Stage of Development Kickstarter, Flying Saucer Media, Rocket League Let's Play, Fig, Everquest 2 Prison Server
What is this place? Who are you people? Read this helpful guide to find out!
Want to advertise with GWJ? Sorry, we don't run ads on the website, just the podcast. If you need something else, hit us up!
We should try talking about domestic policy. I think we've worn out forign policy.
3DS Friend Code: 2509-2418-9951
Let me know if you add me and I'll add you back!
Okay. Tax cuts are fine for short-term stimulus, but the root problem in this economy is the lack of investor confidence. More enforcement of current securities laws is needed; failing that, new laws should be enacted. As for who get''s it first, Kenny Boy Lay would be a good person to hang first.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"Butt hat is my opinion and we all know how far that goes around here." - Demonicmaster
"Dammit Rat Boy, I just came to post that." - Stele
Investor confidence has moved beyond Kenny Boy. What we need to do is to get business back to having a good balance sheet. A great way to do that is dividend tax cuts.
Gay people should be able to have civil unions and the benefits that come with them.
I agree completely. It''s nice to see that Canada does to.
I was extremely frustrated when our Minnesota legislature recently got their fundamentalist undies all in a bunch and removed a segment from a government labor agreement that gave partners in same sex relationships coverage under family insurance plans. These congressional leaders, mostly old white Republicans, who I will heretofore refer to as toejam-sucking scumbags, forced the policy to be changed.
I don''t understand what dark fear haunts people who oppose giving benefits and equality to same sex couples, but I have absolutely no respect for their Puritanical position. Sorry if that''s any of you.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
First, Id like to say I agree that keeping homosexual couples from having civil unions simply because of some irrational fear is definately stupid. Never make policy on irrational fear, youd think people would learn that by now.
Second, is the reason so many people want civil unions for homosexual couples is the tax breaks? I don''t understand why it''s such a big deal, except for the ""Ha! Gays are just like straight people!"" reaction, which is also stupid. Homosexual couples shouldn''t try to be just like straight couples, they should just let the relationship be what it is without comparing themselves to some artificial standard.
Which is a major problem I have with alot of the homosexual ""equality"" movement to begin with. It seems like the majority of people in the movement concern themselves with being just like straight couples, instead of admitting it''s different and letting it be that. Don''t get me wrong, discrimination is very very bad, and should be punished, and Im not saying we should treat homosexuals differently simply because they are homosexual. I just think it''s a different thing than being heterosexual, and if I were gay I wouldn''t spend all my time trying to get everyone to ""accept"" my lifestyle. Itd be like it is now, some people like me, some dont. Some dislike me for valid reasons, others do not. Tough.
I sorta got off track there, but what I guess Im saying is, why is this civil unions thing a big deal? I am not married, so maybe if I knew more about the perks of a marriage I would understand. It just seems like alot of people just want it because other people have it.
"But when the game, the second-person engine, starts again, it tells you about yourself ... like Scheherazade and her king mixed up together in one, trying over and over to tell yourself your own story, and get it right" - You by Austin Grossman
""]I am not married, so maybe if I knew more about the perks of a marriage I would understand.
Plus: Semi-routinized sex schedule
Minus: ""Time for us"" (what used to be known as dating)
Plus: Tax break
Minus: 50-50 ownership (if you didn''t get a pre-nup)
Plus: Having somebody else in your home
Minus: Having in-laws
Plus: Having in-laws to get out of events by your own family you don''t want to be a part of
Plus: Having your own room for all your stuff
Minus: Your wife gets to decorate every other room, including the bedroom (Flower-print bedsheets? *shudder*)
Plus: Being able to use the comp or the console when she''s in the house
Minus: Having to stop whenever she tells you to
Plus: Be able to make the ""big decisions""
Minus: She''s always right, though
Plus: Having children without the school bullies calling them bastards
Minus: You lose ""your"" room
Plus: Having an extra hand to clean up your messes
Minus: Not being able to make the big messes anymore
Plus: Seing your spouse the second you get up and the moment when you fall asleep
Minus: Having them elbow you everytime you snore
Also, without civil unions gay couples have no rights to estates, have no say in medical decisions for their partners (particularly when their partner can not make those decisions on their own), have little opportunities for family insurance. There are a _lot_ of reasons that gay couples need their relationships recognized by the state. My experience has been that it has very little to do with the tax breaks, or being the same.
A topic I agree with the members of the forum on. I can see no justification in failing to protect the civil and property rights of gay couples to a status equal to married couples. As far as tax breaks, it is my understanding that gay people on average have a higher income than straight people, thus pay more taxes. That is until Bush''s tax break for the rich comes into effect.
Hello my baby!!!
They''ll end up paying more taxes after the cut. (% wises)
Yeah I guess that makes sense. Sure, why the hell not. Like I said, I have no problem with the idea, I just wanted to know why. Though I would like to add, there is a group that just wants it because it makes them ""legitimate"", which is what I was talking about. For the other reasons though, sure.
Also, Pyro, my only beef is with those who oppose on the grounds of tradition or some sense of morality. So I''m not taking your concerns to task, though I don''t know that I agree with your perspective that they need not make their relationship ''legitimate'' (after all, then, without that the entire establishment of marriage can be called in to question). There is an emotional and natural desire to formalize such a union, to proclaim in a very public and complete way one''s devotion to another. I don''t think it''s just ''fitting in'', but a natural coupling and social response. Further, to be denied that sort of right is a clear measure of being socially ostracized, and while we like to praise our individuality, when it comes right down to it we''re social creatures, and this has a measurable effect.
Still, that''s not the crux of my argument. I don''t know what I would do if my wife fell ill and I had no say in how she was treated, where she stayed, or even a right to know what was wrong with her. This is what happens when gay couples are challenged in such a situation, and it''s just one example of how a civil recognition of the rights of same-sex couples would give equitable treatment.
Okay, yeah, I can see that. So I agree, gay couples should be allowed civil unions.
You point out a pretty interesting point, however, that it would challenge the establishment of marriage if they didn''t try to seek to legitimize it. The way I see it, they challenge it either way. One way, they just ignore the lawful marriage requirements and do it themselves. The other, they change the definition of what a marriage is. Either way what a marriage means to us as a society has changed.
There are ways in which marriage is a universal concept, as you point out and I agree, it is a natual desire. However there are alot of aspects of marriage that are very society specific. However, I don''t think the society specific, i.e. the parts that can change, aspects of the insitution of marriage should be changed until society at large changes it itself. I don''t think a vocal minority of the population should dictate what marriage means to everyone else. Now, if a given state decides to allow civil unions, great. Good for them. But if some state in the middle of the Bible belt doesn''t feel that it is a legitimate marriage, then I think that''s great too. Regardless of thier reasons, if thier people are against it in the majority I don''t think they should have to recognize gay unions.
I guess what Im saying is I don''t have a personal problem with it, but I don''t see the nation as a whole coming to a consensus anytime soon. And if the majority of the nation doesn''t agree to it, I don''t think it should be forced on us by anyone. It''s like your Minnesota example, if they are closed minded and fearful of homosexuality, then they are complete morons. But to me, thats a seperate problem from the state allowing civil unions thing. I don''t think they should allow civil unions till they are ready to.
Thats how I feel about civil unions of homosexual couples. I just realized I wasn''t even replying to your post at all