Violence Against the LGBT Community

[Kuya]

playing devils advocate here..


How is it hard to understand that some people do not see marriage as a human right? In their eyes they aren't discriminating because they psychologically compartment marriage.


Just because we take one stance doesn't mean we are incapable of understanding why someone would feel different. Although often a leading contributor the answer is not always as simple as "religion"

Just because you understand why they think the way they do, doesn't mean you cannot or should not deride them for being morally bankrupt.

[Tweek]

Derailing the thread.. we're specifically discussing marriage being a human right, it was listed by 2 people why it must be considered a human right by all thus anyone who disagrees with gay marriage does not have a different opinion, they are flat out wrong.. and a bigot.. and whatever else people generalized about that group of people. There are some serious flaws in that Ms. Backseat mod.

They should have realized that it is the second it was recognized (and rewarded) by the government and other institutions.

Marriage became a right in this country the moment that it came with tax benefits that singles don't get.

[Kuya]

It's not a matter of opinion, you dolt. You're either right or wrong, regardless of what little postmodernist word-play you come up with. And because i know you're somewhat of an idiot, i'll throw you a bone: Human rights, civil rights, and a service subject to equal treatment under the law, are not the same thing.

edit: scratch that, opinions can be right or wrong. I swear we need to make this issue a national emergency. Somehow people have landed in the belief that their opinions cant be flat out wrong and stupid.

[Ragnus]

You seem to be getting the concepts of marriage and matrimony confused. Marriage most likely comes with a tax benefit because instead of two separate tax returns to process, they get to process one for the whole house. There may be more reasons than that but it's what I have on the top of my head.

Now matrimony is something totally different. Gays are not asking for the right to get married in a church, which the religious people still have a say about, only to be legally acknowledged that they're together by the system.

[Demosthenes11]

Yeah, not eating some nugs sure will show that chicfila fucker that he is wrong! Occupy Waffle fry!

big amount of stupid here

[Tweek]

You seem to be getting the concepts of marriage and matrimony confused. Marriage most likely comes with a tax benefit because instead of two separate tax returns to process, they get to process one for the whole house. There may be more reasons than that but it's what I have on the top of my head.

Now matrimony is something totally different. Gays are not asking for the right to get married in a church, which the religious people still have a say about, only to be legally acknowledged that they're together by the system.

How in the world could you possibly think that's what I'm confused on? JFC are you serious? I'm comparing single people, someone who is "not married" someone who claims 1 and files by themselves is discriminated against by the government in all the same aspects that a gay person is discriminated against. It has NOTHING to do with being married in a church.


What makes "marriage" a human right and why aren't single people entitled to the same benefits? Why is being single different?

[Ragnus]

Marriage gets benefits that singles don't because, like I said in my last post, it's a way for people to declare their finances as combined without becoming a business. This eases the burden on the IRS in processing the return because it's only one return for two people.

Don't even get started on the other benefits such as not having to have individual health plans because they can be on the same plan. If one person has insurance through work and their partner doesn't, then the insured one is doomed to watch their go uninsured because they can't validate their relationship.

[Dimmauk]

big amount of stupid here

Just as dumb as suggesting not agreeing with stupid = apathy.

[Demosthenes11]

Just as dumb as suggesting not agreeing with stupid = apathy.

"I don't want to fund that guy's hate group" = stupid

yessir

[hey]

No, the government actually discriminating against people that are "not married" that's the difference. Google is not offsetting everyone who is not married they're only offsetting the difference for people who are gay.. at least that's my understanding.

They aren't paying gay people more just because they're gay. They are paying a cost that gay couples have that does not apply to straight couples (or singles). No offsetting needs to be done for singles because they aren't paying extra taxes on their partner's health insurance due to their inability to get married.

[Ashmada]

Playing Elton's advocate, here: Tweek, this really is too much pressure for you, look at you: you're actually trying to link marital tax breaks to gay rights. Srsly.

Honestly, I never could understand the religious mind's tendency to stick its accompanying nasal appendage in locales not suited for said nasal appendage.
Personally, I've got enough on my own plate to even care about what's on my neighbour's, let alone tell him what should or shouldn't be on there.

Letting gays marry harms no one, the bigots have no leg to stand on on this issue, and proeminent republitards know it.
Like abortion, it's not a question of caring about "good ol' family values" or a foetus' right to existence, it's a question of control, of political currency (feeling very much like Captain Obvious, now).


Aside: man, you USans really have a strange notion of a "restaurant": not only including fast food joints but actually only considering fast food chains as viable restaurants?
Not judging (see above: I don't care), just surprised.


Cadsuane: sorry for the belated answer, but here goes:
Personally, I see a difference between intent (whether or not the crime was deliberate) and motive (the motivation behind the crime, assuming it was indeed deliberate)
This might not hold grammatically (too tired to check), but I maintain that, prior to the introduction of hate laws, such is the way pretty much all western justice systems worked, and most still do: intent is obviously evaluated (when relevant: some crimes just cannot be committed accidentally), but motive rarely so.

