Being gay is costing us about $340/month

[begbert2]

@Rumor_Watkins

you’re the one who first stopped arguing once you realized that these things are not “tantamount” to each other, even though they share similar (but not equivalent) effects:
physically losing money as tantamount to being taxed.

(a new one for you) committing suicide as tantamount to being murdered.

(or, perhaps, a more relevant one) non-receipt of Montgomery G.I. benefits as tantamount to a tax on those who don’t want to put their lives in danger

(or, another) non-receipt of a child tax credit as tantamount to a tax on those who don’t have kids.

Look, let me help you out here. I’m mocking you. Your pedantic assertions that this is not a tax are moronic and misguided. The reason they are moronic and misguided is because whether it’s a tax or not is irrelevent to the point. It’s like if somebody said “That red car just hit that child and drove off; that’s terrible,” and you responded, “That car wasn’t red, it was pink!” Even if you were right -and I’m not saying you’re not- you are completely and flagrantly missing the point in a manner similar to how one who dives off the ladder end of the diving board misses the pool.

So, just to make you happy: you’re fucking wrong; it is tantamount to a tax, because the definition of tantamount is specifically that it only depends on partial comparisons of relevent similarities; bringing up irrelevent differences is weapons-caliber stupidity. However, you are correct that it’s not actually a tax. And completely stupid to harp on the point. But still technically, worthlessly correct!

Doesn’t that make you happy - I admitted you were right!

[Rumor_Watkins]

@begbert2

Look, let me help you out here. I’m mocking you. Your pedantic assertions that this is not a tax are moronic and misguided. The reason they are moronic and misguided is because whether it’s a tax or not is irrelevent to the point. It’s like if somebody said “That red car just hit that child and drove off; that’s terrible,” and you responded, “That car wasn’t red, it was pink!” Even if you were right -and I’m not saying you’re not- you are completely and flagrantly missing the point in a manner similar to how one who dives off the ladder end of the diving board misses the pool.

So, just to make you happy: you’re fucking wrong; it is tantamount to a tax, because the definition of tantamount is specifically that it only depends on partial comparisons of relevent similarities; bringing up irrelevent differences is weapons-caliber stupidity. However, you are correct that it’s not actually a tax. And completely stupid to harp on the point. But still technically, worthlessly correct!

Doesn’t that make you happy - I admitted you were right!

so suicide is tantamount to murder, then? oh, now you’re going on and unilaterally modifying the definition from “equivalent effects” to “equivalent, relevant effects”. my bad.

and my point in bitching about whether it is a tax or not was to initially refute someone’s point that “It’s tantamount to a gay tax”

because it isn’t.

[Polycarp]

@Rumor_Watkins

the perks are irrelvant. you’re claiming that since the COBRA benefit can be had by anyone getting married, and since gay couples can’t marry, it is a tax on gays. (edited to switch COBRA and married around)

just because group X can’t do something but group Y can, and group Y can get government money for it, doesn’t mean that it’s a tax on group X.

jesus, if this is the state of argument for pro-gay marriage, it’s no wonder you haven’t been able to convince the majority of people as to the propriety of your position. (the propriety of which I agree with, fwiw)

Okay, so we have another lawyer who’s never noticed the Fourteenth Amendment. Where did you guys go to law school, McDonalds Institute of Hamburgerology?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Polycarp

Okay, so we have another lawyer who’s never noticed the Fourteenth Amendment. Where did you guys go to law school, McDonalds Institute of Hamburgerology?

what part of the 14th amendment is implicated here?

[begbert2]

@Rumor_Watkins

so suicide is tantamount to murder, then? oh, now you’re going on and unilaterally modifying the definition from “equivalent effects” to “equivalent, relevant effects”. my bad.

and my point in bitching about whether it is a tax or not was to initially refute someone’s point that “It’s tantamount to a gay tax”

because it isn’t.

Aaand yet another swan dive into the dry concrete. All these impacts keep making that hole deeper and deeper…

And you’re simply wrong about the word usage. Though you’ll never admit it now, because you’ve dug your heels into that hole of yours…

[Polycarp]

If a law says, “You have to spend money on this, or face the consequences,” it’s tantamount to taxing you the amount spent – in therms of its effect on you. The objections of those healthy twentysomethings and thirtysomethings with no need evident to themselves for health insurance who would be forced to buy it under Obamacare are that it’s costing them money for something they’re forced by law to get and would not choose to get if not so force.d

And if a couple can contract marriage (or the legal equivalent) and get spousal coverage under COBRA, and another couple cannot, then it is working discrimination against the second couple, compelling them to spend money to get what the first couple gets for free or for a greatly reduced amount.

