By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sapphi_snake on 30 July 2012
killerzX said:
theprof00 said:
killerzX said:
bouzane said:
happydolphin said:
bouzane said:

I bash sexism, racism and homophobia. I have every right in the world to bash and belittle backward beliefs.

And where has anyone demonstrated homophobia? Where has anyone showcased backward beliefs?

Traditional is different from backwards. One is against progression, the other (the former) may be for progression. Remember, I said I was for family values. In my view, that's progression compared to the mainstream culture of today, as fed by television nowadays.

Also, I can't help but to think you're insinuating that either I or OP has done any of which you're accusing. In such a case, for my case you'd be wrong. For OP, neither you nor I know since neither of us have any of the original comments or facts, so it's bad to jump to conclusions like you're doing, if you're talking about OP.

Again, opposing same-sex marriage denies human beings the same rights as everyone else. "Traditional" marriage doesn't exist anymore and hasn't existed in quite some time so I don't see why it can not be made more inclusive. Would Christ want people to deny same-sex marriage? Is that truly treating others as you would have them treat you? God forbid we have everybody receiving the same benefits, the same right to adopt, etc...

i suppose you hold the very backward belief in denying people the right to marry their sisters, marry 10 different people, marry a 14 year old, etc. 

what a backward person, and un-christian person you are.

I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.

and gay sex, is often harmful, gay people live significantly shorter than straight people.

and would you be so kind as to tell me the exact age, of when every person is scientificly proven to be "mature enough to make life affecting decisions"

as fro your other points its a bunch of what ifs  and can be applied to any relationship, should we use that for grounds to deny "civil rights" to people.

1. Any sex can be harmful. Heterosexuals in Africa have a lower life expectancy than any American/European gay people. Which aspect of their identity are you going to correlate with their situation?

 

2. You're getting your information from a notoriously flawed study conducted by a notoriously anti-gay organization.

 

3. The study only targeted gay men. Funny how people seem to forget that lesbians fall into the category of 'gay people' also. Then again, including lesbians would kinda ruin any anti-gay argument they're trying to make.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 30 July 2012
sapphi_snake said:
killerzX said:
theprof00 said:
killerzX said:
bouzane said:
happydolphin said:
bouzane said:

I bash sexism, racism and homophobia. I have every right in the world to bash and belittle backward beliefs.

And where has anyone demonstrated homophobia? Where has anyone showcased backward beliefs?

Traditional is different from backwards. One is against progression, the other (the former) may be for progression. Remember, I said I was for family values. In my view, that's progression compared to the mainstream culture of today, as fed by television nowadays.

Also, I can't help but to think you're insinuating that either I or OP has done any of which you're accusing. In such a case, for my case you'd be wrong. For OP, neither you nor I know since neither of us have any of the original comments or facts, so it's bad to jump to conclusions like you're doing, if you're talking about OP.

Again, opposing same-sex marriage denies human beings the same rights as everyone else. "Traditional" marriage doesn't exist anymore and hasn't existed in quite some time so I don't see why it can not be made more inclusive. Would Christ want people to deny same-sex marriage? Is that truly treating others as you would have them treat you? God forbid we have everybody receiving the same benefits, the same right to adopt, etc...

i suppose you hold the very backward belief in denying people the right to marry their sisters, marry 10 different people, marry a 14 year old, etc. 

what a backward person, and un-christian person you are.

I'm not against people marrying ten others, but scientifically, incest is harmful and generally involves abuse, similarly with a 14 year old, who scientifically, is not mature enough to make life-affecting decisions, and is also prone to abusive relationships and manipulation.

and gay sex, is often harmful, gay people live significantly shorter than straight people.

and would you be so kind as to tell me the exact age, of when every person is scientificly proven to be "mature enough to make life affecting decisions"

as fro your other points its a bunch of what ifs  and can be applied to any relationship, should we use that for grounds to deny "civil rights" to people.

1. Any sex can be harmful. Heterosexuals in Africa have a lower life expectancy than any American/European gay people. Which aspect of their identity are you going to correlate with their situation?

 

2. You're getting your information from a notoriously flawed study conducted by a notoriously anti-gay organization.

 

3. The study only targeted gay men. Funny how people seem to forget that lesbians fall into the category of 'gay people' also. Then again, including lesbians would kinda ruin any anti-gay argument they're trying to make.