[hey]

Playing Elton's advocate, here: Tweek, this really is too much pressure for you, look at you: you're actually trying to link marital tax breaks to gay rights. Srsly.

He doesn't need to link them, they already are. When one class of people are denied tax breaks that everyone else gets, that's an issue.

[zoobernut]

How in the world could you possibly think that's what I'm confused on? JFC are you serious? I'm comparing single people, someone who is "not married" someone who claims 1 and files by themselves is discriminated against by the government in all the same aspects that a gay person is discriminated against. It has NOTHING to do with being married in a church.


What makes "marriage" a human right and why aren't single people entitled to the same benefits? Why is being single different?

This is so retarded. You do understand that heterosexual single people have the OPTION to get married if they choose to. That means if they want the benefits they can choose to get married. Gay people don't currently have this option. Gay couples that are together that would like to get married can't. I am not sure how you can equate this in any way to all single people.

Not only that but you are massively overlooking other benefits to being married that the government gives beyond just taxes like power of attorney, *visitation rights*, insurance benefits etc.

Visitation rights is actually the biggest thing I see complained about with respect to the gay marriage argument and equal treatment. When you are legally married that carries with it a lot of privileges in cases where your loved one gets sick and goes to a hospital and you have to make decisions on their behalf or if you just want to visit them period. It also allows someone to be privy to information gathered by police in the case where they go missing. I am sure there are lots of other examples of benefits two people get when they are married they do not get when they are not legally married that I am overlooking.

Honestly I really don't understand how this is even a debate. Marriage is no longer a religious institution. The church does not own marriage anymore and cannot hold the definition for it. The federal government now owns the definition to marriage as soon as it became a legal issue. Religions can petition to have the government change the legal name of marriage if they really want if they are butt hurt over the name but any sort of religious argument for what the definition of marriage is doesn't make any sense anymore. You can get married at city hall or outside or anywhere you want. Being married doesn't require a priest or Rabbi or a religious person anymore it just requires someone licensed by the state you are in to perform a marriage.

[Demosthenes11]

If I'm not mistaken, marital tax breaks are due to the cost of children. May be a little outdated now, but I believe that was the intent

[zoobernut]

If I'm not mistaken, marital tax breaks are due to the cost of children. May be a little outdated now, but I believe that was the intent

There are a different set of tax breaks, one set for if you are married and one set if you have children.

[Dimmauk]

"I don't want to fund that guy's hate group" = stupid

yessir

Serious? Fucking stupid.

[Drex]

If I'm not mistaken, marital tax breaks are due to the cost of children. May be a little outdated now, but I believe that was the intent

Nah, children have their own tax breaks. Marital tax breaks are due to the benefit to society of couples getting married and staying together, one of which is ultimately raising children. Anti-gay groups want to keep the tax-breaks away from gay couples because they do not perceive any societal benefit from gay marriage. It's obviously retarded but hurr the devil.

[RKenshin]

Misconceptions in this thread about the 'great tax benefits' of filing jointly.

The taxes paid for two people filling separately, and two people filling jointly are near-exactly (within 5%) the same in most scenarios that don't involve a non-working spouse.

The single vs joint filing system is incredibly simple. The difference between the tax brackets for single and joint, is that the joint brackets are 2x higher than the single. Which means that two single people making $25k/y that will owe (for example) an estimated $3,315 each filing separately, will owe $6,630 ($3,315*2) if they file married. The total amount of taxes they pay is the same.

The only time the joint will work out better is if one spouse is in a different tax bracket than the other, but even then it's typically a less than 5% difference (IE: It's ~1% for one in the 3rd & 4th bracket).

For the most part the true tax benefits here don't come until you enter complex scenarios involving a large amount of itemized reductions (which usually means having kids or proximity to retirement). But that's more a matter of 'kids being encouraged/rewarded' than 'discrimination against single people.'

But it's a common myth that two people with nothing other than a standard deduction can get married, combine incomes, and save a bunch of money on taxes.

The real value of marriage is in the survivor, insurance and custody rights it allows (family plans, pension/SS death benefits, child visitation, etc). Not so much the taxes.

[Demosthenes11]

Serious? Fucking stupid.

these people have money = they give money to hate groups.
these people don't have money = they don't give money to hate groups.

These people having money is directly proportional to the amount of money we, the consumer, give them.

QED

[Demosthenes11]

Nah, children have their own tax breaks. Marital tax breaks are due to the benefit to society of couples getting married and staying together, one of which is ultimately raising children. Anti-gay groups want to keep the tax-breaks away from gay couples because they do not perceive any societal benefit from gay marriage. It's obviously retarded but hurr the devil.

hmmm not sure where I heard that from (I think they meant the allowance for marriage predated the allowance for children).