Lt Sulu is Getting Married

[332nd]

May the Great Bird of the Galaxy bless his marriage.

I chose this quote because a buddy who is an "uber geek trekkie" (and Sulu is his favorite) used to say the actual quote alot... I mentioned it to him and he cracked up laughing and pointed out the Ep. title. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708469/:o

 

[geni]

What kind of a world would it be if we allow people of the same sex who love each other with all their heart to get married? I shudder at the thought!

One where you have to to pay higher taxes or accept lower services due to the loss of inheritance tax.

 

[Vorticity]

It's Capt. Sulu at this point, actually.

May they make sweet, sweet love in John Hagee's living room.

 

[linusrichard]

One where you have to to pay higher taxes or accept lower services due to the loss of inheritance tax.

That's a better argument against straight marriage or all marriage than it is against gay marriage.

 

[Checkmite]

He already has! <insert least favourite Star Trek movie here as proof>

Curiously, George Takei doesn't appear in any of my four least favorite Star Trek movies.

 

[geni]

That's a better argument against straight marriage or all marriage than it is against gay marriage.

Not exactly since that assumes equal disribution of wealth across genders.

 

[linusrichard]

Not exactly since that assumes equal disribution of wealth across genders.

To say that it's a better argument against straight marriage than against gay marriage does not assume that - it only assumes that more wealth will be transferred to other-sex spouses than to same-sex spouses. Considering straights are to gays what 9 is to 1 (roughly), I think we're losing a lot more tax revenue by letting straight people get married than we're saving by not letting gay people get married (I am not in California).

To say that it's a better argument against all marriage than against gay marriage does not assume that either. I think that's too obvious to even bother explaining.


More importantly, it's a revolting argument. How much revenue are we losing by not charging citizens of Arab descent to vote? How much revenue are we losing by not taxing left-handed citizens at double the ordinary tax rate? How much revenue are we losing by allowing Jews to attend public schools like everyone else? How much revenue will we lose by allowing gay citizens to get married? While it might be interesting for people to try to figure out the answers to these questions, I only have one answer for all of them: Who cares?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm a big Howard Stern fan and George Takei joins the cast for several weeks a year and George is such an intelligent, kind, funny man. He's a fan favorite.

I'm very happy for him.

You probably didn't realize that he is a homosexual.

 

[geni]

To say that it's a better argument against straight marriage than against gay marriage does not assume that - it only assumes that more wealth will be transferred to other-sex spouses than to same-sex spouses. Considering straights are to gays what 9 is to 1 (roughly), I think we're losing a lot more tax revenue by letting straight people get married than we're saving by not letting gay people get married (I am not in California).

To say that it's a better argument against all marriage than against gay marriage does not assume that either. I think that's too obvious to even bother explaining.

No. If we are to allow marrage from the tax POV then female female marrage is less of a problem than male male marrage.

More importantly, it's a revolting argument. How much revenue are we losing by not charging citizens of Arab descent to vote? How much revenue are we losing by not taxing left-handed citizens at double the ordinary tax rate? How much revenue are we losing by allowing Jews to attend public schools like everyone else? How much revenue will we lose by allowing gay citizens to get married? While it might be interesting for people to try to figure out the answers to these questions, I only have one answer for all of them: Who cares?

Anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility. Failing to consider the cost of an action before takeing it is not good policy. After all we know of cases of hetrosexual marrage where it is nothing more than a tax dodge thus we should consider how often this is likely to crop up in the case of homosexual marrage.

 

[linusrichard]

Anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility. Failing to consider the cost of an action before takeing it is not good policy. After all we know of cases of hetrosexual marrage where it is nothing more than a tax dodge thus we should consider how often this is likely to crop up in the case of homosexual marrage.

Again, if you're making an argument against all marriage, or against this particular privilege of all marriage, that's fine. Not that I agree, but I don't have a problem with the argument.

But to say we're going to give a right/privilege to one group and then for no good reason deny it to another group, on grounds of "fiscal responsibility," well, it's revolting.

 

[geni]

Again, if you're making an argument against all marriage, or against this particular privilege of all marriage, that's fine. Not that I agree, but I don't have a problem with the argument.

It could certianly be argued that marrage as it currently exists is simply a tax loophole in need of closeing yes. Then we have the issue of widows pensions and the like.

But to say we're going to give a right/privilege to one group and then for no good reason deny it to another group, on grounds of "fiscal responsibility," well, it's revolting.

Check out the funding system in the education sector sometime.

 

[linusrichard]

Check out the funding system in the education sector sometime.

What does this have to do with the topic? Is it your argument that because the funding system in the education sector is deeply flawed, that it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals? Otherwise, this looks like a total non sequitur.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Did I hear you right? You're proposing that the States denies a minority group equal treatment... for economical reasons?

Well, it's a welcome break from the usual nonsense from the bigots, at least.

 

[I Ratant]

You probably didn't realize that he is a homosexual.

.
Why would anyone care?

 

[geni]

What does this have to do with the topic? Is it your argument that because the funding system in the education sector is deeply flawed, that it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals? Otherwise, this looks like a total non sequitur.

No it's my argument that if you think that takeing tax revinue into consideration in this issue is not legit then there are rather a lot of other areas where you would need to use the same argument. If you don't have a problem with this then your position remains consistant.

 

[geni]

Did I hear you right? You're proposing that the States denies a minority group equal treatment... for economical reasons?

Proposal suggests that it is new. But well does the state library service provide the same number of titles in braille and spoken format as it does in conventional format?

 

[linusrichard]

No it's my argument that if you think that takeing tax revinue into consideration in this issue is not legit then there are rather a lot of other areas where you would need to use the same argument. If you don't have a problem with this then your position remains consistant.

You'll have to be more specific. Let's say funding goes to schools based on the number of white pupils that attend the school. Obviously, this offers a tax savings over a plan in which funding is based on the total number of pupils attending. Also obviously, in order for me to be consistent, I have to oppose such a plan. And, I do! Do you? In spite of the tax savings? But let's say funding goes to schools based on the amount of property taxes collected in the district. This probably also offers tax savings over a plan in which funding is based on the total number of pupils attending (it depends on the numbers). But I do not have to oppose this plan in order to be consistent, because the difference is not based on something completely arbitrary. (However, I do oppose this plan.)

Do you think the US Supreme Court got it wrong in Loving v. Virginia because they failed to take into account tax revenues?

Proposal suggests that it is new. But well does the state library service provide the same number of titles in braille and spoken format as it does in conventional format?

What right is at issue here, exactly?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Proposal suggests that it is new. But well does the state library service provide the same number of titles in braille and spoken format as it does in conventional format?

But that's the point exactly - they carry books in braille, even though they know that those books will not be borrowed as often as the others. They don't say "nah, let's drop the braille books because buying more regular books would be a better bet economically".

And libraries can't feasibly carry as many braille books as they do regular books, if that was your point. Governments can, however, feasibly legalize gay marriage.

 

[geni]

But that's the point exactly - they carry books in braille, even though they know that those books will not be borrowed as often as the others. They don't say "nah, let's drop the braille books because buying more regular books would be a better bet economically".

And libraries can't feasibly carry as many braille books as they do regular books, if that was your point.

Why not? Throwing enough money at the problem should solve it.

Governments can, however, feasibly legalize gay marriage.

Well the problem here is you've added the qualifier "feasibly".

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

.
Why would anyone care?

If Fred Phelps was listening to the show, I bet he would care.