Works for me

Bill Whittle offers a libertarian view on gay marriage.

19 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

19 responses to “Works for me

  1. Walt

    Dude-
    This whole gay marriage law is the most retarded argument in history. It isn’t about should lesbians be allowed to have naked tickle fights for the rest of their life – WHICH THEY SHOULD BY THE WAY – it’s about the tax code.

    You tax everyone the same. No difference for married or single or gay. Same with inheritance tax. Medical benefits? The same for all. Why does your sexual preference enter into how you are taxed? It makes no sense. You homo.

    Just take sexual preference out of it. What people do in the bedroom is their business. Who cares? Treat everyone the same financially and this all goes away.

    Although I do think lipstick Lesbians deserve a tax break. They are rare as a Unicorns ass.

    Your Pal,
    Walt

    • Just_looking

      Walt, I usually agree with most every point you make and the way you make it except this marriage post. While you may be right I disagree. The tax benefit for married couple is to help offset all of the aggravation that one has to put up with in a marriage and to pro IDE some financial incentive for a couple to stay together to raise their child. The belief is that children raised in a home with both the mother and father present do better than any other combination of adults raising them. So the financial once is put in place to further this cause for a better society.

      • Walt

        If you need government intervention, in the form of tax subsidies, to make your marriage work, you have much bigger problems. And the kids will be better off without you. So I think you are missing the entire point.

        Who would stay in a marriage for money? Besides women, I mean. You can’t pay a man enough to stay with a woman he doesn’t love. Who he doesn’t desire at all times, and looks at lustfully, wanting to ravish her at every opportunity. If she can’t put the pup in your tent, you are going to stay married because of a tax benefit? Please. If you find your marriage “aggravating” you made a mistake, and no amount of money is going to fix that.

        And I don’t think kids are better off being raised by two people who don’t love each other, and are doing it only for the money. The atmosphere would be toxic, and kids are smart enough to know that.

        Marriage is between people, it’s private and there is no way it makes any sense for the government to be involved in that. They can’t handle zoning, and you want them in your bedroom? So I respectfully disagree.

        However, if the tax breaks were spent on a SPECTACULAR set of new cans for your spouse, things may work out. At least there is no harm in trying.

        • Just_looking

          I know your argument and at the two extremes of the scale, ideal and complete misery, you are correct, but relationships generally tend to be somewhere on the spectrum in between and are aggravating at some times. More often for some and less often for others, but if you have been married you know this to be true. I see the tax break as not enough to keep it together, but it is more like a reward for trying, if you do decide to stick it out.

        • George Leroy Tirebiter

          “Who would stay in a marriage for money? Besides women, I mean…”

          Damn, there goes another keyboard.

      • Walt

        Ok. So we have a philosophical difference. You believe in rewarding mediocrity. Which, BTW, I believe this country has adopted, and is the current conventional wisdom. So you are in the majority.

        But I also believe this lack of ethics, the lack of aspiration to be great, this sense of entitlement, will ultimately destroy the greatest Nation ever founded. And that makes me sad. You want your kids to be mediocre?

        I think you reward greatness. But you help the failures. But mediocrity? Well I think that just sucks, and is the worst of all possible outcomes. I think encouraging mediocrity, in any way, shape, or form, is a recipe for disaster. I would rather try for greatness, and fail miserably, than be on a lifetime road of mediocrity.

        But that is just my opinion. You don’t need to agree with it.
        But I do wish more people shared it.

        • Just_looking

          I do not believe in rewarding mediocrity, but I believe that mediocrocity is normal, and should not be shunned. A simple understaning of the the bell curve shows that not everyone will be great. In fact most should not even try. It is usually obvious to most who is great and who is not. Usually.
          The problem with our society now is that no one want to acknowledge that most are not great and will not be great. Our society feels that all of those within two standard deviations should be coddled and consoled, instead of being fed the fact that they are going to do the heavy lifting until they die.

          As usual, i tend to agree with your main point, and it sounds good when you write it, but it also sounds getto to me. Every getto kids knows that they can do nothing and be on the dole for life, a comfortable life. But if they can be NBA or NFL or some other go for broke answer then they got it made. Go big or go home, But they are not really gambling, because their fall back position, the go home, is not their planning or sacrifice. The “home” is paid for by all of the mediocre tax payers, so to me the idea that is presented here is expelling the virtues that I detest.

      • Walt

        Said well. I disagree with some of the logic, but respect your points,

  2. Al Dente

    That says it all. I agree completely.

  3. Mickster

    OT but the Cos Cobber 903 XXF driving a beige Jeep who just tried to run me off the road at Exit 2 – your time dill come, my friend. The expression is YIELD when entering a highway.

  4. anonymous

    Right. Keep government out of the marriage business. It should provide a civil contract for any two people who want to exchange benefits and leave marriage to churches.

  5. Anonymous Citizenette

    Its all about the MONEY (benefits, entitlements, etc.) No one has cared what consenting adults do to each other in a very long time.

  6. Walt

    Dude –
    I am thinking this blog may be better without you. Can you go paint I 95 and we will call you when we need you?
    THANKS!!
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  7. anonymous

    It’s not about the government giving benefit money to keep unhappy people married. That’s about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It’s about giving the married couple – men, women, oxen, whatever – a little extra cash to raise the offspring with. Other than offspring, no need for extra cash. Ask those Catholics about the value of supporting procreation.

    • Walt

      You say Catholics like it’s a dirty word. Do you have a problem with Catholics and their proclivity to procreate? Many Catholics have sex with no intention of having children. Just ask the Priests.
      And having a compassion for fornicating is far from a bad thing. What is your habit of choice? Stuffing ding dongs down your throat while you watch Gilligan’s Island on TV, you judgmental little lily assed wasp.
      Get your Henna Head out of your ass, you twat.

      • George Leroy Tirebiter

        ” Many Catholics have sex with no intention of having children. Just ask the Priests.”

        Walt my friend you are on a roll today!

    • Just_looking

      Obviously you are the mediocrity that Walt reviles against. And while Walt seems to have this covered, I will point out that it is not money to keep unhappy people together, it is a small bonus for people that do stay together, create and foster a happy home I which they raise kids that do not become a drain on society.
      And, by the way, there are deductions for dependants and an additional benefit for married people. Two separate entries.
      Finally, as has been noted, benefits and entitlements are the other drivers on this discussion.