Boston Mayor to Outlaw Chick-Fil-A

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

Edit: I didn't see Drake's latest response before posting this.

 

[James Madison]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

Depends on your gender. If you're female it could be advantageous, though probably not. For men, the risk of getting screwed in the family courts makes it not worth it.

 

[Nickels]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

Edit: I didn't see Drake's latest response before posting this.

even if the actual measureable tangible monetary benefits didn't exist, people still, to jmdrake's admission, register to marry, they seem to have no problem getting state recognition. so why shouldn't this superficial and harmless benefit be extended to any 2 adults, if monetary benefits were completely gone?

 

[jmdrake]

why not just stop registering marriages? Taxes and social security were not designed for married people, so why wait on that?

I'm not sure I follow your question. Since the tax laws (for better and worse) recognize marriage, the tax laws themselves need to be changed. And since this movement primarily is about economic liberty, why is that not your priority?

 

[Nickels]

I'm not sure I follow your question. Since the tax laws (for better and worse) recognize marriage, the tax laws themselves need to be changed. And since this movement primarily is about economic liberty, why is that not your priority?

what a convoluted way to say "I'm IDEALLY against income tax, and in the meantime (which is going to be a long time), I don't care if it's unfair to people who can't or don't get married, I'm staying married because I can"

 

[jmdrake]

even if the actual measureable tangible monetary benefits didn't exist, people still, to jmdrake's admission, register to marry, they seem to have no problem getting state recognition. so why shouldn't this superficial and harmless benefit be extended to any 2 adults, if monetary benefits were completely gone?

Why limit it to 2 adults? Why not three? And why limit it to 2 adults that are not married? Why not brothers and sisters? (Or brothers and brothers or sisters and sisters)? In fact, why have any limits at all? Of course as soon as someone points out the other possibilities someone else says "How dare you compare homosexuality to polygamy, incest, bestiality, fill-in-the-blank!" To that I reply "How dare you thumb your nose at the polygamists, sibling lovers and beast lovers of the world!" I mean, look at the whole thread. Some president of a private business says he doesn't approve of gay marriage and gay rights activists flip out about it. "How dare he be open about his beliefs! Let's boycott!" Ummmmm....okay. If the goal is to get rid of "marriage inequality" then the only way forward as far as I'm concerned is to press even harder to get rid of the artificial "benefits" of marriage (and get rid of the artificial welfare benefits of being an unwed mother too). If you do anything else, you're really just making things more unequal for the people left out. (The polygamists etc). And no I'm not going to get divorced or "unregister" my marriage just to make you feel better about me. You aren't my standard. I doubt my wife would agree with such stupidity anyway (I barely got her to consider voting for Ron Paul) but even if she would, impressing some stranger on the net isn't a good reason to do anything.

 

[jmdrake]

//

 

[QuickZ06]

Homosexuals....We are going to hate on a certain group because we are threatened by their opinion and hate being hated on for being a homosexual so to prove our point we will hate on that certain group. Makes perfect sense

 

[jmdrake]

what a convoluted way to say "I'm IDEALLY against income tax, and in the meantime (which is going to be a long time), I don't care if it's unfair to people who can't or don't get married, I'm staying married because I can"

Well you want to make them more unfair to polygamists. I mean if we're going to play the "put words in someone's mouth" game.

Edit: And you also want to raise taxes on gullible homosexuals since they are more likely to have similar incomes and will be hit with the tax penalty instead of the tax benefit.

 

[Nickels]

Why limit it to 2 adults?

If we are talking about how pointless the mariage document is absent monetary benefits, then yes, we shouldn't limit it to 2 adults.

Why not three? And why limit it to 2 adults that are not married? Why not brothers and sisters? (Or brothers and brothers or sisters and sisters)? In fact, why have any limits at all? Of course as soon as someone points out the other possibilities someone else says "How dare you compare homosexuality to polygamy, incest, bestiality, fill-in-the-blank!" To that I reply "How dare you thumb your nose at the polygamists, sibling lovers and beast lovers of the world!"

I don't condemn beastiality or incest, so that's not a problem here.

I mean, look at the whole thread. Some president of a private business says he doesn't approve of gay marriage and gay rights activists flip out about it. "How dare he be open about his beliefs! Let's boycott!" Ummmmm....okay. If the goal is to get rid of "marriage inequality" then the only way forward as far as I'm concerned is to press even harder to get rid of the artificial "benefits" of marriage (and get rid of the artificial welfare benefits of being an unwed mother too).

