- This topic contains 0 voices and has 59 replies.
November 3, 2012 at 5:50 pm #605447
Is it illegal for me to throw tomatoes at those guys? I almost consider it prejudice that they would have so much hate for homosexual people that they would have to hold a sign up to prove it.November 3, 2012 at 6:25 pm #776400
Danny, I think the way you’ve framed the question is not conducive to discussion.
A new law has been proposed using the state’s official referendum process. Just because someone votes against it doesn’t mean they hate anyone. Similarly, just because you support the referendum doesn’t mean YOU hate anyone.
This word “hate” is really getting overused. Time was when it was reserved for people who actually said or did hateful things. Now, in Seattle, it seems to apply to conservatives generally. Or even just “anyone who doesn’t agree with me.”
Throwing tomatoes (either literally or figuratively) is worse than illegal: it’s counterproductive. After the election, these anti-R74 guys are still going to be your neighbors, your coworkers, your fellow citizens. You’re gonna have to hear what they have to say eventually. Might as well start now.November 3, 2012 at 7:23 pm #776401
It’s not nice to throw fruits.
Think of it this way, Danny. It’s just like holding a sign that says “I’m with stupid —>”. At least you know.November 3, 2012 at 7:55 pm #776402
So, people can only advocate for thing you believe in? Nice.
Maybe they think marriage is a religious term and that all folks should have civil unions as I do (gay or straight).
Government should stay out of marriage.November 3, 2012 at 8:06 pm #776403November 3, 2012 at 8:14 pm #776404
You can get married in a church, but to be married legally, you have to fill out a government form, right?
And married people get tax breaks, do they not? Like it or not the government is involved. What if we redefined government supported unions as civil unions, and marriage as whatever is done by a recognized church or separately by judge but which wouldn’t mean you get the benefits of civil unions.
All couples who were married could then separately decide to file the civil union paperwork and receive the benefits heretofore reserved for heterosexual marriages alone.
I seem to recall in the Middle Ages it was much more like the common law version where if you cohabited for 6 months, you were married. Marriage like religion is a cultural concept we invented–Cro-Magnon man may have had civil unions, but I can guarantee they were different than ours. 1,000 years hence it will be different again.November 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm #776405November 3, 2012 at 8:56 pm #776406
“What if we redefined government supported unions as civil unions, and marriage as whatever is done by a recognized church or separately by judge but which wouldn’t mean you get the benefits of civil unions.”
That is what I was trying to say……you said it much better!November 3, 2012 at 10:08 pm #776407
Exactly. It is all a construct and we can change it. Married, great. Want all the benefits and encumbrances (including divorce)? Submit civil union paperwork.November 3, 2012 at 10:26 pm #776408
“Think of it this way, Danny. It’s just like holding a sign that says “I’m with stupid —>”. At least you know.”
thought the same thing when i passed the Admiral Safeway this morning and saw the guys with the Obama is Hitler photo…
i wanted to thank them for letting me know a conversation with them would be pointless…
but realized even that would be pointless
so i just smiled at them instead
kill em with kindness is my motto ;->November 4, 2012 at 2:11 am #776409
What about this guy DannyQ (see link) so much for toleranceNovember 4, 2012 at 2:43 am #776410
I definately don’t condone even harassment..
but I think there isn’t as much to this story as you make out..
the woman may or may not have been harassed ..
there is no videotape, no damage to her car and so far no unbiased witness account.
if this incident happened it is inexcusable..
When you have no tolerance for others it shouldn’t surprise you when your intolerance is returned with intolerance.
Outrage score on this one.. about 3November 4, 2012 at 5:57 pm #776411
I actually like seeing them up there with the approve 74 guys. I drove by the other day and thought to myself this is what is great about this country. Two groups of people standing in the same place with opposite opinions.
It seemed peaceful out there when I was watching sitting in traffic. Regardless of how you feel about the issue I was actually happy to see it.
