Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through August 2, 2003

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » Codify my ASS... » Archive through August 2, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Mrs. Head (Admin)
Madame Guillotine
Username: Admin

Post Number: 1244
Registered: 1-1998


Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 10:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

they just put a 2 or 3 year moratorium on the marriage penalty for married couples without children. so we've got a break for a bit...

but I find it rather irritating that we should be financially *penalized* for not having children. I'd rather folks with kids got a credit than me having to pay more in general.

it's an outdated law that is silly, but they won't do away with it altogether because, ta-dah! it makes the gubmint money!

sorry, for the rant. I just read up on this stuff for obvious reasons.


A lady who has a secure seat is never prettier than when in the saddle, and she who cannot make her conquest there, may despair of the power of her charms elsewhere. - THE MANNERS THAT WIN, 1880

http://www.feeverte.net
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 826
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 1:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

On a global scale overpopulation is a problem but for Western nations underpopulation is the problem. In the West we are looking at a future were most of the population will be retired and there will not be enough peole paying taxes to sustain our society. Rather than offering incentives not to produce children the state should look at children as being crucial for the future well-being of our society and offer substantial financial incentives for having children and support for the cost of bringing them up.

As to marriage? You don't need marriage to produce children, or to create new taxpayers. The state should be encouraging people to produce children regardless of whether the children are born within marriage or outside marriage. A child is a future taxpayer for our society rather than trying to discourage and stigmatise single mums, childbirth outside marriage etc, we should be encouraging it and rewarding it with financial incentives and support. We need more young taxpayers in our countries and we need to support it, we can't afford to get all moral and fussy about it.

Marriage is the legal union between 2 people. There is no justification for excluding homosexuals from this other than arguing on moral grounds. Unless you argue that homosexuality is immoral and therefore should be illegal you cannot logically argue for homosexuals to be excluded from marriage.

As to putting legal conditions and obligations regarding child-birth, minimum income standards etc. before people can get married. Marriage is falling in popularity, more couples are not bothering. Putting such conditions and legal obligations on a marriage will just hasten the death of the legal institution of marriage. People would either not bother or (if they are religious) have a religious ceremony (therefore having a marriage recognised by their Church) and not bother with the legal bit.
Pervert Euchre (Perruche_verte)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Perruche_verte

Post Number: 495
Registered: 12-2000


Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 12:57 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Trainer is right. I am more or less straight but don't intend ever to have children. So why am I still allowed to marry someone I love, while my queer friends aren't?

I don't really mind supporting public education and AFDC. Roughly half my tax money is spent on machines and men prepared to kill other people's children. The small fraction that's spent on keeping a few children housed, educated, etc., doesn't worry me so much.

Still, when that clown Dubya is tossed out and we finally manage to cut the Pentagon budget (gasp), we should use some of the money to create a tax credit for low-income people who DON'T have kids.
I mean, WTF? Ever heard of overpopulation? Why do we still reward people for reproducing?
"Drink accomplished what God did not." --Marguerite Duras
Traineraz (Traineraz)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Traineraz

Post Number: 958
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 7:47 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

By the way . . . If you insist, Kall, bend over. I've got the cod.


>( >>>*> (_|_)
He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.

-- Thus Spake Zoboomafoo
Traineraz (Traineraz)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Traineraz

Post Number: 956
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 7:01 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

That would imply that the only purpose for marriage is for procreation. By that logic, fertility testing should be required before marriage; the marriage of non-fertile couples (or those with diseases or genetic conditions which can be transmitted to an infant) should not be permitted; and marriages of those who have passed childbearing years and are no longer raising children should be dissolved.

If homosexual couples should be required to meet minimum income standards (unequal treatment under the law and therefore unconstitutional, but we'll ignore that), why are we creating MORE financial incentives for poor people to HAVE children they can't afford? (Tax credits per kid?) Why aren't infertile couples required to adopt children?

If homosexuals don't support the children in our society, why do they have to pay school taxes, or have their income taxes go to AFDC (Aid for Families with DEPENDENT CHILDREN)?

Institutionally-recognized commitment leads to the formation of stable family units. Stability is always good for society.
He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.