Answer my question, please. If we got rid of monetary benefits of marriage, either by abolishing taxes or simply not recognizing privileges to married couples, would the benefits of marriage license be superficial and pointless, and if so, would you limit, or have a problem letting any 2 or more people sign one?

If you do anything else, you're really just making things more unequal for the people left out. (The polygamists etc). And no I'm not going to get divorced or "unregister" my marriage just to make you feel better about me.

I have no problem about inequality, if anybody has a problem with gay people , or want them be treated unequally, I don't have a problem with it. It's when people pretend to want equality but do another that I'll pick bone with. If you actually believe gay people don't deserve the same rights you do, say it. I don't need to hear why. I don't believe polygamists, incestors, beastialitists are less human or deserve to be treated differently, but I have no problem if you disagree. I don't claim to speak for gay equality.

You aren't my standard. I doubt my wife would agree with such stupidity anyway (I barely got her to consider voting for Ron Paul) but even if she would, impressing some stranger on the net isn't a good reason to do anything.

at least you admitted you don't care about showing you do what you believe.

 

[Nickels]

Well you want to make them more unfair to polygamists. I mean if we're going to play the "put words in someone's mouth" game.

Edit: And you also want to raise taxes on gullible homosexuals since they are more likely to have similar incomes and will be hit with the tax penalty instead of the tax benefit.

No, I don't.

I also don't care about gays being taxed for being gay, just so we're clear what I do or don't have a problem with.

 

[jmdrake]

If we are talking about how pointless the mariage document is absent monetary benefits, then yes, we shouldn't limit it to 2 adults.

Again I never said it was pointless or that it wasn't pointless. Why do you insist on being dishonest about that? I said that I didn't sit down and think about it at the time. I've also pointed out repeatedly that for some taxes go up with marriage. Take two people with the same income (they have higher taxes being married) both working full time so both get healthcare without being married, and both have good retirement accounts that dwarf what they might get under social security. Do they have a financial incentive to get married? Not really. Might they want to get married? Maybe. Anyway, unless you're out their on the front lines pushing to decriminalize polygamy like you are fighting for gay marriage then your words are hollow. And since you keep demanding this and that from me, I now formally demand from you proof that you've donated to some pro polygamist organization.

I don't condemn beastiality or incest, so that's not a problem here.

Where's your receipt from the national beastiality legalization society? I mean since you're running around making demands of others.

Answer my question, please. If we got rid of monetary benefits of marriage, either by abolishing taxes or simply not recognizing privileges to married couples, would the benefits of marriage license be superficial and pointless, and if so, would you limit, or have a problem letting any 2 or more people sign one?

I already said you have a laser printer. Print one up and sign one with your partner today for all I care. I don't think the state should be involved in that. It's not on my priority list either way. I'm not donating to the "Save traditional marriage" foundation, but I'm not pushing for gay marriage either.

I have no problem about inequality, if anybody has a problem with gay people , or want them be treated unequally, I don't have a problem with it. It's when people pretend to want equality but do another that I'll pick bone with. If you actually believe gay people don't deserve the same rights you do, say it. I don't need to hear why. I don't believe polygamists, incestors, beastialitists are less human or deserve to be treated differently, but I have no problem if you disagree. I don't claim to speak for gay equality.

That's just it. I don't see it as a matter of rights as much as it is a matter of definitions. Marriage was initially a religious institution. Gay people get "married" all the time. I don't recognize those marriages myself because I don't think they're valid. That doesn't mean I'm saying gays are "less human". (Stupid straw man argument). Andrea Dworkin (sp), a famous feminist and lesbian author, married a gay man.

at least you admitted you don't care about showing you do what you believe.

At least you quit beating your wife (or husband). Anyway, it's clear. I have one goal in mind (getting the government out of marriage) you have another goal (equalizing marriage even if you say otherwise). At some points those goals converge, at other points they don't.

 

[jmdrake]

No, I don't.

Since you insist on shoving your words in others mouths, you should expect the same in return.

I also don't care about gays being taxed for being gay, just so we're clear what I do or don't have a problem with.

And let's be clear that the end result of the equalization of marriage will be a disparate impact of taxes on gays going up, not "because they are gay" but because people of the same gender are more likely to have similar incomes. And lets the be clear that the gay marriage movement as a whole isn't being honest about this.

 

[Nickels]

Again I never said it was pointless or that it wasn't pointless.

So now is your chance to get it straight. Is it or is it not pointless?

If it's pointless, why do you have a problem with polygamists, incestors, beastialitors getting it? (I don't).
If it's not pointless, tell me what the point is.
Is there a middle ground? Third option? You obviously know a lot about this, is it a fair question?

