JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 193
  1. #51
    RazorzEdge88
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    I've yet to post anything that could be considered trolling or "vicious" by any sane person, but I can start if you guys would like...

    gay marriage is ur single issue

    U guys r pathetic

    Christie should win n 2016

    sanity loses cuz U r single issue voters

    america Burns--hope U have fire insurance

  2. #52
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    There is one thing I couldn't ignore there... Single issues voters? Total UTTER Bullshit... most of us center our viewpoints around a variety of issues. And as far as Christie... that guy may have one or two good points, but there are plenty of others far better than him out there to be in the White House. Have any more nonsense rhetoric?
    Last edited by GiancarloC; February 16th, 2013 at 12:18 AM.

  3. #53
    RazorzEdge88
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    LOL! My post was a joke!

    I'm an Elizabeth Warren supporter. :c) (or default Hillary Clinton since she'll probably crush everyone - I'd love to see the GOP lose Texas)

    But this isn't even on topic.

  4. #54
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,811

    Code of Conduct
    Quote Originally Posted by RazorzEdge88 View Post
    I read somewhere (sorry, I don't have the source so this is probably meaningless to you now, but humor me) recently that more and more gay men (i.e. younger ones) are expecting to have kids, so yes, that has changed things. I don't think it's for the worse (I think gay adoption is a great thing for people willing and able), but it's definitely changing things. Doesn't that poke a huge hole in your argument if true?

    It would have been sufficient to say that the desires of gay men who want to continue to see their lives as alternative lifestyles don't get to trump the desires of those who simply want equal rights.

    By making some conjecture about how the overarching opinions of the gay community might not have changed, you really went out on a limb, and not a very sturdy one at that.
    But that's not really a pressure, that's culture changing and people changing with it. Those who do it will WANT to. Those who don't want to will be exactly where they are now. So I still don't see a problem.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  5. #55
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,811

    Code of Conduct
    Also, I don't think he's trolling. Lets not get knee-jerk with the "troll" label.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  6. #56
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,611

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    GOing to face a tougher road in the house. In addition to Republicians,there are several Democrats who will also vote against the bill. I'll celebrate when Gov. Quinn signs the bill and not until then.

  7. #57
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    GOing to face a tougher road in the house. In addition to Republicians,there are several Democrats who will also vote against the bill. I'll celebrate when Gov. Quinn signs the bill and not until then.
    Right. I was discussing earlier that the Senate Democrats voted at about the rate that would mean one vote short in the House. Also I posted an article that suggests this will depend greatly on urban Republicans for passage.

  8. #58

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    It has fucking everything to do with equality. Don't go making ridiculous demands of people on here. Marriage entails many different rights and that is most definitely about equality under the law. [...] And "just because it is discriminating against other people does not mean it is not discriminatory"? What kind of distorted logic is that?
    It has nothing to do with equality. Equality is not creating a class that receives preferential treatment over everyone else. That is inherently unequal. Giving tax breaks and other benefits to people for arbitrary status--like "married"--is not acceptable in egalitarian societies.

    It is worse because the benefits are completely unavailable to those who engage in practices that society does not like. Read the decision for Reynolds v. United State (1878) (the one about polygamy). The claim is that polygamy is bad because is not "western". This is not implied either. It is referred as "odious" and something from "Asiatic and African" cultures. There is no danger in polygamy. People just to not like it because it is something that the "other" does. Good christian americans are not polygamists.

    If it is wrong to discriminate against same sex partners, then it is wrong to do the same against multiple partners. The hypocrisy here is mind blowing. I do not even understand what type of intellectual disorder is required to hold such views.
    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    Leave it to the au-contrarians. They always have something to complain about... never mind they seem to project the image they are unhappy that they can't get a boyfriend (as far as this topic is concerned).
    Yeah, that is it. People against the institution of marriage for reasons of inherent inequality and discrimination are upset that they cannot get a boyfriend. For reals.

    If only they could get laid, then they would change their minds.

    This is the most valid argument I have ever read. It should not be ridiculed at all.
    Last edited by itsmejeff; February 16th, 2013 at 09:31 AM.

