davjohns 1 #51 January 28, 2013 That's the French version. I googled it before picking on someone else's version. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 January 28, 2013 Quote Quote ...at which point it pretty much stops being productive. What would it have been producing prior to that point? look, if two unicorns, a tom cat, a piece of blue ribbon and a bucket of corn meal want to express their love for each other - who are YOU to tell them they can't visit each other on their hospital deathbed? i CAN'T BELIEVE this is pushed to Speaker's Corner - I am so furious ... 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
Andy9o8 2 #53 January 28, 2013 QuoteQuote...at which point it pretty much stops being productive. What would it have been producing prior to that point? Little gay children, I suppose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #54 January 28, 2013 QuoteLittle gay children, I suppose. Funny you mention that. I've known a few people who were raised by a gay mom or dad. Perfectly straight. One of them said the only problem was a little harassment is high school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #55 January 28, 2013 Conceptually, as well as legally, getting rid of tax differentials for marital status can be accomplished w/o fundamentally altering the legal nature of marriage or divorce the way it currently is in most Western countries (not just the US). As for transforming it into a contract, I can tell you that that won't reduce the litigious nature of divorces one iota. It will just morph it from a divorce action into a contract-dispute action. I handle the occasional divorce, and a lot of business-breakup cases. Think of the really ugly divorce cases you've heard of or lived through; well, most business-breakup cases are just like those on virtually every meaningful level: anger, financial complexity, collateral damage to innocents, you name it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #56 January 28, 2013 QuoteConceptually, as well as legally, getting rid of tax differentials for marital status can be accomplished w/o fundamentally altering the legal nature of marriage or divorce the way it currently is in most Western countries (not just the US). I heard there used to be a "marriage penalty" in the U.S. income tax rates, and that congress wanted to fix it. Is there now a "marriage advantage"? Vskydiver and I are joint everything and we have an accountant do our taxes. I have know idea if we'd do better as singles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #57 January 28, 2013 >because the religious gun nutters don't like the idea of it Why do you feel the need to call gun owners religious nutters? I am pro 2nd amendment and believe in all the US constitution as written by the founding fathers. Myself and all gun owners I know, feel that everyone should be able to have any lifestyle, and practice any religion they want,as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Hell I know alot of gay people who are pro 2nd amendment,because they are realistic about how the world works, and like being able to carry protection against bashers and other violent criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #58 January 28, 2013 >Why do you feel the need to call gun owners religious nutters? Probably the same reason that gun supporters call everyone else "gun banners." Easier to argue against. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #59 January 28, 2013 QuoteThere is a lot of debate at the moment in France over allowing same-sex marriage. Assuming you ignore the religious argument and the "it's unnatural" argument ("homosexual" behaviour is not exclusive to humans)... Just what exactly is the impact of allowing gay people to get married??? I would argue that if you are not gay (and therefore already enjoy all the rights/privileges that marriage affords), there is NO IMPACT on your life at all. Things married people take for granted include: inheritance, and medical decisions, and tax benefits, et cetera, et cetera. So why would you care at all that gay people want the same rights as you??? More importantly, why would you deny them the same rights as you??? I don't understand why people care about it either. I also don't really understand why gays would want marriage. I personally think it's not all it's cracked up to be and have no interest in ever getting married. I say let them have the option. They can have all the marriages and divorces they want, good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #60 January 28, 2013 Quote>Why do you feel the need to call gun owners religious nutters? Probably the same reason that gun supporters call everyone else "gun banners." Easier to argue against. I've tried, on here, to refer to folks who support a renewed AWB (or have argued in favor of it that one time at a party back in college when they had too much) "ban curious" but I don't think the term is catching on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #61 January 28, 2013 Quote>Why do you feel the need to call gun owners religious nutters? Probably the same reason that gun supporters call everyone else "gun banners." Easier to argue against. Athiest Gun-o-phobes would be more accurate. Which of course one has nothing to do with the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #62 January 28, 2013 >Athiest Gun-o-phobes would be more accurate. Even better! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #63 January 28, 2013 I am not religious at all. I am not republican nor democrat, and in fact feel both parties are untrustworthy and outright corrupt as most of DC is as well. It seems those on the hard left tend to be the most insulting to anyone who will not concede to their views. Funny thing is that I know gay people who lean to the right on many issues,like immigration and gun rights for example. Hell I've heard it said many times that democrats tend to be unfaithful womanizers and republicans like groping strange men in public bathrooms party affiliation does not determine sexuality though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #64 January 28, 2013 QuoteQuoteConceptually, as well as legally, getting rid of tax differentials for marital status can be accomplished w/o fundamentally altering the legal nature of marriage or divorce the way it currently is in most Western countries (not just the US). I heard there used to be a "marriage penalty" in the U.S. income tax rates, and that congress wanted to fix it. Is there now a "marriage advantage"? Vskydiver and I are joint everything and we have an accountant do our taxes. I have know idea if we'd do better as singles. There was once a small tax penalty. Like, the two individual exemptions would be $3,000 each, but a couple only got $5,000 together or some such. It has been eliminated. The problem today is that some deductions are lost if you file married / seperately. Married / jointly could push you into a higher bracket.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #65 January 28, 2013 Quote1. I'm not sure there are many benefits to being married. There are certainly none that can't be easily replicated. "Certainly none"? Really? What about pension survivor benefits? Social Security is just 1 example of that sort of thing. I didn't even have to think about it.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #66 January 28, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote...at which point it pretty much stops being productive. What would it have been producing prior to that point? Little gay children, I suppose. As a rule, I think SC stops being productive after about the second post.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #67 January 28, 2013 >It seems those on the hard left tend to be the most insulting to anyone who will not > concede to their views. Well, given that the right wing has become the party of "go fuck yourself"- and given that even republicans within the party have begged their leaders to tone it down - I'd have to disagree there. >Funny thing is that I know gay people who lean to the right on many issues,like >immigration and gun rights for example. Most people period lean to the right in many ways. Most people lean to the left in many ways. There are very few true ideologues on either side. (Although there sure seem to be a lot of them here.) >party affiliation does not determine sexuality though. It definitely doesn't determine it, although currently the policies of the GOP turn away many gays (which is why gay voters are heavily democratic.) If the GOP abandoned its anti-gay platforms I bet you'd see close to a 50/50 split. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #68 January 28, 2013 QuoteQuote1. I'm not sure there are many benefits to being married. There are certainly none that can't be easily replicated. "Certainly none"? Really? What about pension survivor benefits? Social Security is just 1 example of that sort of thing. I didn't even have to think about it. Mmmmm...ok. I really don't think about government benefits, but that is certainly one. Of course, it would presume the survivor did not qualify for SS themselves, which means they did not work a minimum of ten years. Kind of interesting that a gay couple chose to play 1950's couple with one of them being a happy homemaker, but it could happen. Got another?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #69 January 28, 2013 QuoteConceptually, as well as legally, getting rid of tax differentials for marital status can be accomplished w/o fundamentally altering the legal nature of marriage or divorce the way it currently is in most Western countries (not just the US). As for transforming it into a contract, I can tell you that that won't reduce the litigious nature of divorces one iota. It will just morph it from a divorce action into a contract-dispute action. I handle the occasional divorce, and a lot of business-breakup cases. Think of the really ugly divorce cases you've heard of or lived through; well, most business-breakup cases are just like those on virtually every meaningful level: anger, financial complexity, collateral damage to innocents, you name it. I've done lots of divorce law. I think marriage contracts could be refined to something very useful in short order. Really good contracts can prevent litigation of any serious nature. Most divorce orders are pretty strong. I think marriage contracts would become pretty standardized and fairly foolproof with just a little effort.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #70 January 28, 2013 QuoteGot another? Federal Estate Taxes is pretty huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor Immigration and residency laws for spouses, , the right to visit someone in jail, bereavement leave...Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #71 January 28, 2013 I'm unfamiliar with how marriage effects estate taxes. Make out a will, like I said, and the benefits of marriage are generally gone. Except that you can't completely write a spouse out of all inheritance in Alabama. I think you are talking about mail order bride stuff with the immigration and residency piece. I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate instances, but there are so many ways to immigrate to the states...I think you're stretching on that one. Anyone can visit someone in jail. Pretty sure bereavement leave is between you and your employer. There might be a federal law, but I don't track employment laws. I don't have an issue with a whole flock of people from several genders getting married. But the fact is that it is mostly a symbolic thing. Just not much to get excited about.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #72 January 28, 2013 I was referring more to people outside of public office when talking about insulting behaviors of left leaning folks, and I hope my personal observation is not too insulting to anyone. I do not know if people here are as polarized in ideology as they are on specific social issues. For instance,I bet many are pro 2nd amendment and support gay rights,and environmental protection issues as well. I agree that the republican party would gain alot of weight if they were to become as accepting of alternative lifestyles as the left has become. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #73 January 28, 2013 Quote I'm unfamiliar with how marriage effects estate taxes. Make out a will, like I said, and the benefits of marriage are generally gone. Except that you can't completely write a spouse out of all inheritance in Alabama. I think you are talking about mail order bride stuff with the immigration and residency piece. I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate instances, but there are so many ways to immigrate to the states...I think you're stretching on that one. Anyone can visit someone in jail. Pretty sure bereavement leave is between you and your employer. There might be a federal law, but I don't track employment laws. I don't have an issue with a whole flock of people from several genders getting married. But the fact is that it is mostly a symbolic thing. Just not much to get excited about. The link I provided explains the estate tax issue. 2 women were a couple for 40 years and were legally recognized as a married couple in their home state of NY, but when 1 of them died, her spouse was forced to pay over 350,000 in estate taxes on her inheritance. You can't "make out a will" that prevents you from paying taxes to the government that you wouldn't have to pay if the government recognized your marriage. No, I'm not talking about "mail order bride" stuff. Lots and lots of people travel and work overseas and meet people in other countries and fall in love. The heterosexual ones have it a lot easier. It's utter bullshit to say that there's always a way to make it happen. Having to pay money for lawyers and court costs isn't an option that less fortunate homosexual couples have.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #74 January 28, 2013 If two people of the same sex want to get married what is the big deal. This country is suppose to have seperation of church and state,so religious doctrine should have no legal bearing in the USA as it does. Other than religious doctrine there are no other real reasons against same sex marriage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #75 January 28, 2013 What about the "share the misery" argument? Seems to have legs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