I would say if you plan on assulting someone with fruit you should plan to be assulted back.November 4, 2012 at 6:03 pm #776412
encouraging anyone to waste fruit in a fruit fight is just wrong..
though i do admit i find the fantasy of hurling tomatoes back and forth amusing.
some days I admit i would like to have access to a basket of over-ripe tomatoes.
instead i have to console myself with lobbing the occasional over-ripe comment here ;->
on a serious note.. i too find the sight of two groups of people standing civilly side by side promoting opposite viewpoints encouraging.
that freedom is after all what our democracy is all about.November 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm #776413
Actually JayDee.. there is a heavy marriage penalty… haven’t even read the Obama plan have ya? See what happens to incomes over 250K for married couples .. taxes go up. They go up for 200K individuals… that’s a 150K penalty for married couples. Flat tax…November 4, 2012 at 6:19 pm #776414
I’ve always kind of liked the shoe throwing of some cultures. Maybe we could adopt a soft slipper throwing trend. It would express our outrage and disgust without doing any harm.November 4, 2012 at 6:23 pm #776415November 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm #776416
and Obama created the marriage penalty?
according to Wiki in their post on the marriage penalty
“The marriage penalty originated in 1969”
that boy certainly was precocious..
from the same site…
“The source of this increase in taxes has its roots in the progressive tax-rate structure in income-tax laws – that is, the earner of a higher income pays a higher rate of tax on the last dollar of income (the combination of the two incomes = higher tax bracket). It is mathematically impossible for an income tax system to have all three of these features simultaneously: joint filing for married couples; marginal tax rates that increase with income; and independence of a couple’s tax bill from their marital status. With increasing marginal tax rates, income averaging is advantageous to the taxpayer.”
Any couple facing the marriage penalty can reduce their total tax burden by using income averaging when they file…
unless of course the second income in the home that drives the income into the next tax bracket (the penalty) is not earned income..
The social security benefits i get for being permanently disabled … pitiful though they are because i hoped i would recover again and waited until the very last possible filing day before filing … actually cost us as a couple more in total tax between the actual tax that is levied upon them and the tax increase from the total income on the tax tables than I receive:(
and we don’t have the advantage of filing separately since social security is not considered earned income even though 85% of it is taxed if your spouse earns a living wage.
I choose to receive those benefits because even though they reduce our total household income, they do offer security in worst case scenarios… no-one can count on their household’s primary income these days:(
Should we call that one the Disability Penalty kootch?
what has been labeled a penalty is actually the result of both spouses being gainfully employed or in our case having the security of a safety net.
Married couples in which there is not second income do not pay a “marriage penalty”
so this should be more accurately described as a “Second Income Penalty” ..
if in fact it is a penalty at all.
The “marriage penalty” is only a penalty if one assumes two things..
1)that every individual in America should be taxed on their individual wages .. regardless of whether they take advantage of pooled credits and deductions …
2) that those who make more should not pay more
Obama did it!
as i said.. precocious kid
if he was a kid then
i forget how long ago 1969 was
some days it’s a very long time
some days.. well.. not so long after allNovember 4, 2012 at 7:04 pm #776417November 4, 2012 at 9:01 pm #776418November 5, 2012 at 1:01 pm #776419
bostonman: if this country is so great, why do we have to debate this issue? i mean, we know that homosexuality scares the bejeezus out of christians, and they’ve gone so far as to deny other people civil rights in other states.
and smitty, that all sounds nice and reasonable, but are you seriously saying that you would deny people civil unions if they try to call it a marriage? how does that even make sense?
“marriage” is a two-syllable, simple word that everyone understands. and as tolerant as you sound in this thread, you are denying gay people their rights.
here’s a better idea:
from now on, any time two people who love each other want to cohabitate, raise children, share incomes and resources, transfer wealth to each other, have POA and spousal privilege, etc. it will be called a civil union. straights, gays, a guy marrying his lawn mower, whatever.
but you are now hereby required by the state to be civilly joined before you can have a wedding and be “married.”
does that put it into perspective, or are christians going to continue to whine and cry and demand that the icky people not play in their sand box?
let’s start thinking about the marriage license – excuse me, civil union license – as a tool to solve this issue.November 5, 2012 at 2:11 pm #776420November 5, 2012 at 3:39 pm #776421
If you look at Obama’s new envy tax proposals… he intends to codify a new marriage penalty tax…. yes, there has been a marriage penalty, but his plan is over the top. “No one making 250K will see their tax increase one dime”… another 08 campaign promise…. unless you are married. Homosexuality doesn’t “scare” anybody Messr redblack.. I have heard other words .. some not so nice but “scary” isn’t one of them. It’s not a civil right… not yet..Until DOMA is challenged and the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case… I do like your idea… and we have civil union right now in WA state. It’s a property issue, if they want to say they are married….. I think there is a search to get a cultural acceptance that makes the word “married” such a passionate issue. Some Christians want to preserve a traditional definition… some don’t, some don’t even care.November 5, 2012 at 5:43 pm #776422November 5, 2012 at 5:47 pm #776423
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.