If you want further clarification, I’ll be over here atop Mount Tanta, meditating.

[Polycarp]

@Rumor_Watkins

what part of the 14th amendment is implicated here?

Equal Protection Clause. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you’re not entitled to say “Oh, that’s just an aberrant goose.”

[Rumor_Watkins]

@begbert2

Aaand yet another swan dive into the dry concrete. All these impacts keep making that hole deeper and deeper…

And you’re simply wrong about the word usage. Though you’ll never admit it now, because you’ve dug your heels into that hole of yours…

can you give me an idea if you’re married and have children? what about owning a home?

if not, do you feel that you are being made to pay a childless tax? or a renter tax?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Polycarp

If a law says, “You have to spend money on this, or face the consequences,” it’s tantamount to taxing you the amount spent – in therms of its effect on you.

except that’s not what is happening here, at all. we’re discussing “if you are married, you get a government subsidy”. there are no consequences.

And if a couple can contract marriage (or the legal equivalent) and get spousal coverage under COBRA, and another couple cannot, then it is working discrimination against the second couple, compelling them to spend money to get what the first couple gets for free or for a greatly reduced amount.

um, i’m not denying that it is discriminatory. i’m denying that it’s a tax, or tantamount to a tax.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Polycarp

Equal Protection Clause.

what about it?

[Scylla]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

Stereotype: “Wives are not cheap. I’ll bet they are [more] expensive than domestic partners.”

I know many women married to women who would disagree with you, who have gone through just as great of efforts to impregnate their partners, nurture them through their pregnancies and deliveries, and raise their children.

Oh yeah. Stereotype. You got me.

(actually We’re a couple that took about five years to get pregnant, but pregnancies do happen when their unwanted, too.)

There were a few more in there too, but I understand that you were joking and I’m hoping, sincerely, and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t consider yourself or anyone else who has children as inherently superior to those who do not have children, despite the tone of some of your joking.

Ok. Hmmm. That one’s tough. I guess to be honest that I do in that sense that having children is sort of a completing of the human experience. On second thought, no. Not superior. Lucky. Blessed, but only if they are fortunate enough to make the most of what the experience has to offer. I don’t see why gay people would be excluded from the experience, and I’m sure there are other paths to fulfillment, that are ok. In general, I’m the kind of asshole who thinks my choices and everything I do is superior to everybody else’s, so since I have kids, I think that’s the best… but that’s really just because I’m an asshole, not because I’m prejudiced.

Also, I was not referring to the accumulative effect on me, but to the accumulative effect on everyone* else not nestled in the soft bussom of DOMA who is specifically denied something because of DOMA. (* because there may be some aspect of DOMA that I agree with, somewhere)

That’s kind of you, but I debated here back when Clinton was Pres and it came out. If you can find anything in there worth anything, let me know.

What you consider whining I consider speaking out. This is what is happening to me, and I know that it is happening to others, and many of those people are not going to complain. But I am going to complain. I am going to speak up for why it is wrong, because not everyone thinks about this issue like you do. I would also wager that perhaps you came to hold the views you do because you were exposed to information that led you to your conclusions because…wait for it…somebody complained.

Ok. I don’t see the issue as being gay causing you expense and inconvenience to the tune of $340/ mos. I see the issue as the government singling out a specific group of people without justifiable reason and denying them the basic right of equality and freedom from discrimination that this country is supposed to guaranty.

Your way, while personal, makes the issue seem less consequential and easy to ignore, like me bitching about diapers.

It’s really a more serious problem than the way you pose it.

[begbert2]

@Rumor_Watkins

can you give me an idea if you’re married and have children? what about owning a home?

if not, do you feel that you are being made to pay a childless tax? or a renter tax?

I’m single and renting and don’t particularly mind paying the childless tax or renter tax; why?

Not to say I wouldn’t mind getting the discount or money or whatever, but I think the main reason I don’t mind in this case is that I could evade these taxes if I decided to I could get myself married or a house, and I have merely chosen not to because I don’t think the benefits outweight the costs. If I had already gone through all the steps I could to put myself in those situations, incurring many of the costs, and then was denied the benefits, I think I might be right pissed.

What do you think?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@begbert2

I’m single and renting and don’t particularly mind paying the childless tax or renter tax; why?

Not to say I wouldn’t mind getting the discount or money or whatever, but I think the main reason I don’t mind in this case is that I could evade these taxes if I decided to I could get myself married or a house, and I have merely chosen not to because I don’t think the benefits outweight the costs. If I had already gone through all the steps I could to put myself in those situations, incurring many of the costs, and then was denied the benefits, I think I might be right pissed.

What do you think?

I think that no one in their right mind would characterize mortgage interest deductions and child tax credits as a tax to those who don’t have a house or a child. You really feel that these are taxes? Wow, you’re demented.

[Scylla]

@Miller

Assuming that was meant to end with a question mark… no, not really. Kind of the opposite, actually, because before I thought you were just making a kind of lame joke, but now it appears there was some larger philosophical point you were trying to make, and try as I might, I just can’t make heads or tails of it.

Well… The personal expense and inconvenience the OP was showing was contrasted with my only little attempt at humor over the expenses of heterosexual. Their personalness and pointlessness was trying to suggest that perhaps the OP was framed in the wrong terms because we all have stuff to bitch about, and its not about personal bitching but basic rights.

It would have come out better if I hadn’t of written it on my iphone. Fucking Apple.

[begbert2]

@Rumor_Watkins

I think that no one in their right mind would characterize mortgage interest deductions and child tax credits as a tax to those who don’t have a house or a child. You really feel that these are taxes? Wow, you’re demented.

And WHAMM there you go into the concrete again. Pathetic.

You don’t know how crushed I am to be called ‘demented’ by somebody so unfathomably stupid as to be able to comprehend the topic of the goddamned thread - even when it’s explicitly pointed out to him!

[Rumor_Watkins]

@begbert2

And WHAMM there you go into the concrete again. Pathetic.

You don’t know how crushed I am to be called ‘demented’ by somebody so unfathomably stupid as to be able to comprehend the topic of the goddamned thread - even when it’s explicitly pointed out to him!

So you really feel like you’re being taxed extra. lol.

[begbert2]

@Rumor_Watkins

So you really feel like you’re being taxed extra. lol.

Firstly: WHAMM!!

Secondly, taxes weren’t even mentioned in the post you responded to. You are seriously responding only to the voices in your head - the content of the thread and posts have no effect on you; you’re busy playing with your strawman now. Probably because you know if you engaged the actual topic, you’d have nothing at all to say.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@Rumor_Watkins

except that’s not what is happening here, at all. we’re discussing “if you are married, you get a government subsidy”. there are no consequences.

That is not really accurate either.

If my former employer were not as progressive as they are and depending on our state of residence, my partner would not have been eligible for health care benefits while I was employed, or for COBRA benefits at all. Why? Because with DOMA in place, such benefits are only legally required to be extended to legally recognized spouses.

A single COBRA-eligible person who’s employment was terminated involuntarily within a certain date range, who is not eligible for Medicare, and who is not eligible for any group coverage…gets one subsidy.

A married COBRA-eligible couple for whom the primary beneficiary’s employment was terminated involuntarily within a certain date range, who is not eligible for (and who’s spouse is not eligible for) Medicare, and who is not eligible for (and who’s spouse is not eligible for) any group coverage…gets two subsidies.

A domestically partnered COBRA-eligible couple for whom the primary beneficiary’s employment was terminated involuntarily within a certain date range, who is not eligible for (and who’s partner is not eligible for) Medicare, and who is not eligible for (and who’s partner is not eligible for) any group coverage…gets one subsidy.

The consequences are either going without health coverage at all, or with lesser coverage, or paying more money than our heterosexually married counterparts for the same coverage. While I think many reasonable people have been perfectly able to understand and accept the “effectively a gay tax” argument, perhaps toll would be a better word. The only consequence of not paying a toll is not being able to cross that particular bridge. That sounds like a better fit for this argument.

Let’s try it.

In order to cross the waters of illness and injury on the bridge of health care insurance, gay partnered people are required to pay an additional bridge toll that is not levied against our heterosexually married counterparts for no reason other than sexual preference.

There! Much better, right?

Damn…I guess not.

Seems that ‘toll’ is defined as “1 : a tax or fee paid for some liberty or privilege (as of passing over a highway or bridge)”.

[Miller]

@Rumor_Watkins

so suicide is tantamount to murder, then?

Hate to break it to you, but that would be an entirely acceptable use of the word “tantamount.”

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

To the good news…

The letter I wrote to my former employer after blowing off some steam here with you fine folks in the pit, appears to have been well-received and steps are being taken to ensure that accurate information is provided in the future.