Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on March 03, 2004, 07:02:31 PM
-
Cripes Ahmighty...
Is everyone gay?
Queer Eye, Boy Meets Boy, That stupid sitcom...Will and Grace, now the whole marriage thing.
Mayors making their little power trips marrying homosexuals.
Listen, I don't give a rats arnold what you like to do with your naughty parts in the bedroom.
But I'm sick of having these depraved and in my opinion, they are depraved, lifestyles thrown in my face.
So you're a guy that likes taking a shot in the pail...good for you. I don't need to hear it, read about it, and grant you some sort of special badge of spoodge for it.
Enough with the gay, already!
Now it's just annoying and overexposed!!!
And no...2 guys are not married. They're banging each other. End of story.
-
Muck is having a little sexuality confusion. The first stage is lashing out.
-
I heard he had a dream ...
something to do with a highway..
in Hershey?
-
While we're at it, lets review the laws against pedophilia. They have the same rights as other people don't they? Who is to say a 13 or 14 year old can't have a say with what they do with their body? In some states girls that young can go get an abortion without her parents even knowing let alone having a say in the matter. So whats the difference between some 15 or 16 year old guy doing them or a 20 or 40 year old guy? Seems they should have the choice, not some uptite republican bible thumping lawmakers.
Statutory rape is like saying hey n****r get in the back of the bus... it deprives human beings from their basic rights. But then again thats just like bible thumpers isn't it.
-
At what age can a person make an informed and mature decision as to whether or not to have sex?
I lost my virginity at 16...not for lack of effort, though.
Seems everyone lost it about the same age.
Maybe that should be the age of consent.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Cripes Ahmighty... I LIKE MEN!
studmuffin.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I heard he had a dream ...
something to do with a highway..
in Hershey?
Ugh, that's disgusting. Even as a Brit I know what that means.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Is everyone gay?
Ask them.
-
Well, you could always watch Sex in the City... and develop a deep dislike of whiny, spoilt tarts everywhere. lol
TV sucks.
-
That was last month's rant.;)
-
The main problem with blatant homosexuals is that they don't understand just how boring they are.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Cripes Ahmighty...
Is everyone gay? I know I am, but what about everyone else?
Muck, thanks for coming clean. We love ya, man!
:aok
:D
-
But I'm sick of having these depraved and in my opinion, they are depraved, lifestyles thrown in my face.
I feel that way every time I see Benny Hinn on the tube while channel surfing.
I watch Queer Eye with the wife and enjoy it. I even look pretty good compared to the schleps they usually have on. They had one guy a week ago or so living in a garbage heap (the cast was speechless at each squalor discovery, and I was laughing so hard I was crying), then there was the guy with the stack of Jugs Magazines under his bed, and the guy with the pack of "small" fit condoms, the backhair guy... I'm practically a metrosexual by comparison.
Charon
-
When you boil it down, the gay marriage thing is a political protest.
-
Originally posted by SOB
studmuffin.
LOL the pot calling the kettle black over here and sheet
-
What is so wrong with being gay?..Or wanting a legal marriage certificate?
"You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone..Cause the times they are a changin'"
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
What is so wrong with being gay?..Or wanting a legal marriage certificate?
"You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone..Cause the times they are a changin'"
A better question is...why didn't they do this when Clinton was in office? Political. Thats why.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
A better question is...why didn't they do this when Clinton was in office? Political. Thats why.
Cause they had to wait till Canada did the dirty work first by legalizing it....Same with pot laws,you watch.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
A better question is...why didn't they do this when Clinton was in office? Political. Thats why.
Finally someone who is sharp enough to reveal the true motivations behind it. It is not about people's desire for happiness, it is just another vile liberal commie pinko hippie conspiration against the comoron in chief.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Finally someone who is sharp enough to reveal the true motivations behind it. It is not about people's desire for happiness, it is just another vile liberal commie pinko hippie conspiration against the comoron in chief.
I understand your lack of ability to honestly answer one question. I won't hold it against you though.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I understand your lack of ability to honestly answer one question. I won't hold it against you though.
Very well, I won't do much better than 'getting equal rights or overcoming discrimination is a gradual process and at the time they hadn't arrived at this step' which is illustrated by other gay-rights related 'conflicts' back then...
So if you don't agree I'm curious towards your 'political' motivation behind it, please elaborate.
-
Ready for an honest answer?
You won't see many of these on this board, but what do I care what anyone here thinks of me, right?
I don't think gay "Marriage" should be called marriage because it legitimizes an illegitimate relationship.
It says your homosexual family unit is just as normal as my heterosexual one.
In my opinion, homosexuality is not normal behavior.
I believe homosexual couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, as they are still citizens.
I just feel homosexual "Marriage" should be called something..anything else.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Very well, I won't do much better than 'getting equal rights or overcoming discrimination is a gradual process and at the time they hadn't arrived at this step' which is illustrated by other gay-rights related 'conflicts' back then...
So if you don't agree I'm curious towards your 'political' motivation behind it, please elaborate.
What do you mean? This country has accepted the gay community since Rock Hudson died in the early 80's!! We had gay mayors in office in the 90's! Seattle will be having its 15th annual Gay parade awareness this year! How do you come to your conclusion that we came so far in 3 years? Facts and data to back that up or just a warm, fuzzy thought?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Ready for an honest answer?
You won't see many of these on this board, but what do I care what anyone here thinks of me, right?
"I don't think gay "Marriage" should be called marriage because it legitimizes an illegitimate relationship."
"It says your homosexual family unit is just as normal as my heterosexual one."
In my opinion, homosexuality is not normal behavior.
"I believe homosexual couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, as they are still citizens."
"I just feel homosexual "Marriage" should be called something..anything else."
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
What do you mean? This country has accepted the gay community since Rock Hudson died in the early 80's!!
You know better than that, even in the more progressive states and cities gays still have to cope with discrimination every day, let alone the less 'advanced' regions.
-
Originally posted by Thud
You know better than that, even in the more progressive states and cities gays still have to cope with discrimination every day, let alone the less 'advanced' regions.
And they still continue today...so again, the question. Why now? Politcal. Thats why.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And they still continue today...so again, the question. Why now? Politcal. Thats why.
Political? So all these people wanting to get married are just liberal political activists?
Just like blacks during the 60's and love vs Virginia... they just wanted to screw with the current president by making a political statement.
It had nothing to do with may be they want to have the same rights as everyone else... with equal protection under the law.
you know.. the freedom to choose their spouse... and have the legal rights that go alone with that...such as the power of attornery in case of an emergency to make medical decisions, the successor rights of property in case of death, the right to be legally recognized as spouses, ad naseum...
And one arguement I hear so often - marriage is for procreating and raising children. There is no federal nor state law defining marriage as a means to procreation.
America has reached a boiling point on this issue.
The absurdity of the bigots is now well defined and out there for all to see.
It will be interesting to see how the courts define this... I suspect the only way to make same sex marriage illegal is to change the the constitution.
-
But Rip they never had a president trying to pass an amendment banning it before.
-
The real solution is to not give any special benefits to married couples.
Why should a guy with a "significant other and dependents" get automatic medical coverage for them when a single person working for the same company gets nothing other than coverage for himself.
Why do "married" couples get a break on income tax? Why do children generate deductions? An unmarried person doesn't get that same tax bracket and there's no way to deduct children that don't exist.
Cut the overt and hidden benefits of marriage. They're basically unfair to unmarried people.
Then let the marriages begin. Heck. let'em marry their dogs or cats if they like. Just don't give any entitlements for being married.
Just my .02.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Ready for an honest answer?
You won't see many of these on this board, but what do I care what anyone here thinks of me, right?
I don't think gay "Marriage" should be called marriage because it legitimizes an illegitimate relationship.
Exactly what makes it illegitimate? It's still boiles down to 2 people being in love with each other.
It says your homosexual family unit is just as normal as my heterosexual one.
Normal is a matter of opinion and depends on your lifestyle. Ever consider that homosexual couples may think that your heterosexual family unit is abnormal?
In my opinion, homosexuality is not normal behavior.
]
Like I said, normal is a matter of opinion. Unnactural would be a better description.
I believe homosexual couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, as they are still citizens.
That's good. So they should have the right to marry :)
I just feel homosexual "Marriage" should be called something..anything else.
Why should it be called something else? Especially if they should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples?
-
Originally posted by Toad
The real solution is to not give any special benefits to married couples.
Why should a guy with a "significant other and dependents" get automatic medical coverage for them when a single person working for the same company gets nothing other than coverage for himself.
Why do "married" couples get a break on income tax? Why do children generate deductions? An unmarried person doesn't get that same tax bracket and there's no way to deduct children that don't exist.
Cut the overt and hidden benefits of marriage. They're basically unfair to unmarried people.
Then let the marriages begin. Heck. let'em marry their dogs or cats if they like. Just don't give any entitlements for being married.
Just my .02.
What he said.
-
SirLoin: What is so wrong with being gay?..Or wanting a legal marriage certificate?
It entitles people to a lot of government-mandated benefits.
Supposedely when the taxpayers agreed to part with their hard-earned money it was to support and promote a specific kind of family, not anyone who wishes to call himself that.
Making taxpayers to agree subcidising families and then changing the definition of a family is bait and switch fraud.
If they did not lay a claim on my tax money, I would not care what they call themselves.
miko
-
Miko makes a good point on this issue.
As for Toad-
Children generate a small deductible. *Granted, I'm no tax expert*
I got back about $500 if I remember right because I have one child.
Now factor in how much money I pump back into the economy because of this child. $850 per MONTH just for daycare. Now factor in clothes, food, and all the incidentals a 4 year old princess simply "Cannot live without".
Trust me, parents like me put a hell of a lot more back into the economy than tax breaks give us.
AS for spousal medical coverage...I pay for that. They take more money out of every paycheck for my wife's and daughter's medical coverage. Why should I not get something I pay for?
I don't get your argument here, Toad.
My whole opposition to the Gay Marriage issue is not based in logic. It's an emotional reaction I have to the issue, that for the life of me, I cannot figure out. Why should I care? I should'nt but for some reason it bugs me.
Maybe I'm just sick of being innundated with this issue every day.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Well, you could always watch Sex in the City... and develop a deep dislike of whiny, spoilt tarts everywhere. lol
TV sucks.
Well said man. That show just annoys the hell out of me.
Just like that Alley Mcbeal show. I watched a few episodes and thought it was funny. Then I just got fed up with how pathetic the characters were...especially Calista Flockhard's...I just wanted to slap her.
Actually, I should have mentioned that one in the "Who needs a good slap" thread over at Check 6.
brb
-
Muck,
Let's start with this. You CHOOSE to get married and you CHOOSE to have children.
Deductions:
You're allowed a deduction just for being you: a personal exemption. You're also allowed an exemption for each person who qualifies as your dependent. The personal exemption amount for 2003 is $3,050.
Now depending on your tax bracket, how much you save can be significant.
Let's say you are married, filing joint, making $70,000 on the W2. This puts you in the 25% tax bracket. After all adjustments to income EXCEPT children, your AGI is $60,000. You have two kids, though, so you can "exempt" another $6100 dollars. In your tax bracket that additional exemption will save you 25% of $6100 or $1525 over a single person with the same income and deductions.
Why should the government give you $1525 because YOU CHOSE to have two children? In effect, the single person is subsidizing your choice. Is that fair?
I don't think so. Have all the kids you want. It's not my business.... or the governments. IMO, it entitles you to no special dodge on paying the nation's debts either.
That $850 you spent on daycare might just as well be spent on something that would also drive the economy. Don't tell me that had you made the choice NOT to have a child that you would give that $850 to Mother Teresa; you'd be out shopping for a hot car, a new house, a vacation or something. You might even SAVE it, a good thing for economies, or so they tell us.
Whatever you spend in support of your child, it's fair to assume you'd simply spend on something else if you were childless. The economy would still harvest your wallet.
I'll wager your spousal medical is subsidized by your company. You're not paying the full rate for it, I'm near certain. If you doubt me, call an independent medical insurer and see what they get to sign your wife up for the same coverage. It'd be a rare company that passes the full cost along.
So, why is this all fair to the single persons? Where's the additional benefit they get from the company that equals your subsidized medical?
I'm sick of the constant barrage of "gay this and that too". I personally don't care where someone parks his peter as long as it's done in privacy. (I don't care to see heterosexuals humping in the park either, in case anyone is wondering.) Just do your own thing in privacy and don't (figuratively)rub it in everyone's face.
One of the easiest ways to avoid this whole constitutional amendment issue is to remove favoritism for "married" couples. Just make it of no benefit and -voila- nobody will give a fig.
Ask yourself WHY they want the marriage certificate. Because it brings a lot of BENEFITS with it. Bring the benefits of married/unmarried into equality and fairness.. IE: NONE.. and the problem goes away.
-
Why give the mentally ill everything/anything they want? Helloooo! They are mentally ill so they can't make sound judgements.
As far as me being a bigot..well if your definition of a bigot is someone who doesn't like a dick shoved up his bellybutton or shoving his up another mans bellybutton then YES I'm a bigot.
If it is One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ then NO I'm not.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Why do "married" couples get a break on income tax? Why do children generate deductions? An unmarried person doesn't get that same tax bracket and there's no way to deduct children that don't exist.
Actually... if you're married you may pay more in income tax....
you know the "Marriage Penalty" that congress has been wrangling over for decades.
And I believe the deduction for kids is the same regardless if you're married with kids or single with kids....
Honestly, I don't know the details, I make too much money to care about a few thousand here or there. My accountant does my taxes.
but ok... sure being married does have some financial benefits... such as lowering car insurance premiums...
From what I've heard... the real issue is actually the legal rights marriage bestows: power of attorney, transfer of property, etc.
And right to say "You be the ***** tonight, I'm tired of being the *****, my butt is sore"
-
Toad: Why should the government give you $1525 because YOU CHOSE to have two children? In effect, the single person is subsidizing your choice. Is that fair?
That is not fair.
I don't think so. Have all the kids you want. It's not my business.... or the governments. IMO, it entitles you to no special dodge on paying the nation's debts either.
Could you be more explicit? The nation's social security and medicaid/medicare debt is currently valued at $50 trillion. Who will pay that debt to the retired people? The children of those who chose to have children.
Their taxes will not be designated for the benefits of the parents but for all retirees. Do you propose to abandon that as prerequisite for fairness?
Sure, it's nice not to spend any money on those children but then lay claim on half of their income (there will be about 2 workers per retiree in a couple of decades). But how fair is that?
Anyway, people live in families. If a family of 4 earns $70,000, how come they are in 25% bracket? Shouldn't they be in the same bracket as two two-person families earning $35,000?
And you can keep the deductions.
Also, a child is an investement. A capital that the whole society will derive profit from in the form of taxes and some other services. He will pay 50-70% of his earnings in taxes, so raising a child effectivelly means raisinh a 2/3 slave for the state, so 2/3 of all the expenses should be deducted as business expence or depreciated as capital expense.
If you buy education of machinery for an amployee that works for you, it's 100% deducted but if you buy education or other stuff for a slave of the state to make him more productive - why should that deserve only $700?
How about the labor of raising such slaves? It should be counted as expence at the same rate as a hired specialist whould charge.
That would be fair.
miko
-
" Who will pay that debt to the retired people? The children of those who chose to have children."
Or not. They're already discussing cutting the benefits. I assume you saw that trial balloon.
The system can't be paid for as it is now. Two options: less benefits (likely) or increase the number of folks paying in (unlikely).
I doubt there'll be a sudden desire for large families in the US. When I was a child, 4 children seemed to be common. Now 2 is probably the most common. I think this trend can be validated through the last 100 years through the census records. Beyond that, if we went back to 4 children per family, where would those kids work? IIRC, you're the one that points out job flight to lesser developed countries is inevitable. If they aren't working, how will they pay into the system? They won't; instead, they'll cause more debt as unemployed benefits rise.
"Do you propose to abandon that as prerequisite for fairness?"
The system is not and has never been "fair".
"If a family of 4 earns $70,000, how come they are in 25% bracket? "
As I pointed out, it's not about fair; never has been. A "progressive" income tax is not "fair". Fair would be, well.. everyone paying their "fair" share. ;)
"Also, a child is an investement."
There are lots of investments from which to choose. If you invest in stock, should you get exemptions?
-
Toad: " Who will pay that debt to the retired people? The children of those who chose to have children."
Or not. They're already discussing cutting the benefits. I assume you saw that trial balloon.
Not really. It's the same kind of scam as Reagan's tax cuts - which actually maximised tax revenue to the state rather then lowered them.
They are not talking about paying less benefits then they could otherwise but about saving the system. You get no milk fro a dead cow.
There is no possible way ever to get them benefits they are promised, so instead of allowing the system to crumble naturally and have those lazy shortsited child-haters starve, Greenspan wants to "reduce" the payout to the maximum realistically possible.
I doubt there'll be a sudden desire for large families in the US.
You probably think that increase in socialism and drop in fertility are just a coincidence. Children were the natural old-age insurance for the most of human history.
More children, more personal savings or starvation - I do not care much what they desire, as long as they do not become a burden burden.
If you invest in stock, should you get exemptions?
Asolutely. You invest $100 and sell it for $150, you are only taxed on the $50 profit of $150 revenue, not the original $100 expence or the $150 revenue.
When a child earns $50,000 year revenue, he is taxed on that amount. But it took a lot of money to "build" that child (raise and educate) so that he can earn that much. It's a capital expence that should be deducted. Human capital and intellectual capital - not principally different from physical capital.
miko
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Cripes Ahmighty...
Is everyone gay?
Queer Eye, Boy Meets Boy, That stupid sitcom...Will and Grace, now the whole marriage thing.
Mayors making their little power trips marrying homosexuals.
Listen, I don't give a rats arnold what you like to do with your naughty parts in the bedroom.
But I'm sick of having these depraved and in my opinion, they are depraved, lifestyles thrown in my face.
So you're a guy that likes taking a shot in the pail...good for you. I don't need to hear it, read about it, and grant you some sort of special badge of spoodge for it.
Enough with the gay, already!
Now it's just annoying and overexposed!!!
And no...2 guys are not married. They're banging each other. End of story.
Welcome to the year of the queer.
-
"Greenspan wants to "reduce" the payout to the maximum realistically possible."
Sounds like cutting benefits to me.
"You probably think that"
It's real simple. I think the average number of children per family is declining and continuing a declining trend that has existed for a long time. Therefore, I see no traditional way to increase the number of people paying in over the long term.
"Asolutely. You invest $100 and sell it for $150,"
However, the very fact that you have invested does not generate an immediate $3000 exemption that having a child on Dec. 31 does.
If you want to collect on your capital expense of a child, why isn't it done the same way as a stock then? You invest and your profit is taxed. Invest in your child. Pay tax on your "profit".
Deduct capital expense on a child? OK, so one set of parents sends the kids to private schools; they spend a lot. Another set merely takes the free public education. Do they get to deduct the same capital expense?
And what of the child that becomes a menace to society? Do the parents have to repay the deduction?
-
Yeah what he said
-
you're all studmuffins... not that there's anything wrong with that
-
isn't your wife bi?
-
Ally McBeal was perhaps the worst TV programme I have ever watched aside from Sex in the City. I can understand the slapping thing.
-
My take on this whole deal is the following the moment they startted giving them the minute of the day to consider babnining of making constitutional amendments banning their tantrum that's when they went out and and took the whole closet down and out just to annoy everyone else, simple as that if people and or politicians would have put their time and effort in something much more important than a bunch of whining homosexuals with a tantrum this whole ****storm wouldn't have happened. Of course I could be wrong, I don't have "left turning tendencies" :D
-
"Are there any queers in the theater tonight, get them up against The Wall!"
Karaya