Kids of Republicans pull parents to the left on gay marriage

[Murica!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not support legal recognition of polygamy.

So your against the Bible?

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am unaware of polygamy being approved of outside of the Old Covenant, but I don't claim to be a biblical scholar.

[AggregateDemand]

AD, people are exasperated with you because you're totally incoherent.  There may be an idea in your head, but you are not expressing it in a way that other people can understand it.  The burden is on you to make yourself understood.  If you just write in a totally abstruse way and get angry and dismissive when people don't understand you, there's no point.  You think you have some magical insight because you took Econ 101 at community college or something, great.  

People understand arguments that go A to B to C.  If you write like some crazy person on speed and you jump from A to F to Q, you're not some brilliant writer.  You're a crazy person on speed type of writer.

Most of my posts are easy to understand. A group of single people are complaining that marriage is discriminatory. We decide that the system must only be discriminatory against gay single people.

Everyone should be able to see the cult of politically-correct groupthink by now.

We need more money for entitlements so we siphon money out of income-generating productivity and we put more money into deadweight loss. Then we create a grand conspiracy about capitalist robber barons who don't pay their taxes, though corporate taxes would scarcely raise a tiny percentage of the money we need.

The concepts are not difficult to understand. People are willfully ignorant.

The graduated tax system openly discriminates against married people. To correct the situation, we create a separate tax system for married people. Naturally, this separate-but-equal arrangement was a failure from its inception.

The assertion is not vague or difficult to grasp.

[Torie]

I just don't get the bit that because one favors SSM, one doesn't care about what is in the tax code, and give a damn if it is unfair. How to treat married couples, by they gay or straight, in the tax code, versus the unmarried, is a worthy, and indeed complex, subject of discussion, but has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of SSM that I can see. Ditto with your other listed beefs about the system. Folks who favor SSM marriage can walk and chew gum at the same time, every bit as much as you can, and care about other issues of unfairness. And as many here will tell you, while we may be allies on SSM, we may disagree on some other issues. I cannot fathom why you conflate all of this with sincerity.

[CountryClassSF]

I think the part of the tax code he is referring to is designed to encourage marriage. What do you think would be the solution to change the tax code?

Granted, I seem to remember Bush in 2004, said he supported changing that tax. I think it was in a Larry King interview.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The facts are that opponents of traditional marriage are heralded by Hollywood, press, and social circles. The rest of us are basically trash as far as you're concerned. That doesn't sound like a democracy. It sounds like a juggernaut.

Well at least you support polygamy, Citizen Fascist.

I support traditional marriage

You are aware that the most numerous form of marriage in the Bible is polygamy right?

Citation needed.

[bedstuy]

AD, people are exasperated with you because you're totally incoherent.  There may be an idea in your head, but you are not expressing it in a way that other people can understand it.  The burden is on you to make yourself understood.  If you just write in a totally abstruse way and get angry and dismissive when people don't understand you, there's no point.  You think you have some magical insight because you took Econ 101 at community college or something, great.  

People understand arguments that go A to B to C.  If you write like some crazy person on speed and you jump from A to F to Q, you're not some brilliant writer.  You're a crazy person on speed type of writer.

Most of my posts are easy to understand. A group of single people are complaining that marriage is discriminatory. We decide that the system must only be discriminatory against gay single people.

Everyone should be able to see the cult of politically-correct groupthink by now.

We need more money for entitlements so we siphon money out of income-generating productivity and we put more money into deadweight loss. Then we create a grand conspiracy about capitalist robber barons who don't pay their taxes, though corporate taxes would scarcely raise a tiny percentage of the money we need.

The concepts are not difficult to understand. People are willfully ignorant.

The graduated tax system openly discriminates against married people. To correct the situation, we create a separate tax system for married people. Naturally, this separate-but-equal arrangement was a failure from its inception.

The assertion is not vague or difficult to grasp.

As far as I can tell, nobody besides you finds marriage to be discriminatory.  I've never heard that from anyone else.  Be that as it may, that is not germane to the discussion of "only opposite sex marriage" vs. opposite and same sex marriage.  That is a different discussion and one you need to explain better because you have a novel, eccentric position on marriage.

The premise of these debates is, assuming that we are going to have marriage and it's not going anywhere, it shouldn't incorporate discriminatory elements. 

[Torie]

I don't mean to sound rude, but I find your post near totally incoherent. Sorry about that.

You see, he's arguing that the real victims of discrimination in America are straight, single males. And he has nothing against gay people, but if we let gay people get married, then that will just enlarge the ruling married class, thus granting them more power to discriminate against single people. Obviously.

I missed this post. Thanks. I understand more as to that aspect given the down-thread posts. Yes it is an unusual point of view shall we say.  All the acidic adjectives and nouns tend to be distracting.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The facts are that opponents of traditional marriage are heralded by Hollywood, press, and social circles. The rest of us are basically trash as far as you're concerned. That doesn't sound like a democracy. It sounds like a juggernaut.

Well at least you support polygamy, Citizen Fascist.

I support traditional marriage

You are aware that the most numerous form of marriage in the Bible is polygamy right?

Citation needed.

It is by definition the most numerous form of marriage.

[AggregateDemand]

I just don't get the bit that because one favors SSM, one doesn't care about what is in the tax code, and give a damn if it is unfair. How to treat married couples, by they gay or straight, in the tax code, versus the unmarried, is a worthy, and indeed complex, subject of discussion, but has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of SSM that I can see. Ditto with your other listed beefs about the system. Folks who favor SSM marriage can walk and chew gum at the same time, every bit as much as you can, and care about other issues of unfairness. And as many here will tell you, while we may be allies on SSM, we may disagree on some other issues. I cannot fathom why you conflate all of this with sincerity.

While I'm sure that some SSM couples are merely fighting for recognition, the real debate is about the equality of privileges granted to married couples. Many of these privileges are granted via the tax code. For instance, the ability to list a spouse on employer healthcare, which is excluded from income and taxation. Other SSM couples may be interested in receiving the preferential married tax rates, which provide big tax breaks for couples with disparate income between partners. Same-sex couples also want preferential rules for probate and spousal estate planning.

Gay couples are fighting for community property rights, and the right to make medical decisions for a spouse w/o power of attorney, and the right to adopt and list dependents on health insurance, and so on.

It's all connected. The tax system, retirement system, and health insurance system, which vest incredible power in the contract of marriage. Congress is supposed to disarm the situation so we can all live together, but they choose to place more emphasis on the importance of exerting power and cultural control over the minority faction.

Whether or not marriage can be same-sex is basically irrelevant. What is really at stake is whether Congress will act to stabilize a population with much lower incidence of marriage, evolving culture and rapidly increasing disparity of wealth (caused mainly by the culture of educated dual-income married couples).

[CountryClassSF]

Gay conservative bullied.


Outing someone's personal life is apparently acceptable if they are conservative. This is what we mean by fascism. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=211922.0

[Ebsy]

Gay conservative bullied.


Outing someone's personal life is apparently acceptable if they are conservative. This is what we mean by fascism. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=211922.0

I've taken the liberty of looking up the definition of the word fascism for you.

[CountryClassSF]

Gay conservative bullied.


Outing someone's personal life is apparently acceptable if they are conservative. This is what we mean by fascism. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=211922.0

I've taken the liberty of looking up the definition of the word fascism for you.

Fascism can be on the left too.

[Ebsy]

By definition, it can't. Fascism can only apply to right wing dictatorships.

[Murica!]

Gay conservative bullied.


Outing someone's personal life is apparently acceptable if they are conservative. This is what we mean by fascism. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=211922.0

I've taken the liberty of looking up the definition of the word fascism for you.

Fascism can be on the left too.

Your mistaking National Syndicalism for Fascism, easy mistake.

[SteveRogers]

I just don't get the bit that because one favors SSM, one doesn't care about what is in the tax code, and give a damn if it is unfair. How to treat married couples, by they gay or straight, in the tax code, versus the unmarried, is a worthy, and indeed complex, subject of discussion, but has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of SSM that I can see. Ditto with your other listed beefs about the system. Folks who favor SSM marriage can walk and chew gum at the same time, every bit as much as you can, and care about other issues of unfairness. And as many here will tell you, while we may be allies on SSM, we may disagree on some other issues. I cannot fathom why you conflate all of this with sincerity.

While I'm sure that some SSM couples are merely fighting for recognition, the real debate is about the equality of privileges granted to married couples. Many of these privileges are granted via the tax code. For instance, the ability to list a spouse on employer healthcare, which is excluded from income and taxation. Other SSM couples may be interested in receiving the preferential married tax rates, which provide big tax breaks for couples with disparate income between partners. Same-sex couples also want preferential rules for probate and spousal estate planning.

Gay couples are fighting for community property rights, and the right to make medical decisions for a spouse w/o power of attorney, and the right to adopt and list dependents on health insurance, and so on.

It's all connected. The tax system, retirement system, and health insurance system, which vest incredible power in the contract of marriage. Congress is supposed to disarm the situation so we can all live together, but they choose to place more emphasis on the importance of exerting power and cultural control over the minority faction.

Whether or not marriage can be same-sex is basically irrelevant. What is really at stake is whether Congress will act to stabilize a population with much lower incidence of marriage, evolving culture and rapidly increasing disparity of wealth (caused mainly by the culture of educated dual-income married couples).

The minority faction over which the ruling class is exerting power is... single people??? Lololol

Dude, if you don't want to get married, then Just. Don't. Get. Married.

[CountryClassSF]

It is not that simple - as we have said

[AggregateDemand]

The minority faction over which the ruling class is exerting power is... single people??? Lololol

Dude, if you don't want to get married, then Just. Don't. Get. Married.

I was referring to the people who believe marriage is male-female only or the people who believe same-sex couples also qualify for marriage. The minority party depends upon the era in question.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Gay conservative bullied.


Outing someone's personal life is apparently acceptable if they are conservative. This is what we mean by fascism. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=211922.0

Top Man! was flaunting his sexuality a bit too publicly.

[CountryClassSF]

No, I don't believe that, Small Biz...because he did it on an app for gay men. I'm sure the he was not looking to have their profile posted in the media by someone who disagrees with their political views...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

No, I don't believe that, Small Biz...because he did it on an app for gay men. I'm sure the he was not looking to have their profile posted in the media by someone who disagrees with their political views...

Showing your genitals to someone unsolicited is pretty good justification for outing someone. I agree that people should not otherwise be invading privacy, but at some point this man surrendered his privacy by using a public social network, sharing his picture and ultimately his genitals to someone who surely was not fishing to see them. Welcome to 2015, where what you do online has consequences.

[CountryClassSF]

No, I don't believe that, Small Biz...because he did it on an app for gay men. I'm sure the he was not looking to have their profile posted in the media by someone who disagrees with their political views...

Showing your genitals to someone unsolicited is pretty good justification for outing someone. I agree that people should not otherwise be invading privacy, but at some point this man surrendered his privacy by using a public social network, sharing his picture and ultimately his genitals to someone who surely was not fishing to see them. Welcome to 2015, where what you do online has consequences.

Yeah I'm not saying it should somehow be prohibited to out him, I'm just saying according to the article, he wasn't outed b/c the guy thought he was being too forward (and yes, he was)- but specifically because he was a conservative Republican

[Marokai Backbeat]

Only CCSF could simultaneously rant until he's blue in the face about the disgustingness of "flaunting" homosexuals, but then be deeply outraged when a gay conservative showing his dick pics to others online for funsies is outed for being a gross hypocrite.

CCSF defends flaunting your genitals on the internet confirmed.

[The Mikado]

The facts are that opponents of traditional marriage are heralded by Hollywood, press, and social circles. The rest of us are basically trash as far as you're concerned. That doesn't sound like a democracy. It sounds like a juggernaut.

Well at least you support polygamy, Citizen Fascist.

I support traditional marriage

You are aware that the most numerous form of marriage in the Bible is polygamy right?

Citation needed.

Solomon's 700 wives probably alone outnumber the partners involved in every single-partner couple in the Bible, Old and New Testament combined.

[CountryClassSF]

Stating my belief that no one should ever be outed ≠ supporting or condoning the actions of the person who's been outed.

The article clearly stated he was outed because the guy didn't like his political views. Not because of his actions on Grindr