Log in

View Full Version : AFA's Gay marriage poll blows up in their faces.



Pages : 1 [2]

Madcap
02-11-2004, 02:36 AM
HEY!!!

I'm the antibiblethumper!


;D

montythegeek
02-11-2004, 06:34 AM
JLJ, You state that you are an equal rights advocate. Does this position go so far as to argue that a person who makes $100K a year has the equal right to pay the same number of dollars in taxes as a person making $20K.
Is that equality or is it the person making $100K and $20K paying the same tax rate. Bill Gates or Warren Buffett would not mind the same number of dollars as someone making $100K, or even the same tax rate.
If you say that is money, thats different then it is okay to pay worker A and worker B different amounts for the same job.
If you say "that is different-thats taxes", remember it is also different for people over 65 and the blind.
You also loose all affirmative action because that is not equal either. What about siblings marrying? That is not equal that they can't marry, or do you go into their bedroom and make they practice 100% birth control but let them marry.

As a point of reference, I would remind readers of this thread that of the fact that the push for a SSML by some quirk only emerged after the 2001 and 2003 tax laws reduced substantially the "marriage penalty" in the tax laws.

As for someone raising insurance as an issue, the insured controls the beneficiary EXCEPT if they are married. If you are married you have to have permission from your spouse to make anyone else the beneficiary on an employer paid insurance policy or on your IRA.

JimLovesJazz
02-11-2004, 02:38 PM
JLJ, You state that you are an equal rights advocate. Does this position go so far as to argue that a person who makes $100K a year has the equal right to pay the same number of dollars in taxes as a person making $20K.
Is that equality or is it the person making $100K and $20K paying the same tax rate. Bill Gates or Warren Buffett would not mind the same number of dollars as someone making $100K, or even the same tax rate.
If you say that is money, thats different then it is okay to pay worker A and worker B different amounts for the same job.
If you say "that is different-thats taxes", remember it is also different for people over 65 and the blind.
You also loose all affirmative action because that is not equal either.


That doesn't have much to do with this topic Monty but it might make for another interesting discussion if you wanted to start a new thread. I must say though that my primary focus of study and action is more on crimes against humanity like sex slavery and child soldiers and a more minor focus on equal rights in reference to discrimination, mostly womens and homosexuals issues

I don't claim to have any expertise or vast knowledge the effects of tax changes so I'm probably not the best person to debate that with, just a heads up.

As for opening the door to incest marriages- I have already addressed that previously in the thread.

montythegeek
02-11-2004, 06:09 PM
No JLJ, you avoided the issue in the other thread.

Acoording to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts in their ruling--marriage in their eyes has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with having children. If it did, there would be no way with existing technology that 2 people of the same gender could possibly be married to each other and their treatment as different has no legal basis.

If 2 people having sex is no business of the state per the US Supreme Court Texas Sodomy decision and Having Children has no relationship to the legal institution of marriage, the incestuous marriage can not be excluded.

Also I learned today that the bigamy statute for the state of Massachusetts refers to bigamy as a person being married to 2 women at the same time or 2 men at the same time. So there is nothing to prevent a person from being married to a man AND a Woman at the same time if a SSML is applied by the court.

JimLovesJazz
02-11-2004, 06:48 PM
No JLJ, you avoided the issue in the other thread.



First- which issue are you refering to? You're last post to me didn't have anything to with the last comments I had left for you :expressionless:

Anyway- whatever you are refering to- it was not intentional- which thread ? I'll be happy take a look tomorrow and see if I have anything to add.


Edited to add- I just did a quick search using "gay marriage" and the other threads the showed were the newest about SF and an one that was titled "Gay Marriage Poll" the later one I had not read nor replied in so I don't see how I could have avoided your question or comment to me :confused: anyway I have to run for this evening as I have other things to attend so this will have to wait to another time, sorry.

JimLovesJazz
02-11-2004, 06:55 PM
Acoording to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts in their ruling--marriage in their eyes has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with having children. If it did, there would be no way with existing technology that 2 people of the same gender could possibly be married to each other and their treatment as different has no legal basis.

If 2 people having sex is no business of the state per the US Supreme Court Texas Sodomy decision and Having Children has no relationship to the legal institution of marriage, the incestuous marriage can not be excluded.

Also I learned today that the bigamy statute for the state of Massachusetts refers to bigamy as a person being married to 2 women at the same time or 2 men at the same time. So there is nothing to prevent a person from being married to a man AND a Woman at the same time if a SSML is applied by the court.


BTW- here is the OPINION I stated on bigamy and incest marriages:




As for the incest worry- I doubt that will become an issue as there is scientific data that shows children of incest commonly have physical and mental problems.

Now bigamy may end up on the radar screen but that is really a religious issue rather than a medical or legal one so it could make for some good debate.


also it seems you may have been typing fast and so I'm not completely following this part of your post at all:

If it did, there would be no way with existing technology that 2 people of the same gender could possibly be married to each other and their treatment as different has no legal basis.

Would you like to clarify ?

In closing , what does technology have to do with this issue?

montythegeek
02-11-2004, 09:01 PM
Sorry JLJ for being a bit confusing but it has been a long hard week and day and I am quite tired.

I mispoke in the prior post from me when I said "thread" when I was referring to a prior "post". I also neglected to complete the link from your post to my reply.

I was referring to your addressing of the incest issue where you indicated rightly that medical complications made incestuous reproduction undesireable. I was contrasting that position (which I agree with) to the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. A marriage license has nothing to do with reproduction in their mind, because the only way to persons of the same gender can biologically produce an offspring would involve cloning(the technology I was refferring to). If they remain connected, then marriage relates to reproduction in a biological way in a fashion 2 people of the same gender could not accomplish.

They break the connection and seperate the 2, not you or me. If marriage has nothing to do with babies, there can be no reason to deny siblings a license. The 2 items are completely divorced by the court, so it can not be used to prevent issuance of a license. So the SJC through your (quite reasonable) opinion out too.

If you doubt my accuracy on this by all means read the judgement of last week and from November. You can access it at the SJC web site which you can find if you know their uncommon name of Supreme Judicial Court.

Please excuse my fatique and any resulting lack of clarity.

JimLovesJazz
02-12-2004, 07:17 PM
Thanks for clearing that up Monty- I am following you now.
BTW - if you have AOL they have some poll figures listed today in AOL news they are dated last June, late July and another from Jan this year- the first two polls ended up an even 50/50 and 53/47 was the toal in Jan.
Just thought it was interesting as it is my understanding that AOL is the largest ISP in the US and unlike ( my guess anyway) other polls particularly phone polls, anyone who is interested can cast a vote rather than either side targeting a particular demographic.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040212112209990001

I personaly think same sex marriages will be legal nationwide within the next 5-7 years.

anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it- LOL- but thanks for the lively discussion it's been enlightening however it seems like things are repeating at this point so I'm going to move on , for now anyway. :cool: