RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB...

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 9:27:10 AM)
That was a great post, but did absolutely nothing to answer the question. [;)] Lets make it simple. If you are a straight person, what will you lose or miss out on, if we gave gay unions equal rights under the law? You don't need to postulate or spin or twist the question into something it isn't. Just post the losses as bullet points, and explain why the loss would be directly related to this issue.

lisa1978 -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 9:38:17 AM)
Fox news caters toward people who do not want to hear opposing sides of a story of a certain political slant. While the major networks are called liberal, they really are not. They are owned by big corporations whoes goal is not to offend anybody especially advertisers so there reporting is basically neutered. Comedians throughout history and the basis of comedy is the truth being told, pricked and prodded for entertainment. During more repressed times (Some of us might believe we are in one of those times), comedians can very much play a big role in a society. Should you get your news from Jon Stewart. No! You should get your news from other sources and then watch Jon Stewart so you can laugh and not cry about it. Yes! He and people like him are equal opportunity rippers. I just love him because he specializes in pointing out the illogical, hypocritical and just stupid things both political parties do. I also think he has impact. The guest that appear on his show are quite prominant and his audience is of a generation who's views are still forming.

Alumbrado -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 2:34:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lisa1978 Fox news caters toward people who do not want to hear opposing sides of a story of a certain political slant. While the major networks are called liberal, they really are not. They are owned by big corporations whoes goal is not to offend anybody especially advertisers so there reporting is basically neutered..... I'm not sure how those things do not fit with at least one of the the definitions of 'liberal' Hollywood is owned by huge mega-corps (often the same ones that own the rest of the media), and they put their fiscal bottom line first (the famous 'Western Union' line comes to mind), but isn't Hollywood considered liberal?

Level -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 4:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Good for Stewart; he's a sharp guy. Maybe, but if your cause siting the words of a comedian or using him as a spokesperson there is a good chance your cause will be considered a comedy routine or joke. 'News' from the 'Comedy Channel' or MTV isn't going to help. Arguments in the debate need to address commentary made from the opposition. Watch Fox news and address the commentary from that source. "Those guys are fucking assholes!" is NOT a debate point. Sometimes the most stinging truth is couched in humor, and I think a lot of people can take the "nuggets" of good sense and truth Stewart offers on occasion. "Those guys are fucking assholes" isn't a debate point, but it is true sometimes lol.

Lordandmaster -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 5:46:44 PM)
By whom? That's a pretty broad generalization. I didn't find "The Passion of the Christ" very liberal. Or "Rambo." quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado isn't Hollywood considered liberal?

DelightMachine -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 6:54:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn If you are a straight person, what will you lose or miss out on, if we gave gay unions equal rights under the law? I'm going to play devil's advocate here, because I'm not sure about the issue, but it would be good to get the other side stated. I think these are the reasons I've heard that society would be hurt by gay marriage: 1. Society would lose out because fewer children would have the benefit of both a mother and a father in their homes. Personally, I'm not sure how much of a bad thing that is, but I'm sure it's a bad thing. There is no way that adoptions, for instance, are not going to be just as available to gay couples as they are to straight couples if gay marriage is recognized by the state. 2. To the extent that being in a loving, sexual relationship with a person of the same sex is a choice and not an innate need, marriage for gays would tend to promote homosexuality. It could be countered that homosexuality is never a choice, but I can't believe that. I think it's definitely a choice for some people, not that I can identify them. The next step in this particular argument would be to argue that more homosexuality would harm society in various ways. (For instance, men having sex with a lot of other men can spread sexually transmitted diseases.) 3. Once you allow gay marriage, it becomes more likely that, as people have a more expansive view of marriage, polygamy and polyandry will become more widespread and legal. If you think that's a bad thing, it's a reason to oppose gay marriage. The cover story of this week's Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com) has an article about the bad effects of polygamy, by the way (I haven't read it). 4. If you believe that God does not want gays to have sex, then the effect of a gay marriage law is to move society further away from God. It's been a while since I've thought of the issue, and I haven't followed the current debate. I'm sure there are other major arguments out there that I could look up if I wasn't tired. I think all of these arguments have to be weighed against the idea that it's just decent to recognize marriage for gay people as well as the beneficial social effects of men staying in more stable relationships. Edited to add: I guess it was last week's Weekly Standard that had the cover story. Here's a direct link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/266jhfgd.asp

Alumbrado -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 7:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster By whom? That's a pretty broad generalization. I didn't find "The Passion of the Christ" very liberal. Or "Rambo." We are discussing commonly accepted uses of the label, not your personal spingeist. Last I checked, the theme of Rambo was that war, and particularly the US military and stereotypical police, made nice guys who just wanted to be left in peace, do terrible things...quite telling that you didn't find that message to be very liberal. I guess you thought that Easy Rider was a movie about a Republican biker gang? [sm=cool.gif] I should just let you stay in your fantastic dystopia....

