Prop 8 Oral Arguments

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:01 am

BackTrak wrote:QUOTE (BackTrak @ Apr 9 2013, 01:40 PM) But, if you want to have a marriage tax credit, then, so sorry, you have to include everyone to do a team pair up. Because it's a federal level tax credit, then, so sorry, you gotta make gay marriage a federally accepted right. So sorry anti-gay people, you charge gay people taxes and then deny them the tax credit. Don't we throw tea in harbors for such things around here?

Tax code can discriminate.

Most Federal benefits to marriage are through the tax code, which doesn't have to recognize anything it doesn't want to.

No one is forcing you to be with someone who won't get you a tax advantaged rate, just like no one is forcing you to not make all your income via tax advantaged means (unearned income, capital gains, dividends, etc.).

Post by **BackTrak** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:44 am

I disagree with you cam, the tax code sets up a case where some people cannot reach an advantage that other people get just by teaming up.

Just because the tax code currently discriminates, doesn't mean it should keep on truckin....

Women weren't allowed to vote, now they are. Change is possible, it would be nice to quit wasting money debating this one, and move it along already.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:51 am

Pretty much everything humans do is "unnatural" by animal kingdom standards ... everything from cooking our food to using grammatical language to forum whoring on a website dedicated to an obscure online video game.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:31 am

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Apr 9 2013, 08:48 AM) from Adept's wiki link

monogamy is not natural for mammals. we are mammals. ergo, monogamy is unnatural in the context of this thread.

What's the definition of natural? Is it not natural, or is it not common. Monogamy EXISTS in animals, doesn't it? We are animals aren't we? Natural and unnatural is irrelevant, things EXIST and don't exist.

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Apr 9 2013, 04:43 PM) Complete idiocy can be found among certain Fins.
Therefor idiocy is natural in Finland
It has a lot to do with intelligence levels.
amirite?

Yes? There are stupid people everywhere, what is your point?

Post by **BackTrak** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:35 am

Dammit cash, don't u fact check on Wikipedia? Both Mexican hairless marmots and several sub species of walking stick are known trolls on 4chan, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that one or two of you furry buggers has only four toes and a recessed thumb.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:15 am

Masta, if you want to be taken seriously don't make absolute claims that are obviously false. You could have said "monogamy is rare in nature" and you would have even been correct.

It's still a pointless argument though, and a classic logical fallacy. Something existing or not existing in nature is no argument for ethics or morals. Natural does not equal good. Rape and infantiside are both natural, but sane non-trolla do not argue that this means they are good things for humans to do.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:59 pm

BackTrak wrote:QUOTE (BackTrak @ Apr 9 2013, 03:44 PM) I disagree with you cam, the tax code sets up a case where some people cannot reach an advantage that other people get just by teaming up.

Just because the tax code currently discriminates, doesn't mean it should keep on truckin....

Women weren't allowed to vote, now they are. Change is possible, it would be nice to quit wasting money debating this one, and move it along already.

The tax code is set up to "encourage" behaviors. A practice I am completely against, but it is well within the confines of the law.

If you want to change that, you will also have to eliminate any benefits whatsoever for married couples as that discriminates against the single people... or even against people without children. In as such, it would require a radical simplification to achieve equity... and would probably really piss off all the currently married couples who would now be hit hard with more taxes.

So if you REALLY want to open that can of worms, go for it, otherwise it is a rather tedious argument to make in this case, especially where there are so many other ways to argue for it.

lexaal · Post by **lexaal** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:05 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 10 2013, 11:15 AM) It's still a pointless argument though, and a classic logical fallacy. Something existing or not existing in nature is no argument for ethics or morals.

Major in philosophy?

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:06 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 10 2013, 02:15 AM) Something existing or not existing in nature is no argument for ethics or morals. Natural does not equal good.

Good equals whatever you want it to equal because nothing is innately "good".
Goodness is entirely subjective and changes drastically every hundred years or so.
Monogamy is encouraged by some cultures, and not by others.

on another note,
I've never known anyone who was happily married in my entire life, and ever couple's ability to coexist got WORSE after they married.

Post by **BackTrak** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:33 pm

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Apr 10 2013, 08:59 AM) The tax code is set up to "encourage" behaviors. A practice I am completely against, but it is well within the confines of the law.

If you want to change that, you will also have to eliminate any benefits whatsoever for married couples as that discriminates against the single people... or even against people without children. In as such, it would require a radical simplification to achieve equity... and would probably really piss off all the currently married couples who would now be hit hard with more taxes.

So if you REALLY want to open that can of worms, go for it, otherwise it is a rather tedious argument to make in this case, especially where there are so many other ways to argue for it.

I think you hit the nail right on the head Cam. We should eliminate the team bonus, and put the bonus on the actual behaviors that we want to encourage.

< 300lbs tax credit
> 0 kids tax credit
> 1 humans per dwelling tax credit
non-smoking tax credit
1st time home buyer in Washington D.C. tax credit for representatives who have just been elected and need to move to DC. Oh, wait, that one's real.

etc.

It's not very romantic, but then again, I'm not a fungi.

FWIW Masta, I'm happy to say that I've been married for 13 years now, to a great woman and have a bunch of kids who I love. So, now you can no longer say you don't know any one who was happily married. We don't all always get along, but after living alone for 10+ years, I can say that this is much better for me. The main reason we got married was because it was easier to get a house that way. How lame! What's married got to do with it, just put two names on the damn paperwork...

Anyway, the psychologists say that once you hit 25-35, you might be very surprised at how your view point towards "a life of unhappy slaveitude with a partner" suddenly turns around. It's mostly a brain chemical thing, so don't worry too much about it.