Gay Marriage

Page 7 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Nocbl2 on Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:59 am

KristallNacht wrote:
Toaster wrote:Still, adoptive parents have to earn a certain income level as it is... so the gay people looking to adopt don't really need the tax incentives.


.....what? So families that make above a certain amount also shouldn't get tax incentives for children?
I think he means that they have to have more money than the average person to adopt. Ergo, they should not get the benefit because they don't need it as much.

Personally, I think it depends on situation. But the gay "civil unions" could include everything else AND not have the tax thingy.
avatar
Nocbl2
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 4814
Age : 19
Location : California
Registration date : 2009-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Toaster on Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:44 am

NT wrote:.....what? So families that make above a certain amount also shouldn't get tax incentives for children?

I was just demonstrating how it isn't a particularly crucial issue, and beyond that, sure, I don't think it's that important to offer tax incentives for already wealthy couples.

I think we should replace all taxes and welfare programs with a single negative income tax. People would only receive payments if they worked a certain number of hours (unless declared incapable of such work), and in the case of married couples, one spouse would be made exempt from the work requirement. As only people earning below a certain income would receive payments, marriage would thus hold no tax incentives for the non-poor, which is fine, because poor people are the ones who so desperately need family structure.

But that's all sort of pie in the sky stuff.

Nocbl2 wrote:But the gay "civil unions" could include everything else AND not have the tax thingy.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to suggest in my first post. All the other benefits should DEFINITELY be offered. The rest of the stuff... meh.
avatar
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 25
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by KrAzY on Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:37 pm

you do not have to have a higher than average income to adopt a child, you are more likely to get an adopted child if you do, but you only need enough to provide for the kid
avatar
KrAzY
Painter of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 3962
Age : 28
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by CivBase on Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:45 pm

Is this still being debated here?

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Rotaretilbo on Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:55 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:Oh yes quite, people who act like the opposition are bigots are DEFINITELY just as bad as a bunch of racist homophobic anti-islamic woman haters.

You realize that by blanket hating the opposition and making sweeping generalizations about them, you are yourself being a bigot, right?

Lord Pheonix wrote:And someone is obviously an upper middle class white Christian who has never been discriminated against and probably thinks that "racism is barely even around anymore and people just need to stop mentioning it for it to go away"

Racism exists all over, but the special rights movement isn't helping. All this cultural awareness results in minorities self-segregating. It sensationalizes and promotes racism. Special rights breeds bitterness. A low income white male like myself can get a scholarship to college if I work really hard and maintain a high GPA. A black woman of a much higher income can get a larger scholarship on account of her skin color. In a corporate environment, a white male like myself can be fired from work freely, on the first offense or on no offense at all. A black woman in the same cannot be fired even after multiple offenses for fear of discrimination law suits; the company must first compile stacks of signed write ups and other paperwork before they can dare attempt to fire a minority. We do all these things in the name of ending racism, but is it? Not at all! Minorities who get a job over a more qualified white male because of their skin color are looked down upon by their peers. Nobody is going to like the token minority whose sole purpose is to meet affirmative action because he wasn't hired on his ability, but on his skin color. In the name of equality, we have given racists valid ammunition for their hatred. Who on Earth thought that the solution for racism was more racism in the opposite direction?

KristallNacht wrote:.....what? So families that make above a certain amount also shouldn't get tax incentives for children?

As I understand it, at higher income brackets, you do get less of a tax incentive for children. I recently filled out a W4 for my new job, and I happened to read through the Child Tax Credit section out of boredom. Below a certain income (I think it was around 60k), you mark 2 per child, rather than 1, so you effectively double your tax credit.

Toaster wrote:I think we should replace all taxes and welfare programs with a single negative income tax. People would only receive payments if they worked a certain number of hours (unless declared incapable of such work), and in the case of married couples, one spouse would be made exempt from the work requirement. As only people earning below a certain income would receive payments, marriage would thus hold no tax incentives for the non-poor, which is fine, because poor people are the ones who so desperately need family structure.

But that's all sort of pie in the sky stuff.

Welcome to the Statist Party, RT. Very Happy

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Toaster on Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:51 am

Rot wrote:
Welcome to the Statist Party, RT. Very Happy

Quite the opposite of Statism really. More like a very slightly compassionate Objectivism bounce

That minimum income level should not be comfortable, but only enough to provide the absolute bare minimum for subsistence. Honestly, when I write it out, I feel like some Rooseveltian "EVERY MAN HAS A RIGHT TO A LIVABLE SALARY" hot head, so it all makes me very nervous.
avatar
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 25
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Rotaretilbo on Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:06 pm

Toaster wrote:Quite the opposite of Statism really. More like a very slightly compassionate Objectivism bounce

That minimum income level should not be comfortable, but only enough to provide the absolute bare minimum for subsistence. Honestly, when I write it out, I feel like some Rooseveltian "EVERY MAN HAS A RIGHT TO A LIVABLE SALARY" hot head, so it all makes me very nervous.

The concept of mandating a minimum number of work hours for citizens would be limiting in both social and economic freedoms, and so would be a statist measure by nature. You are certainly nowhere close to the level of extremism that cynicism has brought me, of course, but the ideal itself is certainly of a statist notion. Razz

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Toaster on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm

Rot wrote:
The concept of mandating a minimum number of work hours for citizens would be limiting in both social and economic freedoms, and so would be a statist measure by nature. You are certainly nowhere close to the level of extremism that cynicism has brought me, of course, but the ideal itself is certainly of a statist notion. Razz

You'd only be required to work if you hoped to receive government assistance. It would just be a measure to be sure that people aren't sitting on their asses all day and receiving payments.
avatar
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 25
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Rotaretilbo on Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:23 pm

I suppose that would be more a conservative notion than statist, then. I'm sure you'll come to our way of thinking sooner or later, though. You have to be naive or unintelligent to remain anything but a statist, and I take you for neither of those things. Razz

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Ringleader on Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:57 pm

PRIMITIVE HU-MONS!!! OOHHHOOOHHHHOOOOHHH!!!!


What the hell is marriage, anyway? Like is there a universal definition of what it is? If not, don't expect anyone to come to an agreement about it any time soon.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by CivBase on Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:41 pm

Ringleader wrote:PRIMITIVE HU-MONS!!! OOHHHOOOHHHHOOOOHHH!!!!

What the hell is marriage, anyway? Like is there a universal definition of what it is? If not, don't expect anyone to come to an agreement about it any time soon.
Better question: why is the government involved in marriage? Secular or religious, there's simply no reason for the government to be involved.

At the time of the American Revolution, the British government and church were more-or-less the same, so marriage as a government issue was kind of a given. I'm sure we unthinkingly adopted that aspect of the British government when forming our own and nobody thought it would be a problem. In the United States, though, the government doesn't affiliate with any religion so why is it still involved in marriage?

Just let churches do their thing and everyone else do their thing. If the government needs some sort of binding for something, they can just call it a civil union for everyone.

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Gauz on Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:48 am

Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions
What’s the difference?


(Updated December 2011)

Framing the conversation: What’s really at stake?

First, let’s be clear. This discussion is about substance—not symbols. The human stakes are enormous.
This document explains why civil marriage, and not civil unions, is the only way to make sure gay and
lesbian couples have all of the same legal protections as other married couples.

Second, the discussion is about ending governmental discrimination against gay and lesbian families with
respect to civil marriage and its legal protections and responsibilities—not about any religious rite of
marriage. Every faith is and will remain free to set its own rules about who can marry and on what terms.

Third, marriage is many things to many people. But it is also a legal institution in which governmental
discrimination has no place.

Let’s compare civil marriage as a legal institution to civil unions as a legal institution.

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings
with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal
parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that
you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other’s side. It represents the
ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No
other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and subsequently by the states of
Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Illinois, Delaware and Hawaii. It provides legal
protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity,
security and power of the word “marriage.”

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the
two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will
be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.
Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to
disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a
state that respects the civil union.
Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a
family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
none of these critical legal protections.
Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind
of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as
taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like
Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint
federal/state programs.
Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union
don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single
family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
potential serious criminal penalties.
Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a
federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex
couples?


Right now, a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies recognition of same-sex unions
conferred by any state for purposes of all federal programs and requirements. Only married same-sex
couples have the right to challenge this discrimination, and, in fact, GLAD has filed a federal lawsuit to do
just that. For more information see www.glad.org/doma. If GLAD wins this lawsuit, or if Congress repeals
DOMA, then married same sex-couples will have access to the 1138 laws that pertain to marriage, but
civil union couples will still not have this access.

About 40 state laws have laws and/or constitutional amendments that prevent same-sex couples from
marrying. Using the term “marriage” rather than “civil union” is an essential first step to opening the door
and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination against civil marriages of gay and lesbian
people makes sense.

Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in principle.

First, a few states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and lesbian
couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel freely
and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected.

Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws and/or constitutional amendments, legally
married gay and lesbian couples from those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters,
but their marriages will also be treated with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to
be respected by others than newly minted “civil unions.”

Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness. Allowing same sex couples to marry
(rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people to talk with their neighbors, their
local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination against their marriages is fair.
Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric, is it right to continue
discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that have taken
discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies and go
back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we
will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil
marriage.



source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glad.org%2Fuploads%2Fdocs%2Fpublications%2Fcu-vs-marriage.pdf&ei=sNOjUL3TEYfC2QXjyoDYCA&usg=AFQjCNF6k4jwVdurXE3scS4KOo7ijVbxnQ&sig2=rPuMNugUyxxbxkmR2x5QJw

When entering a civil partnership/unionship/marriage everyone should have the same rights. Heterosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples in that regard.
avatar
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Nocbl2 on Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:13 pm

Ringleader wrote:PRIMITIVE HU-MONS!!! OOHHHOOOHHHHOOOOHHH!!!!


What the hell is marriage, anyway? Like is there a universal definition of what it is? If not, don't expect anyone to come to an agreement about it any time soon.
I don't think there ever really was an agreed definition. Leviticus said it was fine so long as everyone was high at the time.
avatar
Nocbl2
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 4814
Age : 19
Location : California
Registration date : 2009-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by CivBase on Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:52 pm

I can't tell if you post was aimed at me, Gauz. If it was, it had nothing to do with what I said. Otherwise, I'm going to try to stay out of discussions that aren't related to my personal opinion.

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Gauz on Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:43 pm

That wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at the argument.
avatar
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Rotaretilbo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:13 am

You do realize that the argument here is to elevate the state of a Civil Union and give that to everyone, and completely omit the term "marriage" from federal or state regulations, right? The current legal definitions of civil marriage and civil union are sorta completely and totally irrelevant to this argument.

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by CivBase on Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:18 am

Gauz wrote:That wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at the argument.
My argument? Because yah... if so, what Rot said. In my case, civil union is nothing more than a semantic used to reference a legally binding relationship that is the same for absolutely everyone.

If anyone wants to get married, they can just get married. The government doesn't need to be involved.

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Gauz on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:51 pm

Rotaretilbo wrote:You do realize that the argument here is to elevate the state of a Civil Union and give that to everyone, and completely omit the term "marriage" from federal or state regulations, right? The current legal definitions of civil marriage and civil union are sorta completely and totally irrelevant to this argument.
No, but thanks for clearing that up.

CivBase wrote:
Gauz wrote:That wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at the argument.
My argument? Because yah... if so, what Rot said. In my case, civil union is nothing more than a semantic used to reference a legally binding relationship that is the same for absolutely everyone.

If anyone wants to get married, they can just get married. The government doesn't need to be involved.
No, Civ, not your argument.


I did not post a counter-argument, just a link. I am for the idea of federally recognizing civil unions and giving civil unions the power of civil marriage. I'm unsure about removing the term marriage from federal or state regulation.
avatar
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Tylertlat on Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:51 pm

By far the best argument against gay marriage I've seen.
avatar
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 623
Age : 27
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Lord Pheonix on Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:54 pm

That video was FOR gay marriage. Even said at the end "please support gay marriage or else we'll marry your boyfriends".

_________________

avatar
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7569
Registration date : 2008-03-23

View user profile http://crimsonflame.bigforumpro.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Tylertlat on Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:33 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:That video was FOR gay marriage. Even said at the end "please support gay marriage or else we'll marry your boyfriends".


It's a joke LP. The implication being that I would want to block gay marriage legalization so the hot lesbians in the video make good on their threat and start stealing straight guys...


Last edited by Tylertlat on Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:39 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : To put in a better facepalm smiley)
avatar
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 623
Age : 27
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Lord Pheonix on Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:42 pm

I was not looking at it from the angle of wanting a lesbian girlfriend. My apologies.

_________________

avatar
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7569
Registration date : 2008-03-23

View user profile http://crimsonflame.bigforumpro.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Rotaretilbo on Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:23 pm

A hot lesbian girlfriend. That's an important distinction. Razz

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Tylertlat on Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:I was not looking at it from the angle of wanting a hot lesbian girlfriend. My apologies.

Well that was kinda the point of the video. Or the mechanism by which the main point was presented.
avatar
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 623
Age : 27
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Jamiesway on Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:57 pm

Pride <3
avatar
Jamiesway
Crimson Chick

Female Number of posts : 461
Age : 22
Location : Little Africa, With alot of black people.
Registration date : 2008-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum