• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

Page 843 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CZroe said:
Nope. Only makes sense if you are too stupid to divorce the ideas of government-recognized marriage for legal reasons from a private religious/cultural marriage for symbolic reasons.



Need me to put a picture of a known funny guy and pepper it with "fuck fuckin' fuck" to get a pavlovian response like the other ignorant one-sided political statement masquerading as a "joke?"
Click to expand...
Amen! Make stand brother! If you don't stop the internet meme's here they could take over the world!

retard.
 
CZroe said:
Uh, that's what the civil union is for, genius. It's the marriage that isn't recognized. The civil union lets you claim your share of an estate when your partner dies. Your civil union lets you make medical decisions when your partner is unconscious. You ignored EVERYTHING and got hung up on rights = "marriage."
Click to expand...
Do you live in California? Do you know anything about this state and how things are recognized? Before you go spouting off, do some research.

24.gif
 
CZroe said:
Who said anything about CA? And, yes, I lived there from 2008-2012.
Click to expand...
So, in your idiotic rant, did you exclude it then? Or, are you just using absolutes in your argument while ignoring anything that may matter? Let me know so I can properly respond in order to avoid your circular logic and drag this shit out longer than it needs to be.

Pro tips - when you say something stupid and about 10 other people say you're wrong, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
 
SSSnail said:
So, in your idiotic rant, did you exclude it then? Or, are you just using absolutes in your argument while ignoring anything that may matter? Let me know so I can properly respond in order to avoid your circular logic and drag this shit out longer than it needs to be.

Pro tips - when you say something stupid and about 10 other people say you're wrong, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, Social Security was a Federal program. States can do whatever the hell they want.

Pro tip - when I say something and people assume it's stupid and don't even realize that they agreed with me point for point (Scholzpdx), they should reconsider their assumptions. When other people read BOTH sides and STILL don't get that they agree, they need to reconsider remedial reading classes. Reading comprehension++
 
CZroe said:
Love Carlin. Hate his politics. I planned to use his face if BudAshes said yes.



Tell that to the person holding the "I didn't ask him to 'civil union' me" sign. 🙄

No, the crux of the issue is equality, which I addressed.

People want the same government-recognized "marriage" for gay couples. I question the government's involvement in a religious institution in the first place and say we should have no government recognized marriages for anyone. Instead, only civil unions for all couples (gay or straight). Your vows are your vows and you can vow whatever you want to whoever you want right now, so nothing has ever stopped people from getting married without government recognition.
Click to expand...

You're arguing against yourself. Gay couples want the 'government-recognized marriage' because straight couples have it. Since the government is, yes, NOT a religious institution...they should have it.

Or you're just missing the entire point (see: end of your post). No one is lobbying to get married in a southern baptist church. That kind of thing would be a civil lawsuit; and it would be retarded since people would essentially be saying 'hey, we don't approve of bigots who dislike us excluding us from their organization of bigots.'

You need to take your argument up with churches. For being full of retarded assclowns. You don't seem to understand the political argument.
 
CZroe said:
Makes no sense. Firstly, they CAN get married whether the government recognizes it or not. Marriage is a cultural/religious thing. The government isn't supposed to dictate culture or religion. You are free to take any vow or practice any cultural ceremony you wish that doesn't violate someone else's human rights so a (wo)man can promise to commit to another (wo)man if (s)he wishes. The government has no right to say you can or can't and it's none of their business.

Legally recognized marriage is something else entirely and it DOES have an effect on the lives of others. It grants a special tax status intended to promote an ever increasing population (required for the pyramid scheme that is "Social Security") which must now be made up for by the rest of the tax-paying public. It also helps in deciding legal matters that involve property and medical rights.

I would argue that the government needs to stop tax breaks for marriages and give a greater tax deduction for minor dependents of any tax-payer except that, well, the current system is designed to encourage stable self-supporting families to have kids and the alternative would not. There would be even more incentive for people to intentionally have children they can't support specifically for the government hand-outs (I've seen it happen in the current system too). There still must be a recognized "Civil Union" of some kind. That, I can get behind, especially because it can be treated equivalently across different types of couples and also solves the property and medical rights issue as well as getting the government out of chiefly religious ceremonies ("Separation of Church and State," remember?). Adoption would yield the same tax benefit to a same-sex union as a natural-born child to a man and woman and neither group would get a tax break without kids beyond the typical tax break the single-income earner would get claiming the dependent.

My point is: It wasn't funny because it's wrong. Oh wait. He said "fuck." I guess it is funny.

Don't want politics? Don't post political jokes.
Click to expand...

Get the fuck out of here, you humorless, bigoted piece of shit. Stop derailing this thread with your idiotic rambling.

shortylickens said:
You dont have any RIGHT to be married.

Fucking fuck idiot.
Click to expand...

Look up the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment. Idiot.
 
Last edited:
CZroe said:
Yes. That's why I said we need to equate both heterosexual and gay couple with kids by removing government recognized marriages and replacing with civil unions regardless of orientation. The main difference is no longer getting tax breaks without kids but civil unions WITH kids get more of a break than marriages with kids before. This will encourage people to form child-supporting unions regardless of sexual orientation and reduce the number of people defeating the purpose by trying to have kids "out of wedlock" just for the increased government benefits.


I'm glad we agree. :colbert: I'm saying that the government doesn't have any business in any marriage. Their concern is supporting their own pyramid scheme with an ever-growing population and managing legal issues, which can be dealt with equally as I described.


Government numbers? Huh? Who ever said/thought the population was decreasing or slowing?


That's right. I did just the opposite. I linked the government's involvement in heterosexual marriage to population increase and legal matters (estate, medical, etc). I'm saying that they have no other reason to be involved in a religious/cultural ceremony, so there is no reason to call it "marriage." The tax incentive absolutely is to promote self-sufficient population growth and, thus, it would need the changes I suggest to be equally applied to all civil unions, gay and straight. Both goals are served equally well for both types if they are BOTH recognized as simply "civil unions" with the extra tax incentive given to civil unions with children (adopted, surrogate, natural-born, etc).

I simply pointed out why the government was involved in marriage in the first place. If they simply gave larger tax breaks to anyone with kids, it would promote more government-dependent population increases with single-parent families that could not support themselves. If they gave it to marriages with an additional tax break for kids, then they encourage self-sufficient population increase.


Did you forget about the tax breaks to same-sex unions? How is that not a change?


Yes, and they've ALWAYS had those rights. Anyone can get married. They always could and forever can take their vows. A government-recognized marriage is something different even though it has the same name. It shouldn't have the same name because actual marriage is none of the government's business in the first place. The civil union name clarifies that the government only references the ramifications of a union that the they do have business with (property/medical rights). People are only hung up on it and equating it because of the name and no one is stepping back and asking themselves why the government has any business recognizing "marriages" in the first place.


Exactly. I'm not saying that the 3-5% will cripple it, I'm saying that it's fundamentally broken already and needs to be completely reformed. I guess I wasn't clear enough: Ditch the current incarnation and focus on the intended purpose. Forget marriage. Throw it out. There's no longer any such thing recognized in government. Give tax breaks only to gay and straight couples ("civil unions") with kids. Eliminate tax breaks for childless couples with vasectomies or tied tubes or barren with no intention to adopt. Give a greater tax break for those who do have kids, gay or straight. Get it?

Until you cancel that out when you give them a tax break on the promise/hope that their potential children will multiply that effect. You're right, and that's exactly why the reform I suggest is needed.
Click to expand...

cool-story-bro-now-gtfo-of-here.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top