kallend 2,117 #51 January 13, 2010 Quote>Why would that give an excuse to raise taxes? It wouldn't; it would simply remove a tax break. (Note that it's not even always a tax break; for couples where both members make a similar high salary, there's actually a _penalty._) Indeed. My wife and I pay $(several thousand) more in taxes on account of being married.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 January 13, 2010 Quote>families where one member makes a moderate income and the other makes little to no money, get a tax break from being married. really - how does that work when the low income earner would have paid nothing, but as a married person that supplemental income is now taxed at the rate of the higher earner? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #53 January 13, 2010 >really - how does that work when the low income earner would have paid >nothing, but as a married person that supplemental income is now taxed >at the rate of the higher earner? They're not; they are taxed at a lower rate than an individual making the same income would be. (Note that the low income earner pays more if you divide it 50/50, but the two people on _average_ pay less overall.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #54 January 14, 2010 Quote No because that is BS. Why would that give an excuse to raise taxes? Well, we're paying _more_ in taxes because we're married (several thousands just for last year, to be specific), so taxing everyone at a single rate would be actually a tax break for us.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #55 January 14, 2010 Quote Quote >Why would that give an excuse to raise taxes? It wouldn't; it would simply remove a tax break. (Note that it's not even always a tax break; for couples where both members make a similar high salary, there's actually a _penalty._) Indeed. My wife and I pay $(several thousand) more in taxes on account of being married. I guess I am going to find out all about that then. Super Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #56 January 14, 2010 Quote Indeed. My wife and I pay $(several thousand) more in taxes on account of being married. I guess I am going to find out all about that then. Super You can always go see a tax attorney or CPA prior to getting married to find out what the financial consequences may be in your unique situation, and make a decision about whether to marry in the eyes of God only or God and Uncle Sam after you have all the information. It's nice that you have that option. Not everyone does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #57 January 15, 2010 Quote What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple? What's the difference in the water the negroes get from their water fountains?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #58 January 15, 2010 QuoteSO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort. Please describe how something being of ancient origin has any bearing on its being right? As a scientist I'd expect better from you. Galileo got himself in trouble by bucking things with "ancient origin" in favor of reason.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #59 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuote What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple? What's the difference in the water the negroes get from their water fountains? Could be quite a lot, it certainly could be described. Now, how about answering my question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #60 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple? What's the difference in the water the negroes get from their water fountains? Could be quite a lot, it certainly could be described. Now, how about answering my question. Many insurance companies do not afford the same right to people who are not "married". That, and the whole Negro water thing.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #61 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteSO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort. Please describe how something being of ancient origin has any bearing on its being right? As a scientist I'd expect better from you. Galileo got himself in trouble by bucking things with "ancient origin" in favor of reason. I'm talking about the meaning of an existing word. A word is not a right, so your reply is irrelevant. Here we have an existing word with a well defined meaning going back centuries being co-opted and changed by a special interest group. If we arbitrarily allow any group to change the meaning of words to its own liking, then language will become meaningless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #62 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple? What's the difference in the water the negroes get from their water fountains? Could be quite a lot, it certainly could be described. Now, how about answering my question. Many insurance companies do not afford the same right to people who are not "married". That, and the whole Negro water thing. Is that something that can be fixed without changing the meaning of a word? We didn't start calling blacks "white" to eliminate discrimination, did we? We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #63 January 15, 2010 >We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination. No, but we did change "fireman" "postman" "spokesman" etc to eliminate gender discrimination. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #64 January 15, 2010 QuoteHere we have an existing word with a well defined meaning going back centuries being co-opted and changed by a special interest group. And that definition is based on an inequality. Could you please qualify labeling them a "special interest group?" Is it your position that being gay is just something to be interested in? Like parachuting? Would you call women a special interest group? Blacks? You give away your entire position by insulting them with this label. QuoteIs that something that can be fixed without changing the meaning of a word? We didn't start calling blacks "white" to eliminate discrimination, did we? We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination. You are born black. You are born white. You are born man. You are born women. These are all biological characteristics. We can't redefine them. Marriage is man made. If the definition is wrong, fix it.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #65 January 15, 2010 Wow, it's already Friday and I'm ready to leave marriage and get into my marriage and drive home and eat a nice marriage and then the weekend. Maybe jump from a marriage or go skiing. Maybe just start up the WII and play some Marriage (TM) - that wacky Mario and those wierd little worlds. Have a good 3 day weekend. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #66 January 15, 2010 QuoteWow, it's already Friday and I'm ready to leave marriage and get into my marriage and drive home and eat a nice marriage and then the weekend. Maybe jump from a marriage or go skiing. Maybe just start up the WII and play some Marriage (TM) - that wacky Mario and those wierd little worlds. Have a good 3 day weekend. Shit, the homo secret agenda - total linguistic annihilation - is working!www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #67 January 15, 2010 Quote>We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination. No, but we did change "fireman" "postman" "spokesman" etc to eliminate gender discrimination. Not the same at all. That was making new words to accrately describe what existed. We STILL call women "women" and men "men". We still call white "white" and black "black" because they are useful descriptions. The current proposal usurps an existing word. That is not the proper way to correct injustice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #68 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteHere we have an existing word with a well defined meaning going back centuries being co-opted and changed by a special interest group. And that definition is based on an inequality. Could you please qualify labeling them a "special interest group?" Is it your position that being gay is just something to be interested in? Like parachuting? Would you call women a special interest group? Blacks? You give away your entire position by insulting them with this label. QuoteIs that something that can be fixed without changing the meaning of a word? We didn't start calling blacks "white" to eliminate discrimination, did we? We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination. You are born black. You are born white. You are born man. You are born women. These are all biological characteristics. We can't redefine them. Marriage is man made. If the definition is wrong, fix it. Black is a word. White is a word. Marriage is a word, The definition is not wrong, it is what it is and for centuries has described something that is not a homosexual relationship. Redefining it makes the word less useful, because now we'll have to qualify it in order to specify what kind of "marriage" it is. Fixing injustices doesn't require every dictionary to be rewritten, it just requires a change in the law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #69 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteSO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort. Please describe how something being of ancient origin has any bearing on its being right? As a scientist I'd expect better from you. Galileo got himself in trouble by bucking things with "ancient origin" in favor of reason. I'm talking about the meaning of an existing word. A word is not a right, so your reply is irrelevant. Here we have an existing word with a well defined meaning going back centuries being co-opted and changed by a special interest group. If we arbitrarily allow any group to change the meaning of words to its own liking, then language will become meaningless. It wouldn't have to be changed if bible thumping conservatives insisted on their beliefs having to do with law. I think you're harping on the wrong special interest group, IMO.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #70 January 15, 2010 QuoteNot the same at all. That was making new words to accrately describe what existed. We STILL call women "women" and men "men". We still call white "white" and black "black" because they are useful descriptions. The current proposal usurps an existing word. That is not the proper way to correct injustice. I agree with you that is not a great analogy. So here's one that DOES work. When blacks gained citizenship rights, did we leave the word citizen for non-blacks, and give the blacks a new word to describe their legal status? Blitizen? Negrizen? OR... did we "usurp" the existing word: citizen? If you really want to specify the skin color of a citizen, you can easily do so with a modifier in front of the word. Black citizen. White citizen. Whatever. Just like once the gays usurp the word marriage, we can still use modifiers to further describe that marriage... if you so desire.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #71 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort. Please describe how something being of ancient origin has any bearing on its being right? As a scientist I'd expect better from you. Galileo got himself in trouble by bucking things with "ancient origin" in favor of reason. I'm talking about the meaning of an existing word. A word is not a right, so your reply is irrelevant. Here we have an existing word with a well defined meaning going back centuries being co-opted and changed by a special interest group. If we arbitrarily allow any group to change the meaning of words to its own liking, then language will become meaningless. It wouldn't have to be changed if bible thumping conservatives insisted on their beliefs having to do with law. I think you're harping on the wrong special interest group, IMO. That's fine by me. Let religions define marriage and the government define the rights that are associated with formal unions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #72 January 15, 2010 Quote>We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination. No, but we did change "fireman" "postman" "spokesman" etc to eliminate gender discrimination. We did?Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #73 January 15, 2010 QuoteBlack is a word. White is a word. Citizen is a word, The definition is not wrong, it is what it is and for centuries has described something that is not a black person. Redefining it makes the word less useful, because now we'll have to qualify it in order to specify what kind of "citizen" it is. Fixing injustices doesn't require every dictionary to be rewritten, it just requires a change in the law. I changed a few words around to illustrate my analogy.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #74 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple? What's the difference in the water the negroes get from their water fountains? Could be quite a lot, it certainly could be described. Now, how about answering my question. Many insurance companies do not afford the same right to people who are not "married". That, and the whole Negro water thing. Is that something that can be fixed without changing the meaning of a word? We didn't start calling blacks "white" to eliminate discrimination, did we? We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination. No, we don't and we didn't have to because we made the legal rights equal across the board without having to change anything. We can make equal rights across the board with gays without changing anything, but again like I mentioned above in a previous post, staunch conservatives are going out of their way to make sure their religious belief behind marriage has power as a law. If they weren't doing what they're doing and just let the religion stay out of law, then we too could now be extended the rights to gays just as we did to women without having to call them men.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #75 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteNot the same at all. That was making new words to accrately describe what existed. We STILL call women "women" and men "men". We still call white "white" and black "black" because they are useful descriptions. The current proposal usurps an existing word. That is not the proper way to correct injustice. I agree with you that is not a great analogy. So here's one that DOES work. . Disagree - I don't think it works any better than the last one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
