understands things...???

what a troll, IGNORE FTW

did everyone hear that? I said i'm going to put IDW on ignore, because i'm smart and cool

tell your friends how cool i am, pay attention to me11111!1111!!
 
2012-11-30 03:12:48 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: ANSWER THE DAMNED MATH QUESTION.

Wow, okay. I don't see where anyone in your math question has a child.

Dr Dreidel: are you claiming they'd pay half the effective rate as Jonesy

I'm not claiming anything about childless persons. So I guess the answer is no? Yes? Whichever will prevent you having a stroke?


I was asking you to show your work in how the one "taxpayer's" rate/total owed ends up as double the other's. The same way I presented an example. At no point did I say anything that contradicts anything you've said, and it appeared that you were evading the question. Also in your OP was nothing specific about "childless" couples (though you did say it's an "average" couple - meaning 2.5 kids?).

So really, your first answer might have addressed that my assumptions were wrong, rather than arguing against a point I never made. I asked a math question, you answered a policy question.

// no harm, no foul
// you were still in thread, and it looked more like either evasion or that you were putting arguments in my words that weren't there
 
2012-11-30 03:15:03 PM  

Tigger: While there's no need to address any of the scum sucking immoral homophobes in a direct sense, I would like to just point out that you guys are going to lose. You are also going to be despised by everyone else after you've lost.

You are going to witness the very public collapse of your disgusting ideology and then will be shamed for ever having held it. In your lifetime.

Personally, I think that's awesome.


I'm with you on this one. Like, totally, dude. I shall raise a shot glass of ice cold akvavit in honor of your prescience now.

/skål!
 
2012-11-30 03:15:27 PM  

Tigger: immoral homophobes


lol
hellogiggles.com

/bonus lulz:
//gay people are scary
///rawr

Tigger: I would like to just point out that you guys are going to lose.


because nobody cares? in that case we've already lost :( 

/why don't people care anymore?
//sad panda
 
2012-11-30 03:20:10 PM  

I drunk what: splendid and now you'll notice that i put an equal amount of effort into responding to your posts


If you would like to have a sincere conversation in which we respond in detail to each other's points without changing the subject, you're welcome to start one.

I drunk what: 1st genetic == innate
2nd choice =/= genetic (false "dichotomy")


Things that happen during fetal development may not be genetic, but can't be said to be a willful choice on the part of the fetus either. Similarly, many things that a child has zero control over affect the brain development producing permanent biological results.

You can argue for genetic vs. not genetic, or "not a choice" vs. "choice," but genetic and "not a choice" are not equivalent.
 
2012-11-30 03:24:45 PM  

AirForceVet: I look forward to seeing DOMA declared unconstitutional as a clear violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution. i.e. the Full Faith and Credit Clause, IMHO.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



Um - i want DOMA to go down like NPH on cock, but you do realize that FF&C is a bad tack, as Congress has prescribed the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof: they have said they have no effect whatsoever.

The trick with the FF&C is that the congress gets to decide if and when it kicks in.
 
2012-11-30 03:25:39 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?

Continued tax breaks for lower income families is. I'm not sure I would go so far as to sign off on any communist manifesto though. That seems like an awful thin stretch from what was simply a statement about removing a tax deduction. ???

Again, if you disagree, it's okay to just say you disagree. :) You don't have to try to create some elaborate and weirdly unrelated political trap. :)


But I'm on Fark's politics tab; gotta follow the rules! :-)

The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements. You've agreed that by supporting dependents people do society some good. Then you say people shouldn't be rewarded by society if they have, by some arbitrary standard, the ability to do society some good. "From each according to his ability." But people who have need for society's help (again, by an arbitrary standard) should get it. "To each according to his needs."

I would argue that the social good done by wealthier people who support dependents is probably greater than the social good done by poor people. The wealthier tend to keep their dependents healthier; educate them better; turn their dependent kids into more productive citizens. Or does poverty not breed poverty?

So who is more deserving of society's reward, on a quid pro quo basis?

We're far from your original argument that child tax benefits contribute to overpopulation. I'm pointing out that there are considerations besides that one. I'll add that I think the contribution to overpopulation is trivial.
 
2012-11-30 03:27:00 PM  

Serious Black: Notabunny: Serious Black: In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said that while he could not find a right to privacy in the Constitution and thus had to vote to uphold the sodomy law, he called the law uncommonly silly and even said that he would have voted to repeal the law if he were a Texas legislator. What makes you think he'll suddenly say the federal government has the power to do something that has been the states' exclusive power since the ratification of the Constitution?

- This isn't a states rights issue.
- He voted to uphold sodomy laws. He was on the wrong side of a 6-3 decision which found the Texas law violated the equal protection clause. That's the clause at the heart of Prop 8.
- In Romer vs. Evans, Thomas sided with Scalia's and Rehnquist's position that State laws should not protect gay rights saying, "Coloradans are entitled to be he called the decision is an "unsupported victory for homosexual activist," saying Colorado constitutional provision was merely a "rather modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority."

DOMA absolutely is a states rights issue (at least it will be to him I think). Congress's powers are enumerated and limited. None of them involve defining what a marriage is. That's a power that is reserved for the states. Clarence Thomas has consistently ruled in ways that promote the authority of states, and allowing the federal government to define marriage can be seen as usurping that power.

Yes, he voted to uphold sodomy laws, but he did it while saying he thought the laws were ludicrous and that he would repeal the law if he had the power to do so.

The dissent he signed on Romer v. Evans was written by Scalia. Compare and contrast the language in that dissent with the dissent Thomas wrote himself in Lawrence v. Texas. All of the hateful screed about the homosexual agenda was Scalia's invention.

If you're as confident that he'll uphold as I am that he'll strike it down, would you like to make a friendly wager? Say, one month of TotalFark or an equivalent donation to a charity of the victor's choice?


I want in on that. Thomas hates teh gay. It's not even a question he'll uphold DOMA. Even the most optimistic SCOTUS watchers know this. You hear Kennedy maybe, Roberts sure, but no one ever says Thomas. The fact that he thinks sodomy are "uncommonly silly" is absolutely no indication of his feelings on gay marriage. Your mistake is in thinking he has integrity and actually gives a damn about state's rights to make laws he disapproves of.
 
2012-11-30 03:29:13 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Serious Black: My guess is SCOTUS will take up DOMA since it's ludicrous to have a federal law be unenforceable in parts of the country but enforceable in others. My guess is also the conservatives are hoping they'll take up California's case so they can declare the states don't have the power to legalize marriage equality.

Here's my take:

Prop 8 is upheld, but is struck down with DOMA.


That doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-11-30 03:31:30 PM  
They're not hearing any of them?
 
2012-11-30 03:34:42 PM  
Looks like no action today - so sayeth the SCOTUSblog
 
2012-11-30 03:42:27 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements.


Heh. No. Not even close. "From each according to his ability" means you take from them as much as they have the ability to produce. All of it. I'm not advocating anything close to that. And you are being quite silly. Though funny.
 
2012-11-30 03:43:29 PM  

Deucednuisance: lennavan: Well honeypie, he did. And you did when you agreed with him. I claimed families are struggling and he replied "Stop nitpicking, I'm not talking about people at or below the poverty line." And you agreed.

Sugarplum, if I say that the alphabet extends "from A to Z" am I denying the existence of the other 24 letters?

Nits, you're picking them.


Pumpkinbutter, this is more like I said "the alphabet extends from A to Z" and he replied "I already agreed the alphabet contains the letter A."

Stupidity, you're defending it.
 
2012-11-30 03:52:59 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


And you are completely wrong. The dependent deduction has nothing to do with "incentivizing breeding" since it also applies to persons other than your offspring. The social advantage is that you gain a slight tax advantage to take care of people who otherwise might have been a much more costly burden on the state.
 
2012-11-30 03:59:41 PM  
I drunk what:

Our conversation is still about marriage. I took issue with you when you introduced "definition of core-value family unit" as a reason for denying gays the right to marry.

Is it your position that the only reason to allow a marriage is so that two people can make "legitimate" offspring?