  9. #59
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    It has nothing to do with equality. Equality is not creating a class that receives preferential treatment over everyone else. That is inherently unequal. Giving tax breaks and other benefits to people for arbitrary status--like "married"--is not acceptable in egalitarian societies.
    It has absolutely everything to do with equality under the law, and it isn't about creating a class of anyone so they would receive preferential treatment. Thanks for posting the same rubbish argument the right wingers often use against gay marriage. No, it's about giving same sex couples the same treatment under the law as heterosexual couples. I know that's a difficult concept to grasp.

    It is worse because the benefits are completely unavailable to those who engage in practices that society does not like. Read the decision for Reynolds v. United State (1878) (the one about polygamy). The claim is that polygamy is bad because is not "western". This is not implied either. It is referred as "odious" and something from "Asiatic and African" cultures. There is no danger in polygamy. People just to not like it because it is something that the "other" does. Good christian americans are not polygamists.
    Thanks for the red herrings ... have any more to bring up?

    If it is wrong to discriminate against same sex partners, then it is wrong to do the same against multiple partners. The hypocrisy here is mind blowing. I do not even understand what type of intellectual disorder is required to hold such views.
    Again thanks for the red herring. We're discussing two people... not more than two people. If one wants to open up a topic on that they can. And I'm not even saying I'm against polygamy. I actually have no problem with it. But your argument is a classic red herring and has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

    Yeah, that is it. People against the institution of marriage for reasons of inherent inequality and discrimination are upset that they cannot get a boyfriend. For reals.
    Yep, and thanks for proving that exactly.

    This is the most valid argument I have ever read. It should not be ridiculed at all.
    I have seen it in this thread. Some bitter hatred towards those same sex couples who want to get married and be recognized as equals like their heterosexual counterparts.

    I'm not reading a 100+ year old court case, nor am I'm going to entertain anymore of these silly illogical arguments without the slightest shred of proof. And let alone more of the same fucking insults.

  10. #60

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Right. I was discussing earlier that the Senate Democrats voted at about the rate that would mean one vote short in the House. Also I posted an article that suggests this will depend greatly on urban Republicans for passage.
    If need be Quinn will pull a Cuomo and crack the whip on this and meet with fence-sitting legislators (he did the same with the civil unions bill, which also barely passed the House).

  11. #61

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    It has absolutely everything to do with equality under the law, and it isn't about creating a class of anyone so they would receive preferential treatment.
    if it was not, then no one would care about marriage at all. People are not seeking the social benefits that come from marriage (whatever they may be). They want the tax breaks, subsidies, and other benefits. There are of a lot of benefits as well (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html). All things that singles cannot get ever. No preferential status? Clearly. This is about the benefits of married status. Instead of being adults and calling for benefits to be eliminated, the selfish want to get in on it.

    The entire point of "gay marriage" (that is what stupid people call it) is to gain benefits that unmarried people do not get. It is not about equality (as it does not even support the ability of all adults to enter into a union). It is about greed.

    This is ignoring modern social theory and evidence of lack of monogamy among homosexual males too.

  12. #62
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    if it was not, then no one would care about marriage at all. People are not seeking the social benefits that come from marriage (whatever they may be). They want the tax breaks, subsidies, and other benefits. There are of a lot of benefits as well (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html). All things that singles cannot get ever. No preferential status? Clearly. This is about the benefits of married status. Instead of being adults and calling for benefits to be eliminated, the selfish want to get in on it.

    The entire point of "gay marriage" (that is what stupid people call it) is to gain benefits that unmarried people do not get. It is not about equality (as it does not even support the ability of all adults to enter into a union). It is about greed.

    This is ignoring modern social theory and evidence of lack of monogamy among homosexual males too.
    The equality part comes from the fact that marriage benefits do already exist but are only available to select pairings of adults. Married individuals don't receive preferential treatment, but they do receive different treatment in terms of inheritance, hospital visitation, legal protections, etc. It's not just about taxes and subsidies. Assuming for a moment that there aren't any two people out there who want to enter into marriage as an indication of love and commitment, every benefit listed on the site you linked is available via marriage to two consenting opposite sexed adults. They have a choice whether to get married or not. Same sex couples do not have that choice is many areas of the country. You can argue how many people are involved in the marriage all you want, but the fact boils down to the system that currently exists allows any consenting adult man and any consenting adult woman to enter into marriage and enjoy all of those benefits while any two consenting adult men or any two consenting adult women cannot. Marriage equality means that any two consenting adults, regardless of sex, can make the choice to enter into a marriage, regardless of motivation or benefits derived.

  13. #63
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    If need be Quinn will pull a Cuomo and crack the whip on this and meet with fence-sitting legislators (he did the same with the civil unions bill, which also barely passed the House).
    I don't sense the same kind of enthusiasm in Quinn, but I hope he will follow in otherrs' footsteps, and as you say "crack the whip." Illinois doesn't have "whips" by the way, they have deputy and assistant leaders. Regardless of what you call them, they could all use a good cracking

  14. #64
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    7,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    It has nothing to do with equality. Equality is not creating a class that receives preferential treatment over everyone else. That is inherently unequal. Giving tax breaks and other benefits to people for arbitrary status--like "married"--is not acceptable in egalitarian societies.

    It is worse because the benefits are completely unavailable to those who engage in practices that society does not like. Read the decision for Reynolds v. United State (1878) (the one about polygamy). The claim is that polygamy is bad because is not "western". This is not implied either. It is referred as "odious" and something from "Asiatic and African" cultures. There is no danger in polygamy. People just to not like it because it is something that the "other" does. Good christian americans are not polygamists.

    If it is wrong to discriminate against same sex partners, then it is wrong to do the same against multiple partners. The hypocrisy here is mind blowing. I do not even understand what type of intellectual disorder is required to hold such views.

    Yeah, that is it. People against the institution of marriage for reasons of inherent inequality and discrimination are upset that they cannot get a boyfriend. For reals.

    If only they could get laid, then they would change their minds.

    This is the most valid argument I have ever read. It should not be ridiculed at all.
    How much was the last check you wrote to NOM?

  15. #65
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    if it was not, then no one would care about marriage at all. People are not seeking the social benefits that come from marriage (whatever they may be). They want the tax breaks, subsidies, and other benefits. There are of a lot of benefits as well (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html). All things that singles cannot get ever. No preferential status? Clearly. This is about the benefits of married status. Instead of being adults and calling for benefits to be eliminated, the selfish want to get in on it.

    The entire point of "gay marriage" (that is what stupid people call it) is to gain benefits that unmarried people do not get. It is not about equality (as it does not even support the ability of all adults to enter into a union). It is about greed.

    This is ignoring modern social theory and evidence of lack of monogamy among homosexual males too.
    Is the nonsense still being posted here? There is no preferential status. This is about treating people as equals under the law. The equality is for gay couples to be treated the same as heterosexual counterparts. Get the definitions right and learn what equality under the law means, including the ability for one partner to see another in hospital without being shoved away. The nonsense argument that there is preferential status is based on selfishness and naivete. The legal rights that are entailed by marriage are clear and evident. My viewpoint is not being selfish, and rather the selfish viewpoint is the one you have posted and posted alone.

    This isn't about gaining benefits. This is about having the same rights as heterosexual married couples and being treated equally under the law.

    What modern social theory? There is ZERO social theory in your argument, except more or the same misconceptions and outright dishonesty. And lack of monogamy? Lack of monogamy is everywhere pal. That's still not excuse to not allow gay couples to get married. Take the naivete elsewhere.
    Last edited by GiancarloC; February 16th, 2013 at 06:48 PM.

  16. #66
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,321
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorzEdge88 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JB3 View Post
    Spare me. You have insulted people in this thread several times. You plainly don't understand the motive behind the battle for marriage equality, and your analysis and criticism is superficial at best.
    Where had I insulted anyone before your criticism? If you could point to one instance, I'll send you Cubs season tickets.
    I see the presentation of an alternative viewpoint. And while some readers may take offense to that viewpoint, I do not see an obvious or apparent attempt to insult [at least prior to the “joke” post].

  17. #67

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    The equality part comes from the fact that marriage benefits do already exist but are only available to select pairings of adults. Married individuals don't receive preferential treatment, but they do receive different treatment in terms of inheritance, hospital visitation, legal protections, etc. It's not just about taxes and subsidies [...] Marriage equality means that any two consenting adults, regardless of sex, can make the choice to enter into a marriage, regardless of motivation or benefits derived.
    Why should people have to enter into a relationship to receive the benefits? Why can two people who desire to enter into a legal agreement not do it? Those are the problems.

    Again, this "equality" is inherently unequal. Saying that it is acceptable because anyone can do it does not make it right.

    I do not have an estate that is taxable (with student loan debt, I have a negative net worth). But let's say that I did. Why should I be required to jump through hoops to transfer my estate tax free? Because I am not in a contract with anyone? Do you really think that people should be required to enter into a contract before dying to avoid taxes and those who do not should be denied that ability? How does that make any sense? Because all singles have the option to enter into a marriage that they do not want? Makes sense. You realize that is not just losers who are not married, right? There are many successful adults who are faced with social and financial disadvantage due to not being married. Some of them are coupled. Others alone.

    No one would argue that the 15th amendment created voting equality while allowing for the denial of voting rights to females. Maybe we need another 100 years before society will see the error regarding marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    The nonsense argument that there is preferential status is based on selfishness and naivete. The legal rights that are entailed by marriage are clear and evident.
    And those rights are clearly discriminatory. The preferred status is only offered to people in specific types of legal relationships. Logically, one cannot be opposed to limiting extension of rights to people who are in same sex relationships while limiting them for those who are in other types of relationships or no relationship at all. If it is wrong to limit some people, then it is wrong to limit anyone. You cannot justify different treatment based on something that does not matter because the law says that it is okay.
    My viewpoint is not being selfish, and rather the selfish viewpoint is the one you have posted and posted alone.
    "Give me tax breaks because I am in a contract with someone" is not selfish? Sorry, but that is the definition of selfishness. Recognition of a relationship (which should be treated as a business relationship) is not the same as providing benefits from public funds to certain people. Past establishment and social acceptance does not make it right either.

    It is not even like a change in law would benefit me. I have no plans for life. I just abhor the state denying rights, benefits, and privileges to anyone for arbitrary reasons. How is that selfish?
    This isn't about gaining benefits. This is about having the same rights as heterosexual married couples and being treated equally under the law.
    It is about gaining rights. The intelligent person--[Text: Removed]--would look at the state of marriage and conclude that any different treatment based on married status is wrong. The problem is not only allowing some people in. The problem is having the different treatment in the first place. "I deserve it because they have it" is not a valid justification for anything. It is child-like thinking.

    Who says that anyone should not be allowed to be married? I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone else (assuming able to enter into contract). My issue is that the people wanting "gay marriage" are just furthering establishing discrimination into law.

    As for your "the law says" and "definition" bullshit: the law is wrong and so are you. The case about polygamy which you would not read ([Text: Removed]) is racialist and discriminatory. But that is the legal decision. It created precedence. Is it right? Not at all. Anyone with any critical thinking skills can see that. Would you really be so supportive of a court that claimed homosexuality is wrong because it is from another culture and not viewed as compatible with American values? You keep coming back to the justification that discrimination is okay because the law says that it is okay.
    Last edited by opinterph; February 16th, 2013 at 09:31 PM. Reason: removed interpersonal baiting remarks

  18. #68
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,321
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    Equality is not creating a class that receives preferential treatment over everyone else. That is inherently unequal. Giving tax breaks and other benefits to people for arbitrary status--like "married"--is not acceptable in egalitarian societies.
    I think perhaps the early motivations to create marriage benefits revolved around the concept that they encourage and support values for the society that were/are considered “wholesome,” or beneficial. Rather than view the legal benefits as “preferential treatment,” I suppose it is just as suitable to label them as some type of reward for conforming to this idea that families help the nation to become and remain prosperous and strong.

