Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The original idea that government should treat us equal holds true, but for government to be telling us what we have to do to make us all equal is a bridge too far.
1 view
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 18, 2013, 6:49:31 PM6/18/13
to
On 6/18/2013 6:02 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/18/13 3:51 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 4:15 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/18/13 2:21 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2013 2:57 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> On 6/18/13 1:53 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/2013 2:46 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/18/13 11:14 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:Q4mdnXY8Hc2SViLM...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:526e845f-f05f-462b...@b2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that
>>>>>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>>>>>> gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them
>>>>>>>>>> disappear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, let's see if Liberals get the reasoning...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Ramon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Ramon, again you miss the point. It is entirely possible
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> against gay "marriage", and have absolutely nothing against gays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gays need domestic partnerships/civil unions/or whatever, that
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the same legal rights, and same legal treatment as heterosexual
>>>>>>>>> marriage. Those legal rights can be easily conveyed without having
>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>> tamper with marriage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # All true, except gopvernment has already, "tampered with
>>>>>>>> marriage".
>>>>>>>> Just
>>>>>>>> # look at the special tax table for, "married couples" in the form
>>>>>>>> 1040.
>>>>>>>> thia
>>>>>>>> # has been in existence for over 50 years now. (lobbied for by the
>>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>>> # groups, I might add) Boy, are they sorry about that now...:^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the "fix" is easy....a law declaring that recorded civil
>>>>>>>> unions/domestic partnerships/etc. will have the same benefits
>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>> for legal marriage.
>>>>>>>> Of course, that will never happen since the whole hissyfit is not
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> legal rights, but about forcing religion to sanction same sex
>>>>>>>> "marriage".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The state in its various guises cannot force religious
>>>>>>> institutions to
>>>>>>> sanction same-sex marriage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And no need for the scare quotes. In 11 states and DC, there's just
>>>>>>> marriage, no matter the sex of the partners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dead, alive or under age.... Makes no difference does it, they're
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> In every state of the union, both prospective marriage partners
>>>>> must be
>>>>> alive and of suitable age.
>>>>
>>>> And most say they must be opposite sex and only one spouse at a time.
>>>>
>>>> Where is the problem?
>>>
>>> Some states say that they don't have to be of the opposite sex. Where
>>> is the problem with that?
>>
>> I never had a problem with some States saying that.... in fact it is
>> consistent with the 10th Amendment.
>>
>> The problem is Federal attempts to interfere with States Rights. That
>> is unconstitutional(outside their jurisdiction).
>
> Really? That's the issue for you? What's with all the talk about
> pedophiles?
It's what you create when you allow the Feds to step into places they
aren't delegated. They start deciding things for me that I didn't ask
them to decide.
They start micromanaging everyone... I use pedophiles and polygamists
just as an example of where the contradictions are.
There is NO logic to saying one is like Heterosexual marriage and the
others aren't. It's just abstract government rule that has no roots in
the constitution. I'm NOT nor was I ever out to get gays or any body,
I'm looking at government.
I want to know why government should force us to be the same in their
eyes..... when the constitution only says that everyone has to be
treated the same BY government. The original idea that government
should treat us equal holds true, but for government to be telling us
what we have to do to make us all equal is a bridge too far.
--
*Rumination*
#1 - Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.
> On 6/18/13 3:51 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 4:15 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/18/13 2:21 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2013 2:57 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> On 6/18/13 1:53 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/2013 2:46 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/18/13 11:14 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:Q4mdnXY8Hc2SViLM...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:526e845f-f05f-462b...@b2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that
>>>>>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>>>>>> gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them
>>>>>>>>>> disappear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, let's see if Liberals get the reasoning...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Ramon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Ramon, again you miss the point. It is entirely possible
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> against gay "marriage", and have absolutely nothing against gays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gays need domestic partnerships/civil unions/or whatever, that
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the same legal rights, and same legal treatment as heterosexual
>>>>>>>>> marriage. Those legal rights can be easily conveyed without having
>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>> tamper with marriage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # All true, except gopvernment has already, "tampered with
>>>>>>>> marriage".
>>>>>>>> Just
>>>>>>>> # look at the special tax table for, "married couples" in the form
>>>>>>>> 1040.
>>>>>>>> thia
>>>>>>>> # has been in existence for over 50 years now. (lobbied for by the
>>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>>> # groups, I might add) Boy, are they sorry about that now...:^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the "fix" is easy....a law declaring that recorded civil
>>>>>>>> unions/domestic partnerships/etc. will have the same benefits
>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>> for legal marriage.