If not, why do the genders of a couple who wish to marry matter?

Marriage does not confer the right to raise kids. Many married couples are denied adoptions. Many married couples have their offspring taken away. The question of whether gays make good parents is unrelated to the question of whether they should be able to marry.
 
2012-11-30 04:06:34 PM  

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


They also apparently intended whites to be able to legally own black people, so I guess you're a big fan of slavery, hunh?
 
2012-11-30 04:12:17 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?

Continued tax breaks for lower income families is. I'm not sure I would go so far as to sign off on any communist manifesto though. That seems like an awful thin stretch from what was simply a statement about removing a tax deduction. ???

Again, if you disagree, it's okay to just say you disagree. :) You don't have to try to create some elaborate and weirdly unrelated political trap. :)

But I'm on Fark's politics tab; gotta follow the rules! :-)

The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements. You've agreed that by supporting dependents people do society some good. Then you say people shouldn't be rewarded by society if they have, by some arbitrary standard, the ability to do society some good. "From each according to his ability." But people who have need for society's help (again, by an arbitrary standard) should get it. "To each according to his needs."

I would argue that the social good done by wealthier people who support dependents is probably greater than the social good done by poor people. The wealthier tend to keep their dependents healthier; educate them better; turn their dependent kids into more productive citizens. Or does poverty not breed poverty?

So who is more deserving of society's reward, on a quid pro quo basis?

We're far from your original argument that child tax benefits contribute to overpopulation. I'm pointing out that there are considerations besides that one. I'll add that I think the contribution to overpopulation is trivial.


And why does poverty breed poverty? Lack of opportunity for offspring to better themselves. And when lack of opportunity persists, lack of motivation might be impacted.
 
2012-11-30 04:16:15 PM  

silvervial: And you are completely wrong. The dependent deduction has nothing to do with "incentivizing breeding" since it also applies to persons other than your offspring. The social advantage is that you gain a slight tax advantage to take care of people who otherwise might have been a much more costly burden on the state.


Lol. I already said subsidies for adoption should stay.

So, you are completely wrong.  Sorry.
 
2012-11-30 04:17:27 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements.

Heh. No. Not even close. "From each according to his ability" means you take from them as much as they have the ability to produce. All of it. I'm not advocating anything close to that. And you are being quite silly. Though funny.


It may have meant that to Marx, but it cogently summarizes your position too.

Just going to ignore my argument that wealthier people deserve dependent tax breaks more than poor people because the former do more social good than the latter? I'm rather proud of that one. :-)
 
2012-11-30 04:18:26 PM  

BigBooper: PonceAlyosha: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.

It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.


assets.nydailynews.com 

You might want to go back and reread your bible. The crime the people of Sodom were guilty of was lack of charity/hospitality, abuse, and rape.
 
2012-11-30 04:22:00 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: It may have meant that to Marx, but it cogently summarizes your position too.


Wow. If you are really this freaked out about my suggestion of removing one tax deduction, you really shouldn't look a few threads up at the hundreds of people who want to raise taxes by 100%. Your head will explode, if you think I'm marxist. :)

BarkingUnicorn: Just going to ignore my argument that wealthier people deserve dependent tax breaks more than poor people because the former do more social good than the latter? I'm rather proud of that one. :-)


I guess I can just say, I disagree with regressive taxation in general. Which would include the one you suggest.
 
2012-11-30 04:26:23 PM  
It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.
 
2012-11-30 04:37:43 PM  

MrEricSir: It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.


Yeah, it's almost like a very diverse nation of 300+ million people from cultures all over the world, takes just a few years longer to come to a consensus than homogenous nations of 30 million. Heh. Relax and stop being so embarrassed of yourself. You'd be just as (wrongly) embarrassed to be in one of the many EU nations currently working on the same inevitable decision.
 
2012-11-30 04:38:20 PM  

Jim_Callahan: crzybtch: Which reminds me, despite being married in the church and taking that "holy vow" I knew a guy who was married for 30 years and had 5 kids but was able to get an annulment so that he could marry the woman he was cheating with.

