DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:Vander, people with that shared 'delusion' not only affect your life, but completely dominate the governmental leadership.

Really? That is some exceptionally weak domination!

The Ayatohllas laugh at your example of religious domination.
The anti abortion crowd is thinking WTF is slick talking about? The gay marriage crowd too....

Hyperbole dominates your rhetoric.

Ferno wrote:Why did the government decide marriage was a good basis for tax breaks

The tax ramifications have to do with considering the income shared in the context of a progressive tax rate. Take two couples. One makes $20k + $80k, the other $50k + $50k. Both have a shared income of $100k, but because of the progressive tax rate, they are not taxed equally.

well, that covers the 'what' and the 'how'.

A lot of people get married. Does that help you figure out the why?

the only why I can fathom is the government went "all these people getting married... let's make a tax and charge em for it! yeah gotta get that tax money" while going fap-fap-fap.

Vander wrote:

snoopy wrote:I'm sure you're also happy to hate on religious people for their hypocrisy, too.

If by "hate on" you mean observing and perhaps forming and expressing a negative opinion, I think "happy" is a stretch, but I'll allow it.

I guess I messed up on my dig: you're exhibiting more of a double standard than hypocrisy... at least up until the point where one starts pretenting that their version of "bigotry" is any more acceptable than what you're calling "bigotry" in others.

My bottom line: We all judge voluntary behavior all the time, in many ways. We [on both sides of the argument] seem to be playing fast and loose with the distinction between voluntary behavior and involuntary nature... and I think the lines should be drawn along those lines: public businesses (and people in general) shouldn't be allowed to exclude others for their involuntary nature, but they also shouldn't be required to facilitate voluntary behavior with which they disagree.

snoopy wrote:I guess I messed up on my dig: you're exhibiting more of a double standard than hypocrisy... at least up until the point where one starts pretenting that their version of "bigotry" is any more acceptable than what you're calling "bigotry" in others.

I actually dispute the notion that my thoughts on the religious equate to bigotry. I think I'm pretty tolerant of opposing beliefs. I don't reject people because they don't share my worldview, though I may not discuss much theology with them. I don't discriminate in my profession against people due to their beliefs. I may completely disagree with someones beliefs, but I think I do a pretty good job of treating people with courtesy and respect. I certainly have my opinions, and express them when the discussion does arise.

What tests my patience is tolerating intolerant people. Is that intolerant itself?

When bigots become a protected class I'll ease up on them.

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:government gets involved the moment that marital status becomes the basis for tax breaks, visitation rights, etc, etc.

Which brings up a question in my mind. Why did the government decide marriage was a good basis for tax breaks, etc, like you stated?

Would you rather the opposite? Give tax breaks to those who stay single?

callmeslick wrote:honest answer, Ferno, is 'I don't know'.......

Slick…as far as I know tax breaks for married people was an attempt by the US government to encourage marriage, at least that was the reason given at the time.

There was a time when the government made no bones about their attempts to do social engineering.

And of course the government in its ultimate wisdom has screwed the pooch over the years, because we now have the marriage penalty.

Please don’t ask me for links and proof, because there are many things I learned before the internet, and if you wish not to believe me, then just call me a liar, as per usual, or chalk it up to opinion, if you are feeling polite.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:honest answer, Ferno, is 'I don't know'.......

Slick…as far as I know tax breaks for married people was an attempt by the US government to encourage marriage, at least that was the reason given at the time.

but, it goes far beyond tax breaks. It goes to an assortment of familial rights and privileges.

Please don’t ask me for links and proof, because there are many things I learned before the internet, and if you wish not to believe me, then just call me a liar, as per usual, or chalk it up to opinion, if you are feeling polite.

nah, you are quoting common knowledge of anyone who has the time to do basic inquiry can discover. I not only believe you, but playing the gotcha game over links to the obvious isn't my cup o tea.

Vander wrote:What tests my patience is tolerating intolerant people. Is that intolerant itself?

You have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise you'll be tolerating destructive beaviour in the name of 'tolerance'.

woodchip wrote:Would you rather the opposite? Give tax breaks to those who stay single?

loaded question, not playing.

Vander wrote:What tests my patience is tolerating intolerant people. Is that intolerant itself?

My answer: it can be. To me, it's not a question of where you stand on hot-button issues, it's what you do about it. If intolerant individuals annoy you, but you strive to treat them as people, too (as you claim) - then that's all I can ask - and it's all I think you should ask of people that disagree with you.

If you excuse vitriolic hate for intolerant people then you've sunk to their level.

As humans I think we're often tempted to excuse hate because we think we're right - current popular opinion is calling out conservatives for this... but the nature of popular "herd" mentality tends to take it to that "hate" level where everyone ends up doing it wrong... and everyone somehow thinks they're better because they happen to be right. [Note: it's easiest for the majority to fall into this simply because it's easy to assume to the majority must be right.]

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Would you rather the opposite? Give tax breaks to those who stay single?

loaded question, not playing.

Typical non response because of laziness?

here's an interesting look at how 'marriage' affects so much else, under our current status quo
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/an-ord ... ar-AAbmqjQ