1) true. To be fair though... anal sex is more dangerous because it weakens the immune system.

2) Not if it's the study i'm thinking of. There was another one that estimated it that wasn't flawed. Though it currently is outdated... since it was conducted 20 years ago, and Aids was a much bigger thing then... and much more homosexually targeted.

3) True. Well Truish anyway. There is some suggestions that Lesbians are unhealthier then straight women, but in other ways. Alcoholism, more likely chance of being in an abusive relationship... Though a lot of that could argueably be because well... Lesbians aren't accepted like straight women, hence such things are more prevalent. I mean hell, if we went based on just crazy correlations, everything said about gay people in that regard is also true for African Americans. Nobody is talking about banning black marriage... they have far lower life expectancies then normal. (African Americans being a better exammple then Africans because of similar circumstances.)



nightsurge on 30 July 2012
theprof00 said:
nightsurge said:

Wow... first of all this whole thing is retarded. They aren't "Hating" on anyone or anything. All the guy did was give his personal opinion based on his religion, which is his right. He NEVER said anything about not allowing gays to eat at Chik-fil-A or even work there or any other means of discrimination.

Secondly, married people pay less taxes based on the TOTAL INCOME. It is common sense. If married people have a combined income of $50k they will pay LESS TAXES on that income than someone who is single making $50k because obviously the income is being split amongst twice as many people! Do they pay half the taxes that you do as a single person? NO!? OMG THAT'S NOT RIGHT, THEY ARE BEING TAXED TOO MUCH IT IS NOT FAIR! See how ridiculous that argument was?

There is something entirely different than being against a certain type of lifestyle and being outwardly preventative towards a lifestyle. Most Christians based on their religion (backed up by the Bible denouncing gay relationships) believe that being gay is wrong, but so is any other sin and no sin carries any more weight than another. All sin is sin. Now I am not saying that being gay is equal to murdering someone or anythig else hanus. Don't dare put those false words in my mouth. I am just saying any amount of sin will deny entry to heaven without belief in a savior. Any/all sin can be forgiven, I personally believe.

Now, without getting too religious, no one truly knows what causes someone to be gay whether it is genetic, chemical imbalances, personal choice, or just plain emotions and quite frankly I don't care. As a true Christian myself, I am against gay behavior as a personal belief, BUT I will never ever persecute or discriminate against a gay individual. I will treat them the same as anyone else and I will never try to push my beliefs down their throats. After all, it is not our job to judge.

So while Chik-fil-A's president said some things that are sure to upset people, I do not think ANYTHING in the company's practices has discriminated or given hate towards gay people. It was simple his religion based opinion and nothing more. It has just as much merit as anyone supporting gay marriage as well.

Peace out.

Couples in which one spouse earns all of the couple’s income never incur a marriage penalty and almost always receive a marriage bonus, because joint filing shifts the higher earner’s income into a lower tax bracket.

  • Example of a marriage bonus: A wife earns $200,000 and her husband earns nothing. They have two children and itemize deductions equal to $40,000. Filing jointly, their taxable income is $146,801, on which their 2008 income tax liability is $27,848. But the AMT raises that liability to $30,825. If they could file separately, the husband as single and the wife as head of household with two children, the wife would owe taxes of $38,957 (including the AMT) and the husband would owe nothing. Their joint tax bill is $8,132 less than their combined individual tax bills, giving them a marriage bonus equal to 4.1 percent of their pretax income.
    (see example details)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/marriage-penalties.cfm

 

Whoever explained it to you explained wrong.

Secondly, now that I've shown you that married indeed get benefits over individuals, I never said that the chick-fil-a guy was completely in the wrong for voicing his morals. I HAVE called his morals hypocritical for the points I illustrated, ie, denying privelages to others because they were sinful.

I hear all the time that "you don't allow gay marriage because it promotes gay marriage. It allows for people to enter into sin more freely than to rise above the 'temptations' like they should be doing...we should not be telling these people that it's OK". Now, because it's so common to think that I'm 'boiling all Christians down to this stereotype or thought process', I will say that I am not. The anti-gay marriage crowd is so hard to fight because they all have different reasons. It's like the tea party. How do you argue with them? Each group within has like their own ideas and desires. For the anti same sex marriage crowds it's no different. Some say it's enabling, so no. Others say, "no because marriage is sacred"... etc etc. So when you solve the problem of marriage being sacred and say, "OK, so let's give them civil unions with marital benefits", it doesn't work, because the people that held that obstacle then shrink back while another group says "it's enabling". So yeah, it's frustrating, and yes, I think it's backwards and hypocritical. I mean, this is something that would HELP the economy, as well as making the rest of the world look at us again and say, "damn as much as I hate those americans, they're more progressive than we are once again".

