David Koch

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:22 pm

How about you answer the answer the question.

And I am glad you recognise that there is a biased reward system. Remove the bias or remove the system.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:43 pm

I answered all your questions. You're just not bright enough to notice.

And no, I am not in favor of removing the reward. I do think though, it should be contingent upon husband and wife living together. Separated parents do not deserve the same reward as those working through their issues.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:46 pm

No you didn't
but i will ask another way

what makes a marriage 'authentic'?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:34 pm

People can make up whatever definitions they want for "authentic". I already answered your question. The reason traditional marriage gains a small tax deduction is because it is in the interest of the state to encourage stabile, traditional families.

It is not in the interest of the state to encourage homosexual unions or single parenting.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:30 pm

GIThruster wrote:People can make up whatever definitions they want for "authentic". I already answered your question. The reason traditional marriage gains a small tax deduction is because it is in the interest of the state to encourage stabile, traditional families.

Again you have not.
You trade traditional for authentic and do not provide a definition for either. And now you add 'stable'. I am not sure why you would add stable since plenty of unstable 'traditional' families receive the tax break.

Please provide a definition for a 'stable, traditional aka authentic marriage.' We'll deal with the interests of state later.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:37 pm

No.

Enough is enough.

The adults have now left the room.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:43 am

Let me short circuit this:

The government got into marriage to prevent race mixing.

It should get out of the marriage business. That solves the whole problem.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:49 am

Also - in case you hadn't heard - the voice of Elmo was not molesting underage boys. The accusation was recanted. Evidently the usual lover's spat in modern America.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:58 am

And in case you missed it on my new thread:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/11/feeding-the-beast/

Socons are enablers of the Leviathan. They wanted a big beast to punish their unrighteous neighbors. Without thinking that some day the beast might be turned on them. The day has come and the victims of the beast are now redirecting its efforts.

Too funny.

Well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

Funny - it seems no one reads Samuel any more. Or takes to heart "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Or even:

"Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful" Friedrich Nietzsche

Or the motto on early American money "Mind your business"

We have become an evil intolerant people. We are now about to reap evil intolerant results.

Ah well.

I leave you with a little ditty emblematic of the times Ashes To Ashes All Fall Down

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:50 am

MSimon wrote:Let me short circuit this:

The government got into marriage to prevent race mixing.

You're such a deluded asshole.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:50 pm

GIThruster wrote:No.

Enough is enough.

The adults have now left the room.

Nice concession speech, Mitt.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:17 pm

GIThruster wrote:
MSimon wrote:Let me short circuit this:

The government got into marriage to prevent race mixing.
You're such a deluded asshole.

And I'm whipping your ass at the polls. I just love hearing the screams.

Smaller government is the only thing that can save you. But it is too late to ask for that now. The OTHER big government party is now in charge. They at least are implementing a plan to reduce the scope of government in a couple of areas. The Rs were all talk.

ROTFLMAO.

I will work with who ever is in power. It saves a LOT of trouble.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:29 pm

Stubby wrote:Nice concession speech, Mitt.

You're kidding yourself. The topic is simple. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Dopes like you press for definitions and when you don't get what you want to pick apart, you complain and press for another. It doesn't matter if you call it "authentic" or "traditional" or whatever. It is between one man and one woman. It is not between a pair of men or a pair of women and these do not afford society the same benefits of their hard work.

Now I've said it three or four times and still you're acting like a whiney little asshole, looking for a debate. There is no debate. There is just the statement. Marriages get a tax credit because they support society. Homosexual unions do not support society. They do not yield children and they are not normal. They are by any working definition, "abnormal" throughout all human history. That doesn't mean homosexuals should be persecuted in any way. they should not. But they certainly do not qualify for the same sort of tax credit as married couples.

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:06 pm

I think the preference should be for long term stable relationships, and who cares whether they are of differing gender or not. Sure, no children result from homosexual unions, but that doesn't mean they can't be stable, happy homes.

Of course, the only reason my wife and I are "legally" married was to ensure she would get any benefits in case something happened to me when I was deployed to Kuwait during Fun-in-the-Sand II. I think we might be better off not "married" as far as the tax situation goes. We'd (or at least one of us) would be able to claim our son either way.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:14 pm

krenshala wrote:I think the preference should be for long term stable relationships, and who cares whether they are of differing gender or not.

The children care. Parents form role models for their children. When there isn;t one of each in the home modeling adult behavior, you get kids that literally don't know the proper way to act.

As for long term, I see no way to offer a reward for such a thing. With a marriage one hopes for stability, but I can't think of a reward system that would not be compromised. If you gave people financial rewards at 10, 15, 20, 25 years, they would simply lie about being together to collect the rewards.

But we all know this is a farce, don't we? The contention over gay marriage is not over the financial benefits offered married couples. It's over acceptance in mainstream society. I think we can do more to accept homosexual couples and make them feel accepted, but that doesn't mean we need to call their unions "marriages" when for the first 6,000 years of human history we have not. There is no onus on us to correct some terrible wrong here. This is how progressives piss off traditionalists--by picking the wrong battles. If progressives want to have a culture war they ought to pick the right battles to fight. They're certainly not going to win the battle over marriage, no matter how they malign traditionalists.