Comic Genesis Forums

hi H-kat, no, i mean exactly what i said.

I've never seen it, nor have i seen evidence of it.


every individual i have ever met who supports polygamy either would make, or Has made a terrible parent.


It's not passive agressive, its understanding that you dont know everything.

Try it, Being humble, its a nifty feeling now and again.


If you want to get short with someone, pick someone else champ.

wraithguard starcaller wrote:
Try it, Being humble, its a nifty feeling now and again.

Great. A passive-agressive swipe. Not only that, A condecending passive agressive swipe, telling me to be humble.

The irony could choke a horse.

And here's the clincher wrote:It's not passive agressive, its understanding that you dont know everything.

By posting that I'm wrong. And then taking (I'm reiterating here) a passive argressive swipe about being humble, with the statement itself dripping with condecention.

Below's a link of two gay parents who were surrogated. The mother is still their mother, but the fathers are the primary care givers. Three parents, with four happy children. I remember watching the update. It was touching. So now, yes, you've met a working family.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Good ... plets.html

Good parents, no matter how many, are good parents.

This being the internet, you get another oppertunity to stick your foot in your mouth, instead of tastefully keeping quiet. There are no more points you can make here.

And next time you want to stick humble into a post, practice it. I'm sure as hell not humble, but I don't pretend to be anything other than what I am.

-Kitty

Thanks kitty

Wraithguard pull your head in you little shit. When you get a bit older n wiser, you'll discover all sorts of strangeness in this world.
I've met poligimous groupings (which is the correct word, you would know if you knew 10% of jack all bout what you talking) with kids where the children were secure in the knowledge of having multiple parents any of whom they could aproach with anything. For them it was exactly like living in a big old fashioned tribe.
I grew up friends and neighbours with a couple who had their fist kid when she was age 13, who are still happy together 22 years after the fact.
and i've met people who planned a pregnancy for when they were financially secure, had the kid, and split up 18 months later.

Does this meen that all poligamies are good places for children? no it does not!
Does this meen all teen marrages survive? no, they dont!
does this meen that all people who have the appearence of being responsible will make lousy parents in fact? No that it also does not!

I take issue with your opinion, and you bet i'll get short with you you little creap. People who will make good parents will make good parents, no matter WHAT sort o relationship they are in. People who are self centered and full of them selves will generaly make ordinary parents.

Me, I know how bad a parent i'd make, thanks to a little inherited condition. It Dont Matter WHO i marry if ever, there I will have no kids. But that's My CHOICE. not something that should be legislated.

I wish more people would think before they breed.
There are countless children out there who are recieving only the most basic of care because their parents can't be bothered with things like interacting with them, or educating them. It's a damn shame that people treat childbearing as a right rather than a responsibility.

geeze i'm so glad i'm not the only one who thinks that. So many of my friends who go off to get married then buy a home then do this and do that and get to 'that time' when its time to have kids... look over at me and wonder what the hell my problem is...

Thanks RantinAn....

your not the only one who gave it serious consideration and figured the world'll be best off being the last branch on this side of your family tree.

Why is it always the most unpleasent and unfit people who seem most joyous being part of a family that can be better described as a swarm....Its always the super-dead-beats who have a dozen kids and are eager to have more :P

and the rest of us who have to end up putting up with the brood they've created

Oh and concerning where this poly family is, they are in california....
the oldest 2 are married and give a very stable look to them i guess [which is a well deserved image]...they started as foster parents for the kid, which is totally legal in almost any relationship.
When the kid got a bit older, the 2 oldest married to give that stable impression so that they could adopt and keep thier son..
don't know exactly how they pulled it of....but it seems to have worked out just fine

Back on the original subject, I personally don't like that two people must seek any kind of acceptance whatsoever for being together. I'm happy for people who do get married, and that they have a way of telling each other that they will be there forever for each other (when it works out). I just don't feel that it is for me. If I ever meet someone who loves me, and wants to be with me, I hope they will understand that. People should be committed to each other just because they love the person that deeply.

Delthir wrote:Back on the original subject, I personally don't like that two people must seek any kind of acceptance whatsoever for being together.

The argument for same sex marriage isn't about seeking acceptance for being together. It's about legal rights and priviledges.

In the US, people who are married pay an unfairly low amount of taxes. (people who have children pay such a disporportionatly low amount in taxes as to make the subject laughable... If you're thinking on any level and read the tax laws, you have to think "this is a typo, right? 'cause this is just stupid. The people who are using the most community and tax resources are paying the least taxes? Because why? Because we're sooo greatful to them for helping us overpopulate the planet?"... But that's another rant.) *ahem* Sorry. Anyway...

People who are married are legally considered "next of kin." As it is, if my 'wife' were to be in a car accident (as she was last year), I likely would not be allowed in to the hospital to see her except during the most open of visiting hours. If the doctors need to ask someone whether or not to continue care or provide a certain treatment, my wishes need not even be considered. If I were to die, she would not automatically inherit my stuff, as she should. If we have a child and she is to die, that child would probably be taken away from me, it's other parent.

Marriage is not about 'regocnition of our commitment' on some meaningless socio-emotional level, it's about all committed couples having the rights and priveledges that straight couples take for granted.

wraithguard starcaller wrote: the reason that homosexual marraige opens for polygamy is that with the Current wording of the law, if a man and woman are married, and homosexual marraige is allowed, the woman could marry a woman also, and then you would have 3 people under that union, and so on....

This is not only completely wrong, it's also incoherant. The "current wording of the law"? Which law? Under which jurisdiction? Nothing in saying two women can marry says or even implies that anyone who is already married can marry anyone else.

That having been said, even though the United States is unformly (and unconstitutionally) bigoted against it, polyamourous groupings are legal in several parts of the world, and there's no indication that they are any less effective or efficient at raising children than judeo-christian two-person couples.

You also spouted the following falsehood:

wraithguard starcaller wrote: No religion in america supports homosexuality, so it stands to reason that no marriges would either.

Wrong and wrong. Many religions practiced in the US have positions on homosexuality that range from "why should we care who you love?" to "homosexuality is a perfectly natural expression of love, and contains no inherant sin." Furthermore, there are thosands of homosexual weddings performed by oficiators of those religions every year in the US... It's just the government that won't recognize and legally acknowledge those relationships.

Beyond that, I agree. Government should recognize any legally committed relationship between two or more persons of the age of majority as vaild, classify them as "domestic partnerships", where, just as in business partnership, you can have more than two partners, and leave the word "marriage" and "married" to spiritual organizations, giving the arrangement no legal weight whatsoever.

Honor wrote:In the US, people who are married pay an unfairly low amount of taxes.

And yet, Bush et al. keep claiming that marriage causes tax increases. Go figure.

One of these days I'm going to break into (that is, open, read, analyze. Nothing illegal.) the tax code books and figure out which side is right. I do know some tax intricacies, but they're more or less limited to capital gains taxes. (And believe me, that's a morass in it's own right.)

Honor wrote: Wrong and wrong. Many religions practiced in the US have positions on homosexuality that range from "why should we care who you love?" to "homosexuality is a perfectly natural expression of love, and contains no inherant sin." Furthermore, there are thosands of homosexual weddings performed by oficiators of those religions every year in the US... It's just the government that won't recognize and legally acknowledge those relationships.

Lesse.. Christ of Jesus Christ: Alternative Lifestyle in Key West, Brith Shalom Temple in Houston, Unitarian Fellowship Hall in North Carolina.. yea, I can think of a few places of worship where you don't have to be gay to pray, but it shure makes communion more enjoyable.

I myself am legally able to preside over marriages, and I've married 3 gay couples in the last 4 years.
In fact, a judge here in Houston granted a divorce to a gay couple, married in Vermont, thus acknowledging that the marriage was legal and binding in both states.

What I've never understood are the people who claim that gay marriage somehow weakens the idea of straight marriage. I've been married 4 years now. We have gay friends. Hell, we had two lesbians, a pre-op transgender, and one flaming gay man at our wedding. I don't remember a single one of them doing anything but wishing us well and drunkenly attempting to dance during the reception.

Toawa wrote:

Honor wrote:In the US, people who are married pay an unfairly low amount of taxes.

And yet, Bush et al. keep claiming that marriage causes tax increases. Go figure.

It depends on whether both or only one of the two married folks is earning income, if I remember correctly. Something makes it better if only one has a substantial earned income and worse if both do (or I have it backwards). Despite my love of complex systems, tax code makes my head spin so I won't try doing sample returns to see what results in what.

cuteswan wrote:

Toawa wrote:

Honor wrote:In the US, people who are married pay an unfairly low amount of taxes.

And yet, Bush et al. keep claiming that marriage causes tax increases. Go figure.

It depends on whether both or only one of the two married folks is earning income, if I remember correctly. Something makes it better if only one has a substantial earned income and worse if both do (or I have it backwards). Despite my love of complex systems, tax code makes my head spin so I won't try doing sample returns to see what results in what.

I kinda figured it'd be something like that. Tonight I'll probably will do up some simple ones to check... (Hey, I've done them for cap gains and estimated taxes.. Once you get used to it it doesn't take that long. Most of the work is making up a fricking huge spreadsheet.)

Honor made a good point, and it was my fault for not being as clear as I should be. Chalk another one up to my lazy thought processes.

Ok, I did it.

Now, these simulated returns were incredibly simple, basically using almost unrealistic assumptions (all income from jobs, all children, if any, qualifying, no capgains, no special circumstances, etc.) If anyone's interested in my methedology or wants to see the giant spreadsheet that the process spit out, PM, Email, or ICQ me (the first two would probably be preferable) and I'll glady share.

Conclusions:

Couples filing separately will pay more taxes, unless both are making substantial money (the lesser making within about 50-60% of the greater), and there must be children qualifying for the child tax credit, unless the total income gets to about $135,000. I haven't had much time to analyze, as a storms coming and I have to write quick, but, for most circumstances, and barring any of those complicating factors that almost always show up, I hereby declare Honor to be more correct than Bush. Your commemorative plaque should arrive in 6-8 weeks.

Kool! When I said I wanted more bush in the white house, this monkey was definately not what I had in mind

well... and i'm not saying bush is right... please never accuse me of saying bush is right!.....

but

saying 'marriage increases taxes' would techinically be true.. but on a system as a whole.... lets say you have to make X dollars a year in taxes accross the country... and you have Amarried people and B unmarried people..... and A+B total people which remains constant..... if unmarried people pay MORE... and married people pay LESS.... then as people become married [-B and +A] then the taxes as a whole have to be increased accross the board in order to still provide X dollars... which is the yearly goal....
thus marriage [symbolized by the conversion of B's to A's] requires increases in taxes in order to generate the same funding.... becuaes married people pay less... so the tax% would have to go up in order to make up for the shortcommings

Wow.

That was impressive and well put together...

You are a very sick and devious girl (boy?) and your mind works in complex, convoluted ways... Have you ever thought about a career in law or politics? *grins big and winks*

why thank you....except for the law and politics part... i'll pretend you didn't say that..

i know its an old joke but poli-ticks... many blood sucking insects...
i'm a sucker for the classics

got nothing against law in general, sept for a seemingly endless stream of bad experiences with legal issues. Mostly contracts and the sort, have grown to detest the smell of a court room.

i don't want to make anyone think that i actually looked it up and found that thats how it really is.... it just seemed like a logical conclusion that made sense to me... it might be total garbage....