Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:

rockfist wrote:Yeah many of those were good but Amy Winehouse? Really?

Ok I said at least 20 and if you count there are 23 headlines there!
so you can remove amy whinehouse (I was living close to her in camden at the time so it did kind of feel like a big thing), prince william's wedding and whatever else you guys want, I said i'd go for 20. I still think an unusual amout of important things happened in 2011. no offense to gay rights; even if you remove 15 events from those, I will not remember 2011 as the year for gay rights. For me the number 1 thing is probably what happened in all the arab world.

That's fair comment, and you probably read my OP that personally it's too early to tell how the Arab Spring will play out. I think that will be this year.

it happened. whatever the outcome and the new powers in place, ben ali 24 years, mubarak 30 years and gaddafi 43 years of dictatorship. it is still happening in other arab countries. all this partly starting through internet. doesn't mean for better; but definitely the biggest geopolitical change of the latest years.
Speaking of which, gay people could be plainly killed in those countries (at least I m sure about egypt); not sure the new powers in place will be much more progressists as it seems like all will be ruled by islamists (but probably progressists)

betiko wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:

rockfist wrote:Yeah many of those were good but Amy Winehouse? Really?

Ok I said at least 20 and if you count there are 23 headlines there!
so you can remove amy whinehouse (I was living close to her in camden at the time so it did kind of feel like a big thing), prince william's wedding and whatever else you guys want, I said i'd go for 20. I still think an unusual amout of important things happened in 2011. no offense to gay rights; even if you remove 15 events from those, I will not remember 2011 as the year for gay rights. For me the number 1 thing is probably what happened in all the arab world.

That's fair comment, and you probably read my OP that personally it's too early to tell how the Arab Spring will play out. I think that will be this year.

it happened. whatever the outcome and the new powers in place, ben ali 24 years, mubarak 30 years and gaddafi 43 years of dictatorship. it is still happening in other arab countries. all this partly starting through internet. doesn't mean for better; but definitely the biggest geopolitical change of the latest years.
Speaking of which, gay people could be plainly killed in those countries (at least I m sure about egypt); not sure the new powers in place will be much more progressists as it seems like all will be ruled by islamists (but probably progressists)

Does this mean we're on the same page now?

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:

rockfist wrote:Yeah many of those were good but Amy Winehouse? Really?

Ok I said at least 20 and if you count there are 23 headlines there!
so you can remove amy whinehouse (I was living close to her in camden at the time so it did kind of feel like a big thing), prince william's wedding and whatever else you guys want, I said i'd go for 20. I still think an unusual amout of important things happened in 2011. no offense to gay rights; even if you remove 15 events from those, I will not remember 2011 as the year for gay rights. For me the number 1 thing is probably what happened in all the arab world.

That's fair comment, and you probably read my OP that personally it's too early to tell how the Arab Spring will play out. I think that will be this year.

it happened. whatever the outcome and the new powers in place, ben ali 24 years, mubarak 30 years and gaddafi 43 years of dictatorship. it is still happening in other arab countries. all this partly starting through internet. doesn't mean for better; but definitely the biggest geopolitical change of the latest years.
Speaking of which, gay people could be plainly killed in those countries (at least I m sure about egypt); not sure the new powers in place will be much more progressists as it seems like all will be ruled by islamists (but probably progressists)

Does this mean we're on the same page now?

we can agree on this! my concern about this thread was that it seemed like for you gay rights advancements would be what people would remind the most of 2011.
I feel curious to remind me of what happened in 2010, sure not half as many things (or is it because 2011 is just over?)
oh and I forgot Steve Job's death!

2010 without rechecking is the year of the haiti earthquake and the volcano in iceland that blocked all air traffic for weeks.... see, I tend to remember just natural catastrophies first!

Mormons have been far more persecuted than Gays.

2011 is the year of the Mormon.

Mormons have persecuted and kidnapped and raped and murdered way more people than the gays.

Hey, speaking of gay marriage, how should the tax code be re-written if homosexuals have government recognized marriages? There are all kinds of tax breaks for married couples, but that was initially written under the assumption that the wife would stay home and raise children. Even with women in the workplace, they still earn less. If there are two married men, both making man's wages with no kids, should they still apply for the tax break?

If they don't, is that discrimination? If they do, is that discrimination?

the tax code shouldnt be re-written.

This is all about love between two people of the same sex, and their right to be with their partner when they are sick in the hospital.

pimpdave wrote:Hey, speaking of gay marriage, how should the tax code be re-written if homosexuals have government recognized marriages? There are all kinds of tax breaks for married couples, but that was initially written under the assumption that the wife would stay home and raise children. Even with women in the workplace, they still earn less. If there are two married men, both making man's wages with no kids, should they still apply for the tax break?

If they don't, is that discrimination? If they do, is that discrimination?

It would not have to be rewritten. There is no application for the tax break, you just have to be married.

But they would be entitled to pay less tax than you! It would be another entitlement! Doesn't that enrage you?

pimpdave wrote:But they would be entitled to pay less tax than you! It would be another entitlement! Doesn't that enrage you?

There's nothing saying that a gay couple can't have kids. Well, other than the laws in some states, of course.

pimpdave wrote:Hey, speaking of gay marriage, how should the tax code be re-written if homosexuals have government recognized marriages? There are all kinds of tax breaks for married couples, but that was initially written under the assumption that the wife would stay home and raise children. Even with women in the workplace, they still earn less. If there are two married men, both making man's wages with no kids, should they still apply for the tax break?

If they don't, is that discrimination? If they do, is that discrimination?

what about 2 gay women? I think gay men couples should pay taxes for gay women couples as women earn less than men and lesbians are double discriminated. lol, I hope this "issue" is a joke.

pimpdave wrote:But they would be entitled to pay less tax than you! It would be another entitlement! Doesn't that enrage you?