You clearly know some obscenely rich people. Even getting the pope to notice your annulment request is expensive as all hell.

Also, once you have kids, an annulment doesn't actually help you, sin-wise. Because all those kids are now bastards, and having children out of wedlock is one of those can't-really-repent-effectively ones. You're actually better off sin-wise to keep cheating and hope to live long enough that your libido fails before you die, and confess at least once between the two occurrences.


Actually he wasn't that rich, but I also suspect maybe he had mob connections. And the only reason he even wanted an annulment was because wife #2 wanted to be married in the church!
 
2012-11-30 04:40:09 PM  

Rindred: I would argue that the social good done by wealthier people who support dependents is probably greater than the social good done by poor people. The wealthier tend to keep their dependents healthier; educate them better; turn their dependent kids into more productive citizens. Or does poverty not breed poverty?

So who is more deserving of society's reward, on a quid pro quo basis?

And why does poverty breed poverty? Lack of opportunity for offspring to better themselves. And when lack of opportunity persists, lack of motivation might be impacted.


Very true, but a separate issue. We're talking about who deserves dependent tax breaks. ThrobblefootSpectre says wealthier people don't deserve them at all. I counter that the wealthy deserve them more than poor people based upon the social good that each group tends to do.

It depends on your definition of "deserve." Do you deserve it because you need it, or because you earned it? Which takes precedence: what you deserve (either way) or what's best for society?

Fun things to debate.
 
2012-11-30 04:45:47 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: MrEricSir: It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Yeah, it's almost like a very diverse nation of 300+ million people from cultures all over the world, takes just a few years longer to come to a consensus than homogenous nations of 30 million. Heh. Relax and stop being so embarrassed of yourself. You'd be just as (wrongly) embarrassed to be in one of the many EU nations currently working on the same inevitable decision.


"Coming to a consensus" has NOTHING to do with civil rights. If we had to have a consensus on these issues, we'd still have slavery.
 
2012-11-30 04:46:11 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Our conversation is still about marriage.


i'm good lad, you must have me confused with some unicorn barking at people

BarkingUnicorn: I took issue with you when you introduced "definition of core-value family unit" as a reason for denying gays the right to marry.


hmm, good point, allow me to correct myself:

I drunk what: because people who disagree with: the idea that homosexuality should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle choice even to the point of altering the core values-definition of what a family unit Marriage is, are treating someone like shiat?


better?

though as we have already covered, these two terms-concepts are tightly linked together, so changing one will significantly change the other

and contrary to popular belief change isn't always good by default

BarkingUnicorn: Is it your position that the only reason to allow a marriage is so that two people can make "legitimate" offspring?


no, but that is the core purpose of marriage, and why we defined it that way in the first place, the satisfying each other's sexual desires part is just the icing on the cake, it's also designed to reinforce a loyal and monogamous sexual relationship (to set a proper example for the next generation)

BarkingUnicorn: If not, why do the genders of a couple who wish to marry matter?


because the Natural-Physical sexual union (that can produce offspring) between two organisms is with a Male and Female

because the Only Natural-Spiritually approved choice is between One Man and One Woman

BarkingUnicorn: Marriage does not confer the right to raise kids.


yes it does

BarkingUnicorn: Many married couples are denied adoptions.


irrelevant

BarkingUnicorn: Many married couples have their offspring taken away.


irrelevant

BarkingUnicorn: The question of whether gays make good parents is unrelated to the question of whether they should be able to marry.


Marriage and Family are not exclusive concepts, i thought you were keeping up. they are directly related even if they are not directly dependent

you're also constantly confusing IS with OUGHT

wolves CAN raise children but they OUGHT NOT to

gays CAN marry but they OUGHT NOT to

and ultimately we will never agree on what should be the definition of "Marriage" or "Family" until we have a standard from which to derive such things, I asked this very important question earlier:

I drunk what: Martian_Astronomer: I don't consider the Bible to be authoritative on the subject of homosexuality

what do you consider to be The Authority?


//bolded for those who have trouble reading

but i only hear crickets since then, so apparently no one cares and we've already lost
 
Displayed 50 of 325 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report