-- Thus Spake Zoboomafoo
DYP (Deadinplastic)
Mousquetaire
Username: Deadinplastic

Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I am somewhere in the middle of the issue. Traditional union creates new taxpayers and a backbone for the economy of the nation. If a marriage between the gay couples doesn't create new taxpayers or contributes nothing to the health of the state then what's the fucking point. I believe into legislation where a union will be allowed between gays but on certain conditions and obligations to society. A couple would have to match certain income standard, be given an option for adoption of a child OR a COMPULUSORY contribution(monetary or educational) to development of an orphan, who has very little chance of getting help from the state itself. Gay couples have the right to be parents too, and I think that will help to solve the issue of gay marriage,social responsibility, and turn "public opinion"(I mean arrogant majority) around. Here problem solved!
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 825
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 11:15 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I thought it was all about re-claiming the 'Garden of Eden' for God's people.
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 642
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

If you ask Tom Delay, the answer would be "Yes".

But as a Rastafarian, I believe that America is Babylon. Satta Massagana.



Raschied Britannica (Raschied)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Raschied

Post Number: 350
Registered: 3-2002


Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 7:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Essay question for today: Do you think that the current occupation of Iraq was at least partially caused by 'the fall of Babylon' being important in Biblical terms?

Please discuss. No throwing skat.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago.
Pontiac - We build Excitement.
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 641
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 7:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Now let's have the names of your God-less friends.
The Levitating Grin Salesman (Rimbaud)
le Duc
Username: Rimbaud

Post Number: 249
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 6:34 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I REPENT...I REPENT!!!!!!
"Please pardon our appearance while we are levitating..."
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 640
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 6:16 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

...or sit at home and watch Channel 58 TV.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 824
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 1:43 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

You will probably be charged, convicted and sent to a re-education centre where tapes of Bible readings will be played to you 24/7 until such time as you can be deemed spiritually fit to re-enter society again.
The Levitating Grin Salesman (Rimbaud)
le Duc
Username: Rimbaud

Post Number: 247
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Oops, I'm gonna be in trouble, then...

"Please pardon our appearance while we are levitating..."
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 823
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 1:42 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Altough the leading Democratic contender has stated that he believes the freedom of religion does not include the right to have no religion at all."

I what he'd intend to do about this. Create a criminal offence of having no religion?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1140
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 12:31 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

I thought the USA was a secular state.




Our present Attorney General (an un-elected post which wields tremendous power over law-enforcement) has stated that he has "no king but Jesus."

We're SUPPOSED to be a secular state. It rarely works out that way, especially during Republican administrations. Altough the leading Democratic contender has stated that he believes the freedom of religion does not include the right to have no religion at all.

Groan...
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 639
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 10:13 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Jesus said, don't hide your candle (your faith) under a basket. But I think he has a special punishment waiting for those, like Bush, who use their faith like a blowtorch on people's faces.

"I'm preaching the word of God,
I'm putting out your eyes"
Bob 'Yakuza' Dylan



The Levitating Grin Salesman (Rimbaud)
le Duc
Username: Rimbaud

Post Number: 241
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Bush is a cunt.
"Please pardon our appearance while we are levitating..."
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 638
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 6:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Bush doesn't worship in private, it's always public.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 822
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 2:55 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I thought the USA was a secular state. With Bush quoting the Bible at a Press conference to justify his position, he doesn't sound like the leader of a secular state. He should leave his Bible readings for the privacy of his own personal worship.
Mrs. Head (Admin)
Madame Guillotine
Username: Admin

Post Number: 1240
Registered: 1-1998


Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 3:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

#*&$^!!!! so it's worse than I thought.

O, the evil in the hearts of men.

I hope Mary Cheney kicks her dads ass.


A lady who has a secure seat is never prettier than when in the saddle, and she who cannot make her conquest there, may despair of the power of her charms elsewhere. - THE MANNERS THAT WIN, 1880

http://www.feeverte.net
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1138
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The trick is that they want to ammend the constitution so the "codification" can't be ruled unconstitutional, which has already happened in Hawai`i.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1137
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Matthew 7:3

ti de blepeiV to karfoV to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou, thn de en tw sw ofqalmw dokon ou katanoeiV;
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Duc
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 132
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 1:00 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"'I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own,' the president said."

take the what out the where, now?
Mrs. Head (Admin)
Madame Guillotine
Username: Admin

Post Number: 1239
Registered: 1-1998


Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 12:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/07/30/national1127EDT0541.DTL

yeah, and in another 75 years this new "codification" will be ruled unconstitutional.

we're a buncha backwards hicks 'round here.

I guess we can't have sex AND marriage. better to sin than not.


A lady who has a secure seat is never prettier than when in the saddle, and she who cannot make her conquest there, may despair of the power of her charms elsewhere. - THE MANNERS THAT WIN, 1880

http://www.feeverte.net

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page