Does it enrage me? No. Do I think there should be no tax benefit for being married (for anyone)? Yes. But I wouldn't say it enrages me. I suspect it's a minor blip on the fiscal radar (but maybe I'm wrong).

I'd be fine with them paying less taxes than me...in fact I would be fine if every single American paid less taxes than me...so long as my taxes didn't go up and I could still purchase the same value of goods with my income. In fact, that sounds like a hell of a good idea.

betiko wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Hey, speaking of gay marriage, how should the tax code be re-written if homosexuals have government recognized marriages? There are all kinds of tax breaks for married couples, but that was initially written under the assumption that the wife would stay home and raise children. Even with women in the workplace, they still earn less. If there are two married men, both making man's wages with no kids, should they still apply for the tax break?

If they don't, is that discrimination? If they do, is that discrimination?

what about 2 gay women? I think gay men couples should pay taxes for gay women couples as women earn less than men and lesbians are double discriminated. lol, I hope this "issue" is a joke.

Ironically, I think that the supposed "benefits" recieved by women through this are very much discriminatory.

This is just one more area where the tax code needs serious reform. If the homosexual marriage issue brings it on.. so much the better.

thegreekdog wrote:

pimpdave wrote:But they would be entitled to pay less tax than you! It would be another entitlement! Doesn't that enrage you?

Does it enrage me? No. Do I think there should be no tax benefit for being married (for anyone)? Yes. But I wouldn't say it enrages me. I suspect it's a minor blip on the fiscal radar (but maybe I'm wrong).

I remember this from another thread. The whole idea of whether married individuals should get tax benefits or other legal benefits is seperate from whether homosexuals should share in those benefits if they have legally recognized unions.

Overall, either all unions should get them.. homosexual or heterosexual.. or none should.

And profiting or losing money from gay rights is kind of secondary to whether they should or shouldn't exist. I'd have a lot of benefits if, say women, weren't allowed to compete with me for a job. Or if it were a position that demanded non-whites only. I don't think that's a good reason to discriminate against those groups, even though that puts me at a potential disadvantage financially.

There's a moral argument for equality that is human, universal, and goes beyond worries over the financial tax code in the US, surely?

Symmetry wrote:And profiting or losing money from gay rights is kind of secondary to whether they should or shouldn't exist. I'd have a lot of benefits if, say women, weren't allowed to compete with me for a job. Or if it were a position that demanded non-whites only. I don't think that's a good reason to discriminate against those groups, even though that puts me at a potential disadvantage financially.

There's a moral argument for equality that is human, universal, and goes beyond worries over the financial tax code in the US, surely?

That last sentence is correct. It only comes up when you afford one group benefits and not others. That is, it is an argument because it might afford a legal challenge under the equal protection claus of the constitution. The only arguments against that are pretty homophobic. I just find it ironic that a lot of the laws are designed for times whem women did not go out and work, and that this is one reason why so many of not just tax rules, but other rules just no longer work. But.. that is another issue.

Certainly, it is a side issue. I believe homosexuals should have the right to decide medical decisions for loved ones, have true joint custody of children they are raising, etc... all of that is most simply accomplished by recognizing those unions as marriages. This is abhorrant to conservative Christianity, but not at all historically.

The arguments for and against tax benefits for all unions are, well, universal.

perhaps 2012 will be the year progressives stop putting on a pedestal a religion that stones homosexuals and stop demonizing a religion that is making progress in the area of marrying homosexuals

Phatscotty wrote:perhaps 2012 will be the year progressives stop putting on a pedestal a religion that stones homosexuals and stop demonizing a religion that is making progress in the area of marrying homosexuals

PERHAPS 2012 WILL BE THE YEAR THAT YOU LEARN HOW TO USE THE SHIFT KEY ON YOUR COMPUTER

WE CAN BUT HOPE

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:And profiting or losing money from gay rights is kind of secondary to whether they should or shouldn't exist. I'd have a lot of benefits if, say women, weren't allowed to compete with me for a job. Or if it were a position that demanded non-whites only. I don't think that's a good reason to discriminate against those groups, even though that puts me at a potential disadvantage financially.

There's a moral argument for equality that is human, universal, and goes beyond worries over the financial tax code in the US, surely?

That last sentence is correct. It only comes up when you afford one group benefits and not others. That is, it is an argument because it might afford a legal challenge under the equal protection claus of the constitution. The only arguments against that are pretty homophobic. I just find it ironic that a lot of the laws are designed for times whem women did not go out and work, and that this is one reason why so many of not just tax rules, but other rules just no longer work. But.. that is another issue.

Certainly, it is a side issue. I believe homosexuals should have the right to decide medical decisions for loved ones, have true joint custody of children they are raising, etc... all of that is most simply accomplished by recognizing those unions as marriages. This is abhorrant to conservative Christianity, but not at all historically.

The arguments for and against tax benefits for all unions are, well, universal.

Fair comment, although I would point out that the US constitution isn't exactly what I'm talking about.

Phatscotty wrote:perhaps 2012 will be the year progressives stop putting on a pedestal a religion that stones homosexuals and stop demonizing a religion that is making progress in the area of marrying homosexuals

Perhaps 2012 will be the year that Phatscotty begins making legitimate arguments instead of one-liner picture-carrying sycophantic simplicities that have little bearing on the real world.

But really, that is too much to hope for, I suppose.

VALID COMPARISONS

Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

barackattack wrote:Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

No, it is not.

barackattack wrote:Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

I doubt it. Gay people are only 2% of the population.

Or do you mean they're more likely to be convicted because of the stereotype that they all are child molesters? So hetero kiddie diddlers are more likely to get away with it or something...