No, no. OWNING slaves is not compulsory. And the slaves don’t count, so that’s the only side that matters.
suck it you hateful bigoted degenerate whore-mothered goat-fucking trash(gay marriage ban overturned
I live in Maine. Every last political ad against gay marriage said precisely that. Well, maybe not ‘indoctrinating’ but it was all about, “is this what we want taught in schools?”
It wasn’t complusory to get a slave. It was allowed.
ETA: Yllaria I never said slaves did not count.
How many Republicans, who are normally all about economic “freedom” and who defend lowering taxes in the name of helping the economy, are against giving mainly solid-to-upper-middle-class white males tax breaks? It boggles the mind.
Just from an economic perspective it might be a strong case for promoting tax neutrality as a means to flatten distortions in the economy. So if gay couples have the same tax incentives as straight couples, they will be equally as incentivized to make economic decisions, and thus the wheels of supply and demand are more efficiently lubricated. In fact, voodoo economists should be going multiple over the idea of Adam deciding to take a higher-paying, more productive job, now that his taxes are lowered when he marries Steve.
But apparently economic sanity isn’t as important as keeping the queers in their place.
Are you just being silly or do you actually think this is an intelligent analogy?
Marriage is something that gays want to enter into. Comparing it into slavery, which is something that the slaves don’t want to enter into, is pretty fucking stupid.
I hope you’re trying to be funny, because that level of reasoning is pretty scary.
Fine. Feel free to generalize and exaggerate as much as you want from this point forth. Just make sure you get your ticket punched when the conductor comes around.
Don’t get hung up on the tax thing. Just come up with one tiny, insignificant way that having more people married could possibly inconvenience other people. “Damn. Sorry, honey, I knew you really wanted to get married in Sacred Heart but Jim and Bob have it booked up that weekend.” It doesn’t have to be a good reason.
Extortion? Wealth distribution? Radar? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m beginning to think you have me confused with some other poster.
The first step to indoctrination is to acknowledge that homosexuality exists.
And in this case, that’s pretty much the only step. But that’s enough to strike fear in the hearts of millions of parents, terrified that their children may grow up thinking of gays as unremarkable and gay marriage as no big deal. Insufficiently indoctrinated, in other words.
Is Sacred Heart a Catholic institution? They won’t be hosing gay marriages. 
Hyperbole.
Are you for tax-breaks or against tax-breaks? If ‘for,’ why not for gay people? If ‘against’ why for rich people?
In short, your ‘tax breaks’ argument is a steaming pile.
(my emphasis, hoping he doesn’t notice the typo and edit before I post this)
I don’t know if I’d be counting those chickens.
You just conveniently forgot to account for their half of the equation. But otherwise, they count heaps and heaps!
Of course, in CA homosexuals are already acknowledged to exist. Prop 8 doesn’t change that. Gays are allowed to do everything straights are, with the one exception of getting married. And the CA government cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anywhere, except for marriage (if Prop 8 is eventually upheld). Prop 8 has nothing to do with school subjects, and if a CA school is teaching a unit on marriage (do schools do this?), since it cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, it’s going to have to include the gay marriages that are already legal (from when the marriage window was open) and it’s going to have to include domestic partnerships.
So, to sum up, the people who voted for Prop 8 in the hopes that they could prevent their kids from being exposed to teh gay are morons.
Just to add: I realize you guys are explaining the opposition and not supporting their viewpoint. I’m not calling you morons.
I’m going to assume he’s claiming the role of abolitionist–the person standing on the sidelines screaming about how immoral it is to own slaves. See, he’s noble. He just has to hate gays because it’s the right thing to do, and the tasty way to do it.
But when a gay walks on the sidewalk, we call it civil strolling, and when they eat in a restaurant, we call it civil luncheoning, and when they breathe the same air, we call it civil respiration!
Does anyone know Skald’s private email address? I need to rent the bee-cannon.
Wait, so married people pay fewer taxes? I thought I’d heard people complaining about the “marriage penalty” and saying they wouldn’t get married until it wouldn’t cost them more money in taxes…? Is that just for people who don’t itemize deductions or something, and marriage is good for everybody else (tax-wise, I mean), or what?
I sort of get what you’re trying to say, but it’s pretty clear that the anti-gay marriage crowd don’t have a problem with more people getting married, they has a problem with the wrong people getting married.
My understanding, which may be faulty, is that the system was originally set up with a single-income household in mind. So in those single-income households or in households where there is a wide disparity in income, you end up saving in taxes. But when you have a two-income household with broadly similar incomes ( much more common now than in the past ) you can end up losing money by getting married and filing a single tax return, as opposed to filing seperately as singles.
ETA: wiki.
Except that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment was intended to address a very specific type of disequal protection of the laws - it has only been recently applied to other types of discrimination (no comment on the “correctness” of this). You’ve got your cause-and-effect ass backwards and pretending like the EP clause was initially intended as a panacea for all kinds of disparate treatment by the laws (and that levels of scrutiny were subsequently invented to ratify continued hating and fearing of groups) is either disingenuous or the mark of someone who has no fucking concept of constitutional jurisprudence.
The fact of the matter is, I know exactly why it was enacted and what it was there for. I also know I agree fundamentally with the plain meaning of the words, and I also still think the entire concept of ‘levels of scrutiny’ is fucking bullshit. One doesn’t have to be completely ignorant of something before they think it sucks complete goat ass, after all.
I don’t see anything in there about scrutiny levels at all. Therefore, I conclude the entire concept is rank bullshit enacted by judicial fiat. Further, I see scrutiny levels used all the time historically to justify continuing discrimination against various people and actions that are thought to be icky by the weepy-ass majority at the time. Therefore, I conclude the entire concept is worthless and needs to be tossed. “Equal protection of the laws” and it being illegal to “abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens” both sound pretty damn good on their face to me.