>>>>>>>> Of course, that will never happen since the whole hissyfit is not
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> legal rights, but about forcing religion to sanction same sex
>>>>>>>> "marriage".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The state in its various guises cannot force religious
>>>>>>> institutions to
>>>>>>> sanction same-sex marriage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And no need for the scare quotes. In 11 states and DC, there's just
>>>>>>> marriage, no matter the sex of the partners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dead, alive or under age.... Makes no difference does it, they're
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> In every state of the union, both prospective marriage partners
>>>>> must be
>>>>> alive and of suitable age.
>>>>
>>>> And most say they must be opposite sex and only one spouse at a time.
>>>>
>>>> Where is the problem?
>>>
>>> Some states say that they don't have to be of the opposite sex. Where
>>> is the problem with that?
>>
>> I never had a problem with some States saying that.... in fact it is
>> consistent with the 10th Amendment.
>>
>> The problem is Federal attempts to interfere with States Rights. That
>> is unconstitutional(outside their jurisdiction).
>
> Really? That's the issue for you? What's with all the talk about
> pedophiles?
It's what you create when you allow the Feds to step into places they
aren't delegated. They start deciding things for me that I didn't ask
them to decide.
They start micromanaging everyone... I use pedophiles and polygamists
just as an example of where the contradictions are.
There is NO logic to saying one is like Heterosexual marriage and the
others aren't. It's just abstract government rule that has no roots in
the constitution. I'm NOT nor was I ever out to get gays or any body,
I'm looking at government.
I want to know why government should force us to be the same in their
eyes..... when the constitution only says that everyone has to be
treated the same BY government. The original idea that government
should treat us equal holds true, but for government to be telling us
what we have to do to make us all equal is a bridge too far.
--
*Rumination*
#1 - Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 19, 2013, 11:02:15 AM6/19/13
to
On 6/19/2013 3:33 AM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/19/13 1:37 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 6/19/2013 1:59 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/19/13 12:17 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2013 6:57 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> But the feds are explicitly delegated to step into places where there
>>>>> are claims of denial of equal protection.
>>>>
>>>> can you explain how gay sex is equal to all other types of sex?
>>>
>>> Asked for and previously answered. The short version: this isn't a
>>> legal question.
>>>
>>
>> The the 14th amendment need NOT apply or be invoked.
>
> For discrimination cases not covered by law, the 14th Amendment always
> applies.
>
>> If it's an IRS problem
>
> Hollingsworth v. Perry is not about IRS problem.
I didn't think the frivolous suits filed should be about the IRS, I was
saying that they need to file the correct suit and that would be an IRS
suit against affirmative action tax laws since the problem/gripe or
discrimination was about tax benefits. It's funny that Liberals are
being subjected to affirmative action laws like programs and money for
married heteros and Liberals are suddenly against the affirmative action
laws.
*But like ObamaCare, which turned out to be constitutional because* it
was *a tax* , *discrimination is constitutional when it's found* to be
*affirmative action* and the Marriage laws are all affirmative action
laws. So you really have no case for discrimination.
It's funny that you Liberals didn't understand that.
Recently one of the cases was even about the IRS and tax laws and
allowing gays to file to get a marriage status "TO GET THE SAME TAX RATE
ON DEATH TAXES AS MARRIED PEOPLE". Ironic since TAX/IRS LAW can be
*AFFIRMATIVE* *ACTION* laws, it's a favorite of Liberals so they tax
married people less than single and gays think they should get the
better rate. So this grievance was projected to be about gay marriage
and it was really only about Congress and the IRS discriminating against
ALL SINGLE PEOPLE or affirmative action for married people.
*I'm chuckling that you would complain about sexual AFFIRMATIVE ACTION*
It's the same as racial or minority affirmative action, it's the
government deciding who gets an unequal share. YOU LIBS LOVE THIS KIND
OF GOVERNMENT AND IT'S A CORE PRINCIPAL OF YOUR LIBERAL IDEOLOGY and now
you file suit to stop what you say you believe and vote to implement
just because it's benefiting someone other than you? hahahaahhahahah
;)
That was funny :)
The *TAX SHOULD BE EQUAL* and the marriage should be different "like we
are" and should be for those according their need and from those
according to their ability, and Gays don't meet the ability to satisfy
the need's of the Marriage contract. But they can have some other
contract and the government will have to treat that contract equally
with equal tax or it is the Government that's discriminating through
it's Affirmative action tax policies NOT "we the people" through our
Natural differences.