Lordandmaster -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 7:27:38 PM)
It's pointless to talk about whether "the media" is conservative or liberal, or whether "Hollywood" is conservative or liberal, because "the media" include viewpoints from all across the spectrum, and Hollywood's purpose is to make movies. Aside from the fact that "conservative" and "liberal" no longer mean very much. What is the "conservative" position on gas prices? There's no such thing. The people who want to keep robbing you blind, subsidizing the super-wealthy, and plunging us into wars across the planet to keep you busy with new headlines are thrilled that you're still worrying about whether "the media" and "Hollywood" are liberal or conservative. We're living in the same dystopia, unless you happen to be a citizen of Mars. Oh, yes, I musta forgot: Everyone knows Arnold Schwarzenegger is liberal.

UtopianRanger -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 7:49:43 PM)
quote: Aside from the fact that "conservative" and "liberal" no longer mean very much. What is the "conservative" position on gas prices? There's no such thing. If that isn't a true statement I don't know what is. ; } - R

MistressLorelei -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/8/2006 10:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Good for Stewart; he's a sharp guy. Maybe, but if your cause siting the words of a comedian or using him as a spokesperson there is a good chance your cause will be considered a comedy routine or joke. 'News' from the 'Comedy Channel' or MTV isn't going to help. Arguments in the debate need to address commentary made from the opposition. Watch Fox news and address the commentary from that source. "Those guys are fucking assholes!" is NOT a debate point. It may have been aired on a comedy channel, but the comedian was interviewing Bill Bennet asking serious questions regarding his views on gay marriage. No one had to call anyone an asshole... it was Bill Bennet who proved himself to be one. His answers would have been funny if they weren't sincere.

Mercnbeth -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/9/2006 8:18:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn If you are a straight person, what will you lose or miss out on, if we gave gay unions equal rights under the law? You don't need to postulate or spin or twist the question into something it isn't. Just post the losses as bullet points, and explain why the loss would be directly related to this issue. caitlyn, Me personally? We will all be effected by the economics. Any corporation that provides benefits to employee spouses, would by law have to extend those benefits to gay unions. The cost would be passed to the consumer. I don't know how big an impact this would be, but since the government can't police sexual practices it would distinguish between a gay couple and two same sex individuals who want to take advantage of the law. Get 'married' and your health coverage is paid. But the bigger issue would be on the tax front. Federal and State taxes lost by gay unions would have to be made up from another source. Social Security and survivor benefits would be extended and paid to a larger pool This doesn't only extend to inheritance tax. It's a big impact to file taxes as 'couple'. Check the math on the tax table. Two people filing jointly making $40,000 each pay much less as a couple than what they would have paid filing single. I put quotes around 'couple' because wouldn't it make economic sense for any two people to 'marry' if as a result you paid as a couple 40% less in taxes? Break up and get a new roommate and get a simple 'quicky divorce' for $250.00. The 'couple' is still way ahead. Of course eliminating the tax code and initiating a flat tax would eliminate that objection but I doubt that will get past the tax lawyers and accountants regardless of their sexual orientation. There is one other, less tangible impact. It's one that is never address by the left on this issue and many others. The majority of the people don't want gay marriage. What does that have to do with anything? The fleeting sentiment of living in a democracy. If the law was subject to a national referendum type vote it would fail. Seeking a court ordered solution serves to polarize. A legislatively originated bill is too big a polarizing issue to take up. Why did the illegal immigrant amnesty bill pass easily in the Senate and is failing in Congress? One third of the Senate is up for re-election; 100% of Congress. We may not have to opportunity as individuals to vote against amnesty but we can vote against anyone who voted for it. The same would hold for a legislated gay marriage bill. The previous post wasn't spin it dealt with reality and law. Same goes with the economics of the trying to be fair. Feelings and fairness have very little to do with laws or changing laws. beth told me one of her most often used quotes to her kids growing up was "fair" is a place you go to eat funnel cakes and ride rides; it has nothing to do with the world or life.

caitlyn -> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... (6/10/2006 11:18:34 AM)
Thanks for the answer Mercnbeth. I think probably closing one of two corporate tax loopholes owuld offset the entire tax implications of gay unions ... but you did in fact come up with an actual answer. So ... thank you.[:D]

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125