There are a myriad of other benefits to marriage besides tax, including credit power, hospital visitation, tax free gifts to spouses, etc etc.

What are you talking about? That's exactly how it SHOULD work. One person filing by themselves would obviously pay MORE taxes than filing jointly and having the same total income. It makes perfect sense and is not some conspiracy "marriage bonus".

Are you saying that if you got married and your wife had no job, but you are now providing for 2 rather than just yourself, that you think it would be fair and reasonable for you to still pay the same amount of taxes even though your net income is effectively reduces quite a bit since your costs of living has increased? Nope? Exactly.



theprof00 on 30 July 2012
nightsurge said:

What are you talking about? That's exactly how it SHOULD work. One person filing by themselves would obviously pay MORE taxes than filing jointly and having the same total income. It makes perfect sense and is not some conspiracy "marriage bonus".

Are you saying that if you got married and your wife had no job, but you are now providing for 2 rather than just yourself, that you think it would be fair and reasonable for you to still pay the same amount of taxes even though your net income is effectively reduces quite a bit since your costs of living has increased? Nope? Exactly.

FAIR. OH ISN'T THAT FAIR?

Look who's a socialist now.

Ok, so why don't we allow gays to file together? So FAIR.



outlawauron on 30 July 2012
theprof00 said:
nightsurge said:

What are you talking about? That's exactly how it SHOULD work. One person filing by themselves would obviously pay MORE taxes than filing jointly and having the same total income. It makes perfect sense and is not some conspiracy "marriage bonus".

Are you saying that if you got married and your wife had no job, but you are now providing for 2 rather than just yourself, that you think it would be fair and reasonable for you to still pay the same amount of taxes even though your net income is effectively reduces quite a bit since your costs of living has increased? Nope? Exactly.

FAIR. OH ISN'T THAT FAIR?

Look who's a socialist now.

Ok, so why don't we allow gays to file together? So FAIR.

I don't know of any person who doesn't think that gay people should be able to do so. Even staunch anti-gay marriage people, they don't want to deny any sort of priveilge that the US erroneously tags along with marriage.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
theprof00 on 30 July 2012
outlawauron said:
theprof00 said:
nightsurge said:

What are you talking about? That's exactly how it SHOULD work. One person filing by themselves would obviously pay MORE taxes than filing jointly and having the same total income. It makes perfect sense and is not some conspiracy "marriage bonus".

Are you saying that if you got married and your wife had no job, but you are now providing for 2 rather than just yourself, that you think it would be fair and reasonable for you to still pay the same amount of taxes even though your net income is effectively reduces quite a bit since your costs of living has increased? Nope? Exactly.

FAIR. OH ISN'T THAT FAIR?

Look who's a socialist now.

Ok, so why don't we allow gays to file together? So FAIR.

I don't know of any person who doesn't think that gay people should be able to do so. Even staunch anti-gay marriage people, they don't want to deny any sort of priveilge that the US erroneously tags along with marriage.

You are seriously mistaken Auron.



outlawauron on 30 July 2012
theprof00 said:
outlawauron said:
theprof00 said:
nightsurge said:

What are you talking about? That's exactly how it SHOULD work. One person filing by themselves would obviously pay MORE taxes than filing jointly and having the same total income. It makes perfect sense and is not some conspiracy "marriage bonus".

Are you saying that if you got married and your wife had no job, but you are now providing for 2 rather than just yourself, that you think it would be fair and reasonable for you to still pay the same amount of taxes even though your net income is effectively reduces quite a bit since your costs of living has increased? Nope? Exactly.

FAIR. OH ISN'T THAT FAIR?

Look who's a socialist now.

Ok, so why don't we allow gays to file together? So FAIR.

I don't know of any person who doesn't think that gay people should be able to do so. Even staunch anti-gay marriage people, they don't want to deny any sort of priveilge that the US erroneously tags along with marriage.

