Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
so if someone is infertile they should have a different tax rate than someone who can have a child?
rightwingnuthackworld is funny
Where did that come from?
Do you actually read before insulting
Invitro or adoption are acceptable (see previous posts)
Good lord
So a gay or lesbian couple that uses adoption or invitro (egg and/or sperm donation) get's a lower tax rate for life right?
>>>>
Arghhhh, been addressed
Yes, if they raised a child they are supplying what is needed for the world to go on.
OK so the lifetime tax deduction is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Is it based in the individual testing positive for fertility. In other words the government makes you go to the doctor have a test and submit the medical results?
Or is it based on performance?
Now for women it's pretty easy to determine performance, but for men - will they need to get a get a DNA test to prove that they qualify because they produced off spring or do we just go with the name on the birth certificate? So a woman can go out and screw around and the infertile Dad gets credit?
Share with us specifically how this brilliant idea is going to work?
>>>>
Child in home = credit
Child grows to maturity = credit
Simple nuff?
Wrong. We have campaign finance laws, you can't dump shitloads of money into campaigns all the while hiding what you are doing. CU wasn't about whether or not campaign donations had to be reported, because they do. CU was about stopping corporations from running their own advertisements in support of a position. It was about stopping free speech.No. However, all of those require a certain level of transparency. We know who wites new paper article - their name is right there in the byline. We know - or, at least can find out relatively easily, who owns a newspaper - it's a matter of public record. We know who authors, and publishes webpages, books, and pamphlets. I have a problem with "Citizens United" allowing people - on the Right, or the Left - being allowed to dump shitloads of money into campaigns all while hiding what they are doing. I just don't see that kind of manipulation as a function of "free speech".Put another way... do you think the feds should be allowed to restrict news, advertising, web pages, books, pamphlets, or are these protected by free speech. Or still more particularly what part of:mmmneehhhh...I think that might be stretching the concept of speech a bit. However, like I said, since that is how the Supreme Court ruled, I am more than happy to play by those rules. At least, unless, or until someone comes along, and changes the rules.Yes, money is property. However, spending your money to publish your speech is to the first amendment.Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.I agree with your point on discrimination..
But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.
... are you proposing we throw out.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.This has been explained continually, Rosh.
No more. You don't get "just once more."
It's over.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.
used the Prop 8 as it is the most pertinent and one most have heard of. If I'm not mistaken the SC heard and ruled on Loving v. Virginia. I'll look it up later, but if so then that isn't similar to the legal issues in this thread re the Federal Courts and the SC not hearing the appeals at all.
Is procreation a requirement for a marriage license? Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?When they create children they have. On those children by their mere existence and others in the sense that new people exist to affect society. Homos cannot create children therefore no need to involve the government or others.I cannot see any correlation between marriage equality and anyone force(ing) their irrelevant behavior onto others. Do heterosexual married couples 'force' their lives upon yours?TOLERANCENo. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.wonderful news for individual rights
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.
Not acceptance.
Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?
The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.
Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?
You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.
Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.
That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.This has been explained continually, Rosh.
No more. You don't get "just once more."
It's over.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.
Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?
Procreation is not a requirement but its possibility was likely the presumed reason for marriage's creation. I expect those who created marriage with procreation in mind assumed things wouldn't get as weird as they have. Like airliners not expecting people to blow themselves up, too, in the process of potentially taking down a plane.Is procreation a requirement for a marriage license? Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?When they create children they have. On those children by their mere existence and others in the sense that new people exist to affect society. Homos cannot create children therefore no need to involve the government or others.I cannot see any correlation between marriage equality and anyone force(ing) their irrelevant behavior onto others. Do heterosexual married couples 'force' their lives upon yours?TOLERANCENo. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.
Not acceptance.
Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?
The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.
Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?
You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.
Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.
Not when a state violates the ConstitutionMarriage falls under the purview of the State.
10th Amendment. Simple.
Simple
What does that mean?Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?
I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.This has been explained continually, Rosh.
No more. You don't get "just once more."
It's over.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.
Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?
If procreation is seen as a requirement for a marriage license, why does that standard get ignored when the elderly wed?What does that mean?Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?
Let us know when you are shoved into a homosexual marriage.Wrong, again. progressives promote policies that don't "make' people live in any way. Rather they promote policies - like marriage equality, and Pro-Choice - that allows everyone to live as they personally see fit. You see, there is nothing in the support of marriage equality that says you have to marry someone of the same sex - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they can't. There is noting in Pro-Choice that says you must get an abortion - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they can't.The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.wonderful news for individual rights
LOL.
Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.
Progressive policies allow you to believe anything you want, and to act in accordance with those believes. The only thing Progressive policies won't allow you to do is to force other people to do the same, whether they agree with you, or not.
omg, i'm going to barf. as if we couldn't DO any of that already.
one thing homosexual marraige they can't SHOVE on us so they expect the supreme court to do it for them. the brainwashing is complete on you. and you don't care how foolish you look
meanwhile, you wrongly equate your bigotry with freedom of speechExcept that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.
It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.
Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.
The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures.
When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.
and blacks used to be 3/5 of a person and women didn't have the vote... and jim crow was legal...
and?
You keep wrongly equating government discrimination with private discrimination.
Where did that come from?
Do you actually read before insulting
Invitro or adoption are acceptable (see previous posts)
Good lord
So a gay or lesbian couple that uses adoption or invitro (egg and/or sperm donation) get's a lower tax rate for life right?
>>>>
Arghhhh, been addressed
Yes, if they raised a child they are supplying what is needed for the world to go on.
OK so the lifetime tax deduction is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Is it based in the individual testing positive for fertility. In other words the government makes you go to the doctor have a test and submit the medical results?
Or is it based on performance?
Now for women it's pretty easy to determine performance, but for men - will they need to get a get a DNA test to prove that they qualify because they produced off spring or do we just go with the name on the birth certificate? So a woman can go out and screw around and the infertile Dad gets credit?
Share with us specifically how this brilliant idea is going to work?
>>>>
Child in home = credit
Child grows to maturity = credit
Simple nuff?
So it's performance based and not fertility based.
You didn't answer the question about the Dad though, do we just assume who the biological father is or is proof required?
So you loose the credit if the child dies before the age of 18?
But at the age of 18 then poof the tax credit is for the rest of your life?
>>>>
When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.This has been explained continually, Rosh.
No more. You don't get "just once more."
It's over.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.
Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?
go to any black neighborhood and say that out loud.They still are!Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.
It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.
Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.
The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures.
When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.
and blacks used to be 3/5 of a person
The possibility for adoption into a mother/father circumstance, though unlikely, still exists. Homos can't provide that necessary circumstance. One of the two necessary genders would be missing and empirical data demonstrates that is bad for children and ultimately bad for the society.If procreation is seen as a requirement for a marriage license, why does that standard get ignored when the elderly wed?What does that mean?Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?
So, now that gay marriage will become the law of the land.....who will Conservatives turn their hate to next?
No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.This has been explained continually, Rosh.
No more. You don't get "just once more."
It's over.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.
Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?
that would be true if that's what was happening ...but it's not ...When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate? Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded? And "forced acquiescence". Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you? How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty? How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.This has been explained continually, Rosh.
No more. You don't get "just once more."
It's over.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.
Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?
obviously yes!Are you really this sick?Keep that in mind if you serve on a jury in a crime where the victim is gay. Keep that in mind when the perversion that this nation has become wants your patriotism.No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.wonderful news for individual rights
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.
