wow! i had no idea the "marriage penalty" was just another right-wing trick to keep us all enslaved to the greater neocon god...they must've deeply penetrated my brain since i'm sure i've heard this term used since, well, forever...or as much of forever as i can remember. thanks for setting me straight sam!
I would bet it was significantly more than that. I've never worked for a company that didn't offer some form of domestic partner benefits. Oh, okay. There are financial benefits, and it will cost me money, therefore, now I'm against gay marriage (and cops, firemen and teachers, who, by and large, also aren't allowed to receive survivor benefits from social security). Way to talk me out of the support. I wouldn't argue that there's no financial benefit to being married (as well as other benefits that aren't financial, some of which have already been mentioned). I wouldn't call those benefits substantial, though (which is why I threw the word "significant" in there), and I don't think those things are the true reason to be fighting for allowing same-sex marriages. You say they are significant. Fine. If we make it into an economic issue, though, be prepared for a well-reasoned opposition that can't be dismissed by accusing the opposition of being homophobic or whatever. It takes the argument out of the silly "saving the sanctity of marriage" argument to the "this is going to cost you money" argument. President Clinton wasn't anti-marriage when he vetoed legislation that would've softened the so-called "marriage penalty". If
Don't thank me, thank first year Tax class at the notorious liberal haven, the University of Chicago. If you'd bothered to read the theory behind it, you'd know what I was talking about, but I guess you're too busy running around in fear of the "death tax" that you have to pay to fund the cadillac purchases of "welfare queens"; just another hard day in the life of a "compassionate conservative". Thank god we have "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" to help you breathe easier.
Argh. Reading stuff like this from otherwise intelligent people I respect, in regards to Nadir, a hypocritical multimillionaire egomaniac in a cheap suit, really gives me heartburn. Where's the Pepto.
What an excellent use of bandwidth, to say nothing of hyperbolic lock-worthy threads calling a candidate and all his professional colleagues "scumbags." Puh-lease. I really don't care that you enjoy playing footsy with Clutch and pretend to stand for quality on his BBS. Laughable. I will treat your demands as I would treat those of Al Qaeda, which means I would be quoting the completely unprofessional and un-statemanlike language of your favorite CEO/VP.
according to the HRC Employers that Offer Domestic Partner Health Benefits (Total Number of Results: 7360) Fortune 500 Companies (212) Private Sector Companies (6811) State Governments (10) City and County Governments (130) Colleges and Universities (198) while 7360 is encouraging, it's not enough. also, since the IRS doesn't recognize domestic partnerships, gay couples have to pay income tax on the value of the health benefits, unlike straight married couples. paige, i would actually prefer this be made into an economic issue rather than a religious/cultural issue.
Can single people call their other single friends "domestic partners" and be eligible for these benefits as well? Do roommates count? Where is the line drawn?
if gay marriage were legal then there would no longer be any need for these DP benefits. So if you're so worried about fraud then you should support gay marriage being legal.
Okay at first some people were saying the benefits for married people was insignificant, but it seems like the majority are saying it is, so that's what I'll go with. B-Bob gave an example of a non-financial benefit of being married. Benefits like that I have no problem with. My question is that of the financial benefits, which I'll repeat. First of all, why do any married couples get benefits to begin with? What's the reasoning? Second, why should gay couples get these same benefits? Does the same reasoning apply?
Yes, especially for married couples. Being open to life entails doing nothing to prohibit it. Here's an article that sums it up much better than I: Contraception, Why Not?
And those are some of the issues that need to be worked out... Have debates on why, I can't imagine any good reasons but someone might, people think this and if its really something people want to prohibit.
Great to see this thing absoutely falling on its face. Again, it begs the question, why shoot yourself in the foot, Karl? from today's times
Why do Republicans use the United States Constitution as a recepticle for disposing of issues on which they will never have a majority? Pathetic.
I don't want to get too personal here and I am trying to come from a point of genuinely looking for understanding here. This is mot intended to be a flame out. I will try to explain why we we feel we must use contraception. My wife has a chronic illness that if untreated causes great pain and suffering, not to mention that could kill her. The problem is that the medication that she takes has been proven to cause birth defects. For this reason, we have chosen not to risk pregnancy by using a barrier contraceptive. (Oral birth control is not an option due to the other medication that she takes.) That being said, please tell me what my choices are if I were to be a "good catholic"? 1. Not have sex with my wife, ever, until they find a medication that won't cause birth defects or she is healed by divine intervention. (I'm not being sarcastic by the way.) 2. Have her not take the medication, have sex, have kids, and then she dies. 3. Have children with birth defects.
That is an extremely personal decision and is certainly not anything you should have to feel you have to justify to anyone. Regardless of contraception methods, the only 100% surefire method of birth control is abstinence (or for either partner to be infertile). That being said, natural family planning (NFP) is about 98% effective when practiced properly. While it is akin to the "rhythm method" it is more reliable for either choosing times to prevent pregnancy or to enhance the ability to become pregnant. Regardless of a couple's religious beliefs, I would strongly recommend the NFP classes to anyone for the information they provide. They were very educational.
2% to 30% failure rate during first year of use; depends on a woman's ability to identify the fertile period of each menstrual cycle and couples' motivation and discipline to practice abstinence when required. What if her cycle is off due to medications (which happens very frequently) and we don't accurately predict the right days to abstain? Sorry that's not a risk I'm willing to take.