You're trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, rather than find
the round hole. You think gays can be made *THE SAME* when gays and
hetereos are actually different.... fact is the best the universe can
do is in the constitution where it say the government has to treat
everyone the same and since they can't change gays to fit marriage they
have to make marriage so it isn't discriminating against gays and the
way to do that is to NOT give tax incentives and affirmative action
which is a form of discrimination to married people, they are the same
in the eyes of the law as a single person.
Forcing gay marriage on heteros is wrong if it's just to make IRS laws
less discriminatory because it still leaves all the others that can't or
don't get married out of the loop of affirmative action.
*That's just plain selfish of you Liberals and greedy gays*
I guess that Liberals just don't want to pay their FAIR SHARE of taxes
so they cry discrimination.... and call *affirmative action* a type of
discrimination. *NOW THEY GET IT*
The irony of that is mountainous.
--
*Rumination*
#14 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Liberals.
> On 6/19/13 1:37 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 6/19/2013 1:59 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/19/13 12:17 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2013 6:57 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> are claims of denial of equal protection.
>>>>
>>>> can you explain how gay sex is equal to all other types of sex?
>>>
>>> Asked for and previously answered. The short version: this isn't a
>>> legal question.
>>>
>>
>> The the 14th amendment need NOT apply or be invoked.
>
> For discrimination cases not covered by law, the 14th Amendment always
> applies.
>
>> If it's an IRS problem
>
> Hollingsworth v. Perry is not about IRS problem.
I didn't think the frivolous suits filed should be about the IRS, I was
saying that they need to file the correct suit and that would be an IRS
suit against affirmative action tax laws since the problem/gripe or
discrimination was about tax benefits. It's funny that Liberals are
being subjected to affirmative action laws like programs and money for
married heteros and Liberals are suddenly against the affirmative action
laws.
*But like ObamaCare, which turned out to be constitutional because* it
was *a tax* , *discrimination is constitutional when it's found* to be
*affirmative action* and the Marriage laws are all affirmative action
laws. So you really have no case for discrimination.
It's funny that you Liberals didn't understand that.
Recently one of the cases was even about the IRS and tax laws and
allowing gays to file to get a marriage status "TO GET THE SAME TAX RATE
ON DEATH TAXES AS MARRIED PEOPLE". Ironic since TAX/IRS LAW can be
*AFFIRMATIVE* *ACTION* laws, it's a favorite of Liberals so they tax
married people less than single and gays think they should get the
better rate. So this grievance was projected to be about gay marriage
and it was really only about Congress and the IRS discriminating against
ALL SINGLE PEOPLE or affirmative action for married people.
*I'm chuckling that you would complain about sexual AFFIRMATIVE ACTION*
It's the same as racial or minority affirmative action, it's the
government deciding who gets an unequal share. YOU LIBS LOVE THIS KIND
OF GOVERNMENT AND IT'S A CORE PRINCIPAL OF YOUR LIBERAL IDEOLOGY and now
you file suit to stop what you say you believe and vote to implement
just because it's benefiting someone other than you? hahahaahhahahah
;)
That was funny :)
The *TAX SHOULD BE EQUAL* and the marriage should be different "like we
are" and should be for those according their need and from those
according to their ability, and Gays don't meet the ability to satisfy
the need's of the Marriage contract. But they can have some other
contract and the government will have to treat that contract equally
with equal tax or it is the Government that's discriminating through
it's Affirmative action tax policies NOT "we the people" through our
Natural differences.
You're trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, rather than find
the round hole. You think gays can be made *THE SAME* when gays and
hetereos are actually different.... fact is the best the universe can
do is in the constitution where it say the government has to treat
everyone the same and since they can't change gays to fit marriage they
have to make marriage so it isn't discriminating against gays and the
way to do that is to NOT give tax incentives and affirmative action
which is a form of discrimination to married people, they are the same
in the eyes of the law as a single person.
Forcing gay marriage on heteros is wrong if it's just to make IRS laws
less discriminatory because it still leaves all the others that can't or
don't get married out of the loop of affirmative action.
*That's just plain selfish of you Liberals and greedy gays*
I guess that Liberals just don't want to pay their FAIR SHARE of taxes
so they cry discrimination.... and call *affirmative action* a type of
discrimination. *NOW THEY GET IT*
The irony of that is mountainous.
--
*Rumination*
#14 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Liberals.
0 new messages