    Tax breaks for married persons are not entirely dissimilar to the mortgage deduction available to homeowners. That deduction represents unfair (unequal treatment) because it rewards persons who participate in the housing market – which is arguably another thing that benefits society, prosperity, etc. Persons who reside in apartments or other rental housing are also quite likely to pay mortgage interest, though the mortgage is associated with their landlord~ who writes the costs off as an expense of doing business. Thus, the mortgage deduction is unfair, though it ostensibly functions to encourage the so-called “American dream.”

    Marriage contracts, per se, are regulated at the state level, but federal tax advantages are offered from the federal level. If I correctly understand the basic elements of the viewpoint you’ve presented, the government has no legitimate reason to become involved in the personal relationships of its citizens and certainly should not offer benefits that advantage certain associations at the expense of others – because that promotes inequality, or preferential treatment.

    Does my understanding of the viewpoint you’ve expressed reasonably coincide with the principles you intended?

  19. #69
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Because of the continued personal attacks, I will no longer be responding to the silly and vindictive argument. I am not going to get myself in trouble for the inadequacies in other arguments that try to get under my skin.

    Maybe if the poster is a bit more respectful we could have a future discussion. I will continue to fight for EQUALITY, and continue to advocate it. There is no discrimination in advocating equality under the law.

  20. #70
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JB3 View Post
    How much was the last check you wrote to NOM?
    Only a handful of individuals make small donations to NOM anymore, for obvious reasons, but foremost because most people realize that heteronormativity is dissipating and that it is futile to resist that change. Those who care enough about heteronormativity to donate money are an endangered species. The last campaign in which NOM drew many small donations was Proposition 8, five years ago. The organization is now almost entirely funded by large religious groups such as Knights of Columbus, and possibly by other religious right organizations. Nobody is sure because NOM maintains anonymity of its donors, wisely. It is plausible given the recent lack of donations from such established religious right groups as Focus on the Family and the AFA to local campaigns against same sex marriage, so it looks like everyone is trying to avoid public knowledge of support for heteronormativity except the front group NOM. Curious. At some point in the near future I'll wager, their entire donor base will collapse utterly, possibly if we have a very good outcome at the Supreme Court this year.

  21. #71
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,321
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    Read the decision for Reynolds v. United State (1878) (the one about polygamy). The claim is that polygamy is bad because is not "western". This is not implied either. It is referred as "odious" and something from "Asiatic and African" cultures. There is no danger in polygamy. People just to not like it because it is something that the "other" does. Good christian americans are not polygamists.
    Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.

    – Chief Justice Waite


    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    If it is wrong to discriminate against same sex partners, then it is wrong to do the same against multiple partners. The hypocrisy here is mind blowing.
    It appears that the prohibition of polygamy originated in English common law and that the basis for its ban, at that time, relied upon an understanding that the practice of multiple marriage partners is inconsistent with the principles of Christian marriage.

    The case of Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145 (1878) essentially affirmed that protection of “the family” permitted enactment of specific legislation that was exempt from protection of religious freedom under the First Amendment.

  22. #72
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    And for the record I have no problem with polygamy. I think it should be legal actually.

  23. #73
    JUB Addict chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,165

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Bravo to Illinois. I hope this passes and we can add yet another state to the growing list of those that realize equal treatment under the law is the best way to go.
    At least the Illinois House doesn't have a Boner!

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

  24. #74

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    I don't sense the same kind of enthusiasm in Quinn, but I hope he will follow in otherrs' footsteps, and as you say "crack the whip." Illinois doesn't have "whips" by the way, they have deputy and assistant leaders. Regardless of what you call them, they could all use a good cracking
    Probably because he doesn't need to as much. In New York they had more to overcome, plus it really says a lot that Republicans there have openly said that they want it passed ASAP and out of the way.

  25. #75
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    Probably because he doesn't need to as much. In New York they had more to overcome...
    The Illinois Senate was the easy part, just as the Assembly was in New York. We didn't need either governor in either house.

    ...plus it really says a lot that Republicans there have openly said that they want it passed ASAP and out of the way.
    If the GOP really wants the bill passed and done with, they will not obstruct it in the House by offering amendments.

    As it stands, I think the bill will pass by one vote.

  26. #76

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    I think perhaps the early motivations to create marriage benefits revolved around the concept that they encourage and support values for the society that were/are considered “wholesome,” or beneficial. Rather than view the legal benefits as “preferential treatment,” I suppose it is just as suitable to label them as some type of reward for conforming to this idea that families help the nation to become and remain prosperous and strong.
    The government does not exist to reward "good" behavior. It is not your mom. The treatment is clearly preferential. Not allowing the same type of tax or social security benefits to singles places them at a financial disadvantage.
    Tax breaks for married persons are not entirely dissimilar to the mortgage deduction available to homeowners. That deduction represents unfair (unequal treatment) because it rewards persons who participate in the housing market – which is arguably another thing that benefits society, prosperity, etc. Persons who reside in apartments or other rental housing are also quite likely to pay mortgage interest, though the mortgage is associated with their landlord~ who writes the costs off as an expense of doing business. Thus, the mortgage deduction is unfair, though it ostensibly functions to encourage the so-called “American dream.”
    Except it does not. It provides an incentive for wealthy persons to purchase high value properties. Those who are most in need of assistance to purchase a home are the individuals would see the fewest benefits (it is literally tens of dollars per month; not much in terms of purchasing even a low cost home).

    In both cases, those with the most see the most benefits. They are most able to take advantage of what marriage provides.
    If I correctly understand the basic elements of the viewpoint you’ve presented, the government has no legitimate reason to become involved in the personal relationships of its citizens and certainly should not offer benefits that advantage certain associations at the expense of others – because that promotes inequality, or preferential treatment.
    The government should enforce contracts between people.

  27. #77
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    House Executive Committee will hold a hearing and vote on Senate Bill 10 on February 26

    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/...marriage-vote/

    There are 13 members on the committee, and eight are Democrats.

  28. #78

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    House Executive Committee will hold a hearing and vote on Senate Bill 10 on February 26

    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/...marriage-vote/

    There are 13 members on the committee, and eight are Democrats.
    Great news! I assume this means they have the votes to pass it if they are calling for a vote.

  29. #79
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    Great news! I assume this means they have the votes to pass it if they are calling for a vote.
    If a floor vote gets scheduled quickly I think it will be downhill from there.

  30. #80

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    If a floor vote gets scheduled quickly I think it will be downhill from there.
    Word is a floor vote will be scheduled either on March 1st, or else the following week on the 6th or 7th.

  31. #81
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    Word is a floor vote will be scheduled either on March 1st, or else the following week on the 6th or 7th.
    I love your word

  32. #82

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    If anyone can get this passed...it's Illinois! and it would be a huge momentum

  33. #83
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Having trouble getting the votes in the House.

    Gov. Quinn thinks the votes are not there, but he seems to be working on getting them.

    http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state...9bb2963f4.html

    I would not worry too much about it. We didn't have the House votes in Maryland at this stage, and right before the House vote came, the whip count was a majority by a single vote. The only reason it passed here was arm twisting by Governor OMalley. My hope is that Quinn is exercising the same vigor.

    Meanwhile, the committee vote approaches on Tuesday...

    If you live in Illinois, it is imperative you call your state representative in the House or send a letter. It takes less than a minute. Just tell the secretary politely that you live in the district and that you support the same sex marriage bill, and give an important reason why you do.

  34. #84
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,611

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Like Jockboy87 said,it is important for people in Illinois to call their local reps and make your viewpoints known.
    Also,keep in mind a couple of the holdouts are on the Democratic side,just like they are in RI and elsewhere. Do not assume because a person has a D next to their name that they will vote for this bill.

  35. #85
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    7,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    Probably because he doesn't need to as much. In New York they had more to overcome, plus it really says a lot that Republicans there have openly said that they want it passed ASAP and out of the way.
    It doesn't even matter. Quinn couldn't 'crack the whip' if he wanted because his own party hates him. (and for good reason) He's an impotent and ineffective leader. The only reason he got elected was because his opponent was just that bad.

  36. #86

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JB3 View Post
    It doesn't even matter. Quinn couldn't 'crack the whip' if he wanted because his own party hates him. (and for good reason) He's an impotent and ineffective leader. The only reason he got elected was because his opponent was just that bad.
    Um, he was able to do just that with the civil unions bill.

    Remember that the vote for the bill is moving foreward in the House. The leaders in the House stressed that the bill would not proceed without sufficient votes.

  37. #87
    JUB Addict chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,165

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    Um, he was able to do just that with the civil unions bill.

    Remember that the vote for the bill is moving foreward in the House. The leaders in the House stressed that the bill would not proceed without sufficient votes.
    If the House approves, Quinn will be there with his pen. However, Illinois has other fish to fry. There's a $22 billion shortfall in their pension plan. Keep the faith.

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

  38. #88
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisrobin View Post
    If the House approves, Quinn will be there with his pen. However, Illinois has other fish to fry. There's a $22 billion shortfall in their pension plan. Keep the faith.
    The sooner the better. I hope this is over by next week.

  39. #89
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    7,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    Um, he was able to do just that with the civil unions bill.

    Remember that the vote for the bill is moving foreward in the House. The leaders in the House stressed that the bill would not proceed without sufficient votes.
    Quinn didn't push the civil union bill through. He's about as responsible for getting that law passed as he is for the marriage law. (that is to say, not at all) Any other recounting of how that law was passed does a great disservice to the lawmakers that DID work tirelessly to get the support to get it passed.

  40. #90
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JB3 View Post
    Quinn didn't push the civil union bill through. He's about as responsible for getting that law passed as he is for the marriage law. (that is to say, not at all) Any other recounting of how that law was passed does a great disservice to the lawmakers that DID work tirelessly to get the support to get it passed.
    Everyone had a hand in that victory. The governor contacted critical fence sitters, just as the other Democratic governors have done, and a governor in a trifecta state does have a lot of power.

  41. #91
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    The bill passed the House committee 6-5, but one yes vote expressed reservation.

    A House vote will likely be called when House leadership is confident of the required 60 votes.

  42. #92
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,811

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    I here something about first week of March.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  43. #93
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    I here something about first week of March.
    I hope not before 60 votes are secured...

    Good news is we already have one Republican, which means we are able to dispense with at least 12 of the 71 Democrats.

  44. #94
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,611

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    saw clips of peope protesting against gay marriage..anyone who thinks hate is behind their logic is fooling themselves or doesn't care.

  45. #95
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,811

    Code of Conduct
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  46. #96
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Good hit Rolyo


    There is an unofficial list compiled of where the representatives stand: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/l...ty-/41405.html

    Although scream4ever thinks it is somewhat dated by now, it gives a good idea of who needs to be contacted. It is especially important to contact those who are fence sitters, but people who are die hards can still be persuaded.

  47. #97

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Many people here in Chicago have been taking road trips down to Springfield to talk to the elected officials. It looks like it will pass within a few days if it's not delayed.

  48. #98

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    Remember too that the Republicans have indicated that they want this passed soon to get it out of the way. If it comes to it I'm sure several will step in and vote for its passage.

  49. #99
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,811

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  50. #100
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Illinois Senate Marriage Equality Debate

    ^^^ Yeah, we need 17 fence sitters to win, the other side needs five to win. The bad news is there are only 20 fence sitters. That means pulling in 85% of them, which is looking unlikely.

    It means the sponsors will have to pull something extreme to get it passed, perhaps by amending it generously, vote trade, make primary threats, etc. We will definitely be requiring several Republicans, at least four or five.

    I think this part was always feared to be extremely difficult. Everything up to this point has been a cakewalk compared to getting the House vote.

    If you remember two years ago, we had the same situation in Maryland, and the bill was shelved on the floor, but we ended up with barely the support to get it through the House the following year. Like Illinois, Maryland has a strong Democratic majority, but many of those Democrats are beholden to the religious right. I think Illinois will not repeat the embarrassing mistake Maryland made by bringing the vote to the floor without securing the support. So if we do we a vote scheduled, we almost definitely have it in the bag.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.