You are seriously mistaken Auron.

prof, I live in what most people would consider some of deepest parts of the 'Bible Belt' and despite that, what I said still rings true.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

theprof00 on 30 July 2012
outlawauron said:

prof, I live in what most people would consider some of deepest parts of the 'Bible Belt' and despite that, what I said still rings true.

Yet the GOP in Colorado struck down the motion to give civil unions the same advantages.

I am happy that anecdotally, even, you are able to say that, but I feel it is a bit naive. There are very many who are making it a big deal to deny civil unions the same rights as marriage. As I explained earlier, it represents Obama's evolving udnerstanding of the debate. He offered to do away with the whole debate by saying, no same sex marriage, but allow civil unions with the same benefits. But, he can't get anyone to increase those privelages.

2 Weeks before he changed his stance, Colorado had struck down that motion. You don't get much more cause and effect than that. Even liberal Colorado is against giving civil unions the same benefits as marriage. The crazy thing is, there is LITERALLY no reason not to do so other than to deny rights to those who cannot be married. It doesn't even apply to polygamists or first cousins as:

A) more than two people cannot be in a civil union anyway
B) First cousin marriage is often recognized over statelines and any closer ties are denied civil unions as well

Literally no reason to strike that motion down.



Kasz216 on 30 July 2012
theprof00 said:
outlawauron said:

prof, I live in what most people would consider some of deepest parts of the 'Bible Belt' and despite that, what I said still rings true.

Yet the GOP in Colorado struck down the motion to give civil unions the same advantages.

I am happy that anecdotally, even, you are able to say that, but I feel it is a bit naive. There are very many who are making it a big deal to deny civil unions the same rights as marriage. As I explained earlier, it represents Obama's evolving udnerstanding of the debate. He offered to do away with the whole debate by saying, no same sex marriage, but allow civil unions with the same benefits. But, he can't get anyone to increase those privelages.

2 Weeks before he changed his stance, Colorado had struck down that motion. You don't get much more cause and effect than that. Even liberal Colorado is against giving civil unions the same benefits as marriage. The crazy thing is, there is LITERALLY no reason not to do so other than to deny rights to those who cannot be married. It doesn't even apply to polygamists or first cousins as:

A) more than two people cannot be in a civil union anyway
B) First cousin marriage is often recognized over statelines and any closer ties are denied civil unions as well

Literally no reason to strike that motion down.


Actually there were significant political reasons to do so.

The colorado bill wasn't put throug until towards the end of it's session.

You pretty much NEVER see any major legislation passed at the end of a session.

Why?  Momentum.   Had the bill passed, a certain part of the Democratic left would of been SUPER energized and excited.


Stuff like that really needs to be "Early/mid" session to convince the other side to give up such a valuable political chip.



theprof00 on 30 July 2012
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
outlawauron said:

prof, I live in what most people would consider some of deepest parts of the 'Bible Belt' and despite that, what I said still rings true.

Yet the GOP in Colorado struck down the motion to give civil unions the same advantages.

I am happy that anecdotally, even, you are able to say that, but I feel it is a bit naive. There are very many who are making it a big deal to deny civil unions the same rights as marriage. As I explained earlier, it represents Obama's evolving udnerstanding of the debate. He offered to do away with the whole debate by saying, no same sex marriage, but allow civil unions with the same benefits. But, he can't get anyone to increase those privelages.

2 Weeks before he changed his stance, Colorado had struck down that motion. You don't get much more cause and effect than that. Even liberal Colorado is against giving civil unions the same benefits as marriage. The crazy thing is, there is LITERALLY no reason not to do so other than to deny rights to those who cannot be married. It doesn't even apply to polygamists or first cousins as:

A) more than two people cannot be in a civil union anyway
B) First cousin marriage is often recognized over statelines and any closer ties are denied civil unions as well

Literally no reason to strike that motion down.


Actually there were significant political reasons to do so.

The colorado bill wasn't put throug until towards the end of it's session.

You pretty much NEVER see any major legislation passed at the end of a session.

Why?  Momentum.   Had the bill passed, a certain part of the Democratic left would of been SUPER energized and excited.


Stuff like that really needs to be "Early/mid" session to convince the other side to give up such a valuable political chip.

Well that's just poopy