 

[Nickels]

Since you insist on shoving your words in others mouths, you should expect the same in return.

And let's be clear that the end result of the equalization of marriage will be a disparate impact of taxes on gays going up, not "because they are gay" but because people of the same gender are more likely to have similar incomes. And lets the be clear that the gay marriage movement as a whole isn't being honest about this.

People who want equality are not honest, I know that already. People who don't want equality aren't always either.

 

[Nickels]

I already said you have a laser printer. Print one up and sign one with your partner today for all I care. I don't think the state should be involved in that. It's not on my priority list either way. I'm not donating to the "Save traditional marriage" foundation, but I'm not pushing for gay marriage either.

You just care enough to keep your license. That's not at all like a person saying nobody should get welfare but he won't stop getting it, right? Or a handicap person saying handicaps shouldn't get a reserved parking spot but won't give up their reserved spot and fight with other people over normal spots, right?

 

[jmdrake]

So now is your chance to get it straight. Is it or is it not pointless?

Okay. Let's start off with where we agree. I think we both agree that under current law there is a difference between having a state recognized marriage and not having one. The biggest difference deals with things that can be dealt without the state. (Medical decisions, inheritance etc). The smaller but more intractable differences deal with stuff the state shouldn't be forcing on people anyway. (Income taxes, employer bases health insurance and social security). Now if all of that went away then the difference would be in the minds of the people involved. Does it matter if you exchange wedding rings? Not really. But people do it.

If it's pointless, why do you have a problem with polygamists, incestors, beastialitors getting it? (I don't).
If it's not pointless, tell me what the point is.
Is there a middle ground? Third option? You obviously know a lot about this, is it a fair question?

Okay. This sounds like fair questions so I'll try to give fair answers. Understand with your first question I have both a personal view largely on religious views and a legal view.

Polygamy
Personal view: On your question of what problem I have with polygamists? None really. That's been around for as long as man can remember. Yeah Paul talked about a "bishop being the husband of one wife", and Jesus' pronouncement on marriage implied 1 man and 1 woman as opposed to 1 man a several women, and every patriarch recorded with multiple wives seems to have had problems because of it, but...well I'm really not sure.


Legal view: It's tricky in our modern society. Which wife gets to make medical decisions for instance. The first because she has seniority? Or the last because maybe the husband love her more? My understanding is that Islam's worked that out, but we aren't an Islamic based country. I think courts would have a hard time figuring out the correct default rules. But if people wrote their own documents (wills, powers of attorney etc) the courts wouldn't have to guess. I'm for decriminalization of polygamy rather than legal recognition. I don't think it makes sense that a man can have 4 babies mamas, but if he has a private ceremony with a preacher where he declares he's committed to 2 babies mamas he can go to prison in some states.

Incest:
Personal view: Incest? Well that's been around a long time too. (Abraham and Sarah were half siblings). Incest eventually got sanctioned under the law of Moses and Paul spoke out against it.

Legal view: Historically there's been concern about birth defects. (Of course with gay incest that's not an issue). Obviously there aren't the problems of figure out who has priority that you might have under polygamy. But then if the taboo against adult incest is erased, what happens to underage incest? Not sure where that line should be drawn.

Bestiality:
Personal view: Ick!

Legal view: People talk about the lack of ability for an animal to consent, but animals don't consent to be eaten. If you have arbitrary life and death power over something then you have arbitrary power for anything else imaginable. I wouldn't have someone arrested for it. But an animal isn't in position to decide medical decisions for its human spouse. Still if someone wants to have a private ceremony with his/her sheep then I wouldn't arrest that person. And if that person wants to draw up legal documents that kinda make sense (inheritance is the only one I can think of) fine. And someone should be able to leave his retirement account to his sheep if he desires and buy health insurance for his sheep if that's what he wants to do.

I (sincerely) hope that helps you understand my view.

 

[jmdrake]

You just care enough to keep your license. That's not at all like a person saying nobody should get welfare but he won't stop getting it, right? Or a handicap person saying handicaps shouldn't get a reserved parking spot but won't give up their reserved spot and fight with other people over normal spots, right?

Or Ron Paul asking for entitlements then voting against the entire bill? Or someone pushing for a flat tax but taking exemptions as long as they exist?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

How about NO MORE LAWS. Too many already.

Accepting welfare is not bad, taking money from people to send out welfare to others is bad. Accepting back money stolen from you is not bad, stealing the money in the first place is bad. Yes, inflation is a tax and is money stolen from you. Let's all get on welfare and break it's back (j/k)