Recommended Posts
beowulf 1
Huh I don't understand what you wrote. What does that mean?
QuoteWhaddya mean, kinda?
To some women, being called "cute" is akin to being compared to a child or a French Poodle, or something. I was leaving myself room to backtrack.
How about this.
GAWD, you are HOT!!!!
Walt
Rebecca 0
AhHA!! NOW we're getting somewhere!! THAT makes more sense than, "It's illegal because the Bible says so," or "It'll undermine the sanctity of the institution of marriage."
It's always about money.
So, what kinda figures are we talking about? I mean, are there enough would-be-married gay people that employers would be significantly dented? And if this IS the reason, wouldn't they be paying quite a lot in political kickbacks? I really do believe that money and power are at the root of this...
Does anyone have stats on the adjusted rate of marriage given legal same-sex marriages?
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
It's always about money.
So, what kinda figures are we talking about? I mean, are there enough would-be-married gay people that employers would be significantly dented? And if this IS the reason, wouldn't they be paying quite a lot in political kickbacks? I really do believe that money and power are at the root of this...
Does anyone have stats on the adjusted rate of marriage given legal same-sex marriages?
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
Rebecca 0
MUCH better! 
(I was just busting your chops earlier, dude. Thanks for the compliments!)
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
(I was just busting your chops earlier, dude. Thanks for the compliments!)
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So by your logic I should register to vote just so I can vote for gay
>marriages if that ever came up just so that one day if some does
> some thing that directly affects me I will have the support of those
> that I voted in favor of.
No.
You should vote because it's your duty as a citizen of your country to do so.
You should care about the rights of minorities because as a skydiver you are part of a minority activity.
You should care about gays because they are people, even if they do something you wouldn't do yourself. Someday you may even be friends with some.
>Because I don't consider marriage as that important. They aren't
>going to die if they don't get married.
Right. And blacks aren't going to die if they can't go to 'white' schools. And women aren't going to die if they can't vote. And you're not going to die if you can't jump. That's a poor reason to not give blacks equal rights, or not give women the vote, or to ground skydivers.
>marriages if that ever came up just so that one day if some does
> some thing that directly affects me I will have the support of those
> that I voted in favor of.
No.
You should vote because it's your duty as a citizen of your country to do so.
You should care about the rights of minorities because as a skydiver you are part of a minority activity.
You should care about gays because they are people, even if they do something you wouldn't do yourself. Someday you may even be friends with some.
>Because I don't consider marriage as that important. They aren't
>going to die if they don't get married.
Right. And blacks aren't going to die if they can't go to 'white' schools. And women aren't going to die if they can't vote. And you're not going to die if you can't jump. That's a poor reason to not give blacks equal rights, or not give women the vote, or to ground skydivers.
billvon 2,991
>I don't define myself by what the law or others think of me.
If the law said you could not skydive because of your race - would you still define yourself as a skydiver?
If the law said you could not skydive because of your race - would you still define yourself as a skydiver?
beowulf 1
Yeah I would just be an illegal skydiver.
billvon 2,991
>Yeah I would just be an illegal skydiver.
Would it bug you that it was illegal, and you'd be spending time in jail?
Would it bug you that it was illegal, and you'd be spending time in jail?
Ya know, hell with gay people getting married, why should straight people be allowed to get married?
Isn't the divorce rate over 50% now?
Isn't the divorce rate over 50% now?
QuoteAhHA!! NOW we're getting somewhere!! THAT makes more sense than, "It's illegal because the Bible says so," or "It'll undermine the sanctity of the institution of marriage."
It's always about money.
So, what kinda figures are we talking about? I mean, are there enough would-be-married gay people that employers would be significantly dented? And if this IS the reason, wouldn't they be paying quite a lot in political kickbacks? I really do believe that money and power are at the root of this...
Does anyone have stats on the adjusted rate of marriage given legal same-sex marriages?
I don't have any figures, but what I think would be really revealing is to hear the attitudes of small-to-medium sized businesses on this issue. This issue might well be the kind of thing that would motivate some businesses to avoid hiring anyone they think might be gay. I don't know that for a fact, but I'd like to hear some opinions from the business community.
Social engineering by the government puts enormous strains on small-to-medium sized businesses. for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that required businesses to retrofit existing facilties to make them more accessible to people with handicaps. Certainly providing access is a good thing, but levying any requirements on a struggling business can potentially eliminate the business and the jobs it creates.
Walt
beowulf 1
I don't know. I would probably do less skydiving. It might make it more exciting.
QuoteDoes anyone have stats on the adjusted rate of marriage given legal same-sex marriages?
Here's some completely rough numbers. These aren't researched. They're "common knowledge" things I read in newspapers.
In 4 weeks in Multnomah County, Oregon, 3000 homo couples got married. One can assume that was an unusual surge.
In a couple of years there have been around 5000 homo marriages in Massachussettes.
And about the same throughout Canada which has been doing gay marriages for a couple of years, depending on which province you're looking at. Canada has about 30 million people.
So in Canada that amounts to approximately three one-hundredths of a percent of the population is in a gay marriage. I would guess maybe 50% of people are in straight marriages?
If my rough estimates are close, that means for every $100 spent on straight couple benefits in Canada, there was approximately $0.07 spent on gay couples.
Of course that doesn't account for benefits for children which presumably are more common in straight families.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Guest
Since we're "following the money" here--
Will they then gladly, cheerfully pay the federal "Marriage Tax" (where a married couple, filing jointly, has fewer deductions and thus pays more tax than two individuals filing separately)?
Or will they find a reason or excuse to claim that they are exempt?
Equal responsibility comes with equal rights, but it's often overlooked or deliberately ignored.
Will they then gladly, cheerfully pay the federal "Marriage Tax" (where a married couple, filing jointly, has fewer deductions and thus pays more tax than two individuals filing separately)?
Or will they find a reason or excuse to claim that they are exempt?
Equal responsibility comes with equal rights, but it's often overlooked or deliberately ignored.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
QuoteSince we're "following the money" here--
Will they then gladly, cheerfully pay the federal "Marriage Tax" (where a married couple, filing jointly, has fewer deductions and thus pays more tax than two individuals filing separately)?
Or will they find a reason or excuse to claim that they are exempt?
Equal responsibility comes with equal rights, but it's often overlooked or deliberately ignored.
Under what theory would a married gay couple be able to evade the "Marriage Tax," Mark? It appears to be a non-issue that you've invented for the purpose of taking another cheap shot. If you're going to invent an issue, please illustrate it with a scenario which would cause it to come into being.
As far it relates to IRS, the disadvantages of the "Marriage Tax" are far outweighed by the other tax advantages, including one's ability to transfer money between spouses without limit, tax free. Also, in a large estate, this means that--at least for the first to die--estate taxes effectively do not exist (if you've done the appropriate planning).
So about that scenario...
rl
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
billvon 2,991
>Will they then gladly, cheerfully pay the federal "Marriage Tax" . . .
I don't happily, gladly, or cheerfully pay it. But I pay it. I suspect they will be no different. Why would they?
I don't happily, gladly, or cheerfully pay it. But I pay it. I suspect they will be no different. Why would they?
Don't you an Walt believe that sometimes we need extremist. In the 1920s suffragist were jailed and labeled extremist because they protested a wartime president. Someone had to rise up and get into peoples faces.
QuoteI don't have any interest in opposing it. I am not registered to vote and have never voted. I don't really care enough to register to vote just to vote against gays.
Normally I cringe when I hear people proudly announce their lack of voting, but in your case, I think I'm going to be happy about it.
Why should you care about other people's freedoms being denied? For starters, you're a member of an extremely small minority not understood by the vast majority of the population. There are a lot more gays and gay right supporters than they are people who understand why you like to exit out of planes.
Love's as good as soma.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites