Single parents can get tax bonuses so your full of it and anyway marriage is something somebody has to want to be in but that doesn't mean a certain subset should be denied when they WANT to enter into that contract.
OKCupid urges users to not use Firefox
- Thread starter jasonng
- Start date
- Status
Single parents can get tax bonuses so your full of it and anyway marriage is something somebody has to want to be in but that doesn't mean a certain subset should be denied when they WANT to enter into that contract.
Dude Abides
Banned
Both married and unmarried people can claim children as dependents on their taxes.
A married couple with two incomes actually usually pays more in taxes than they would filing singly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
UncleSporky
Member
You just gave me the thought that from the start the focus shouldn't have been on being able to marry, instead we should've just invented a new type of union called "blarriage" that is mysteriously identical to marriage and encourage supporters to start getting blarried instead, gay and straight alike.
We'd be seeing news stories that "blarriage is on the rise, over 60% of couples opted to get blarried instead of married this year, causing no end of annoyance to frustrated ministers everywhere."
We're talking about philosophical positions, and you haven't actually addressed my question other than to wave it away. Reading between the lines of your post above (material support for homophobic legislation does not affect people's lives in your mind?) there's no reason you cannot reconcile ideological support vs material support being two wholly separate things where it is reasonable to expect different treatment. As you said, these are actions that have a direct effect upon people's lives. The rest of your post is just goalpost shifting.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Please point out where anyone is asking the government to step in and limit his free speech. I'll save you the trouble: no one has. So what exactly was your point of brining that up?
I still have no idea what you were trying to communicate earlier.
You said that marriage is a privilege, not a right, in response to someone objecting to anti-SSM efforts as efforts to deny rights (that this is not just the expression of an opinion). Okay, so why do you think that's true? You didn't say. But let's suppose it's true - why should anyone care? It basically still seems true to me that someone isn't just expressing an opinion when they're actively working to deny people privileges.
Then you mentioned that the institution always heavily discriminated against gay people and single people. I think everyone agrees with the first. And let's grant the second. Again, so? Are you providing a reason to fix marriage so that it doesn't discriminate, such as by allowing gay marriage? It doesn't really seem like that's what you think you're doing. I don't know what you think you're doing.
UncleSporky
Member
I'm in favor of arresting people for donating to terrorists.
I am not in favor of arresting people for donating to anti-gay marriage organizations.
I am not even in favor of arresting people for donating to the KKK!
I am in favor of judging people harshly for their actions, on a case by case basis.
I might be in favor of forcing a high profile man to step down from his high profile job for donating to an anti-gay organization, but I am not in favor of forcing all people who have ever publicly donated money to an anti-gay organization to lose their job.
This is because there should not be a hard line between monetary support (no matter how small) and voicing an opinion (no matter how loudly).
Really APF, you need to think about this. This was part of my original post:
Do you honestly agree with this, that the shy dude who put some coins in the wrong bucket deserves harsher judgement than the vocal asshole? Do you really.
one person was stating that someone's opinion wasn't an opinion. You jumped in about freedom of speech.
Uh.....ok. How much acid did you take today because that would be proportional to how much "blarriage" people want as opposed to "blowmeage" which is what 75% of men prefer anyway.
Captain Europe
Member
I never stated that, read my post again. It might be an opinion but it's also homophobia, and the time has passed that it should be brushed off as just an opinion a person has.
That's fine but that's also not what I asked you to address. My point was to demonstrate that you have the ability to separate consequences for material support from consequences for ideological support. Or are you actually saying you are also in favor of arresting people for agreeing with points made by terrorist organizations?
UncleSporky
Member
Doesn't it usually depend on how strongly they agree and how vocal they are? I believe that's the sort of decision the police have to make all the time. Once it crosses the line from loony to dangerous, that's when they act.
And you need to answer my question too. Do you honestly believe that we need to judge a person who donates $1, and otherwise does not express his opinion or show support, more harshly than a person who is extremely outspoken and vocal with his opinion?
What if it's $1 vs. a person who pickets?
What if it's $1 vs. a person who votes strictly based on candidates who are anti-gay?
Shades of grey. Judge them on a case by case basis. Donating money isn't always a sign of graduating to the next level, it's still an opinion. As I said earlier, donating money is one of the laziest things you can do. Heck, anti-gay organizations can't buy a person's vote for a dollar.
http://m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-being-single-in-america/267043/
Good read.
Polygamy is a crime punishable by law and persecuted. Homosexuals, are not allowed in many countries/states to marry. Why? Because both are not accepted by the christian definition we have as standard.
I thought I made clear that I'm an opponent of marriage as a whole , because it is by definition discriminating.
Good read.
Polygamy is a crime punishable by law and persecuted. Homosexuals, are not allowed in many countries/states to marry. Why? Because both are not accepted by the christian definition we have as standard.
I thought I made clear that I'm an opponent of marriage as a whole , because it is by definition discriminating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_material_support_for_terrorism
You have still avoided addressing what I asked...
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Marriage is a right in the United States. In fact, it's a "fundamental right", which means it's a right that courts may take seriously.
Ninja Scooter
Member
You stated that you didn't want the government dictating what you said or thought. How is that related to this issue at all?
Marriage is a right for whom to which extent?
I'm not sure exactly where you are going with this line of reasoning.
You are downplaying the significance. We earn money to at minimum survive and at the maximum push forward society in a certain direction.
When you talk about something people have an easier time ignoring whatever they disagree with. By exchanging your labor and direct contribution to society to buy someone else's labor or advance a cause means you are putting a lot more effort into getting either of those things, even if it is an indirect way. It's not lazy as you claimed in the previous page.
You would be better off arguing that even though there is a distinction practically no one cares either way if an employee gets fired by their company for what they say. Money doesn't have to be involved in the first place as past twitter blow ups show.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That's the question, isn't it?
Yep. It makes the difference if it is a right or a privilege based on cultural colonialism.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No, the question is the extent of the right to marry, not whether there is a right to marry. That much is certain. There is.
Who has the right to marry is limited by the cultural background which is inherently discriminating. A muslim woman doesn't have the right to marry multiple men or women. She would be put into jail. It is a privilege.
Btw, aren't homosexuals allowed to marry? Its "just" not endorsed by the state?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I wouldn't take that for granted. "Fundamental rights," such as marriage, may be "limited by the cultural background," because they are those rights which are "'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty', or 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'" But it's at least arguably true that, despite that foundation in tradition, the rights should be interpreted more broadly--such as encompassing same-sex marriage.
In American law, rights--even fundamental rights--are not absolute. The government can still infringe on them if it has really good reasons for doing so and doesn't do so more than necessary (to put the strict scrutiny test in layman's terms). So there are a few ways to approach how polygamy fits in with the notion of marriage-as-fundamental-right: in the first way, we might deny that polygamous marriage is a fundamental right, while still saying that non-polygamous marriage is a fundamental right. Or, we might say that, yes, polygamous marriage is part of the fundamental right to marry, but the government has good reasons to prohibit it and infringes those rights no more than necessary. Or, we might say that polygamous marriage is part of the fundamental right to marry, and the government doesn't have good reasons for prohibiting it, or infringes those rights excessively. In that last case, of course, a prohibition on polygamy should be struck down.
But none of this means that marriage is a privilege which has the government as its origin. The government couldn't just one day decide that nobody can marry. (Of course, this does not mean that the government has to endorse any marriage, or extend any benefits to married couples on account of their marital status.)
It's a shame that Mozilla that is about promoting a free and open internet and it's all about the community of developers and users that build it chose a bigot for CEO.
And about the free speech argument, he's free to have his opinions just as I am of thinking he's a bigot and saying it publicly.
And about the free speech argument, he's free to have his opinions just as I am of thinking he's a bigot and saying it publicly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked