Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Military personel that are single can stay ren free in the barracks. Married ones must mantain a home. And I have already answered your tax issue.

[Montague]

I'm sure living in some run down barracks (at the workplace) with little privacy isn't quite the same as living in a nice house, if both are provided for free. Married servicemembers also receive other tangible benefits on top of a free house, the total level of compensation is almost double or triple what a single service-member receives.

Also, what cost is there to run a family if it's a working couple with no kids? What behavior is the government creating an incentive for or what hardship is it attempting to compensate?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you're living rent-free and mostly service-free by being part of the military for a number of years (and have no spouse to drain those funds), then you are accumulating the majority of your salary unspent for that period of time. Which means that, once you are retired from the military, all of that money is yours to spend on whatever you might desire.

[Montague]

If you're living rent-free and mostly service-free by being part of the military for a number of years (and have no spouse to drain those funds), then you are accumulating the majority of your salary unspent for that period of time. Which means that, once you are retired from the military, all of that money is yours to spend on whatever you might desire.

Possibily, I imagine that is usually the case, but again, not always.

 A servicemember could marry another servicemember. They'd both receive the additional compensation for being married on top of whatever they were receiving before. Or a civilian spouse could make more money then the servicemember.

In both those cases, there is no hardship created by being married, instead there is a direct monetary benefit a married servicemember receives beyond what they'd make if they were single.

[RedKing]

Married servicemembers also receive other tangible benefits on top of a free house

Bwahahahaha! Hahaha. Ha. NO.

There is no "free house for every military family". They get an allotment to help offset the cost of rent/mortage. Which, if you have a lot of military people in one place (as is typically the case), that creates a sustained demand for housing, and the presence of the allotment allows sellers and realtors to extract a higher-than-average market price. End result: the allotment doesn't really help all that much. Certainly, it helps some. But it's by no stretch of the imagination a "free house".

A servicemember could marry another servicemember. They'd both receive the additional compensation for being married on top of whatever they were receiving before. Or a civilian spouse could make more money then the servicemember.

In both those cases, there is no hardship created by being married, instead there is a direct monetary benefit a married servicemember receives beyond what they'd make if they were single.

Having seen my father go through four marriages, and my half-brother currently in the midst of ending his, I'd say there's a hardship created simply by being married in the military. I've a friend and former classmate who was a Captain in the Army, as was his wife. Their deployment schedules wound up such that they were only in the same country together for about two months out of SIX YEARS. While she was stateside, he was in Iraq. Almost as soon as he got back from Iraq to go to grad school, she got sent to Afghanistan. She nearly got hit by an IED attack, and all he could do was use Skype to ask "Are you okay?". Then shortly after she got back from her tour, he got done with school and got sent back to Iraq.

No, no hardship created there at all. 

[Montague]

Married servicemembers also receive other tangible benefits on top of a free house

Bwahahahaha! Hahaha. Ha. NO.

There is no "free house for every military family". They get an allotment to help offset the cost of rent/mortage. Which, if you have a lot of military people in one place (as is typically the case), that creates a sustained demand for housing, and the presence of the allotment allows sellers and realtors to extract a higher-than-average market price. End result: the allotment doesn't really help all that much. Certainly, it helps some. But it's by no stretch of the imagination a "free house".

A servicemember could marry another servicemember. They'd both receive the additional compensation for being married on top of whatever they were receiving before. Or a civilian spouse could make more money then the servicemember.

In both those cases, there is no hardship created by being married, instead there is a direct monetary benefit a married servicemember receives beyond what they'd make if they were single.

Having seen my father go through four marriages, and my half-brother currently in the midst of ending his, I'd say there's a hardship created simply by being married in the military. I've a friend and former classmate who was a Captain in the Army, as was his wife. Their deployment schedules wound up such that they were only in the same country together for about two months out of SIX YEARS. While she was stateside, he was in Iraq. Almost as soon as he got back from Iraq to go to grad school, she got sent to Afghanistan. She nearly got hit by an IED attack, and all he could do was use Skype to ask "Are you okay?". Then shortly after she got back from her tour, he got done with school and got sent back to Iraq.

No, no hardship created there at all. 

On-post housing for married servicemembers is free. If a servicemember lives off-post, they instead receive a flat monthly entitlement depending on their rank and it's adjusted to the cost of housing in local area. Which is typically enough for a single-family suburban home similar to the one's built on-post. Most of the times a married couple can find a place that charges less rent they what they receive for their housing allotment. Still much nicer then the communal barracks a single servicemember lives in, I'd think.

I'd imagine single servicemembers miss their friends and loved ones when they are overseas as well.  Despite being separated from their families, they don't receive "family separation pay" on the tune of 250$/mo like married servicemembers do either.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Your biological family generally doesn't leave you forever. Your partner can.

[RedKing]

A spouse is on rather a different level than "friends and loved ones". Get married and have a family, and then we'll talk.

[Montague]

A spouse is on rather a different level than "friends and loved ones". Get married and have a family, and then we'll talk.

Regardless, the military is a meritocracy, it's pay system should reflect that. The military isn't justified in offering unequal pay and compensation simply because of marital status.

Neither should the government enforce discriminatory policies based on marital status anywhere else.

Also, some people might not want to get married, I don't think that should qualify them as second-class citizens.

[Nadaka]

Single people are not second class citizens and never have been. I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. If anything, the burden of obligations and responsibilities on married people is far greater than the few minor benefits they receive.

[Bauglir]

I'd accept a compromise in which those benefits were shifted toward parents, rather than married couples, if only because it's undeniably true that raising a kid costs a boatload of money so the argument that it's treating everyone else as a "second class citizen" doesn't really hold water. I honestly don't know how much costs increase just through marriage, so I can't in good faith comment on it. Although I'm really more inclined to believe people who've been through the process than those who haven't. So even what I've just outlined might be unacceptable.

[RedKing]

I'd accept a compromise in which those benefits were shifted toward parents, rather than married couples, if only because it's undeniably true that raising a kid costs a boatload of money so the argument that it's treating everyone else as a "second class citizen" doesn't really hold water. I honestly don't know how much costs increase just through marriage, so I can't in good faith comment on it. Although I'm really more inclined to believe people who've been through the process than those who haven't. So even what I've just outlined might be unacceptable.

No, I think that's a fair cop. There's certainly an impression that the DINK (dual income, no kids) lifestyle is to be envied for its prosperity.

Spoiler: Relevant comic is relevant. (click to show/hide)

There are still definitely issues you deal with as a married person that you don't have as a single. Great job just opened up halfway around the country? Well, you can't just pick up and move (unless your spouse doesn't work, which is rare these days).

Want to take a job you'd love but pays $20,000/yr less? Again, no longer just your decision.

In general, your mobility and adaptability go down when you get married, but your sustainability goes up (get really sick and can't even get out of bed to feed yourself? Now you have someone to make sure you don't die in your bed.).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You don't usually ever get that sick in western nations, though.

[Truean]

Let's really put what you have to say in practice, shall we? The murder example {Note: He hasn't murdered anyone or done anything bad}[/i][/u]
Let's pretend. Hey, let's have a nice long discussion about how certain people think you're a wanted felon who murdered 34 people including a bus full of nuns and 2 babies in front of their mothers while playing hookie from your job while drunk off your ass and high on all sorts of illegal drugs? What? So that's completely baseless too and you shouldn't have to defend yourself against that kind of complete and utter bullshit? Of course it is and that sounds just like all the assholes who think it's OK to think that all gays are pedophiles and that this view should be respected! Somebody murdered those people/there's a problem and they think it was you.... It isn't like 34 corpses and a crapload of drugs just come out of nowhere.... If not you then who...?

Hey, they certainly shouldn't be forced to change these completely irrational, factually untrue absolutely harmful if taken seriously views. Let's have a nice long discussion about how you didn't murder those 34 people and of course you'd say you didn't but I'm not going to believe you. Who would admit to that? It's just like everyone's innocent in prison, right? Nothing you say can be trusted even though it's completely true and of course you never killed anyone.

Hey, who cares if I go around calling you a murderer and getting you fired from your job and if I make sure the families of all your friends disapprove of you. I'll say you got arrested and you really did kill all those people but you got off on a technicality or some bullshit. You will never be looked at the same way again, but you should never ever force me to change my batshit crazy beliefs.  And if I'm an incredibly persuasive person who convinces a lot of people that you actually did murder those people, you still shouldn't force me to change those beliefs! Let's say that suing me was ineffective because I'm an attorney and I know how to manipulate the shit out of the law and win on a technicality. Still can't force me or make me feel bad for ruining your life with patently false beliefs? And, I'd certainly be offended if you called me a malicious liar, true or not..... Let's say I put up such a convincing, bullshit smokescreen that you actually couldn't prove you didnt kill those people. Your alibis consist of "you were at home watching TV or playing some computer game called "Dwarf Fortress," a violent little game about killing dwarf babies, releasing demons from hell, reading about graphic depictions of severed limbs flying everywhere, and generally graphic bloody mayhem? That sounds a little.... Your alibi is that you were alone playing a computer game about.... Sounds like people who like games like that are fun just must have all kinds of deep seated problems (I personally love playing DF).

Do you see how wrong that would be? Do you see how anyone who holds and acts on those kinds of completely false beliefs should totally be forced to change those beliefs and apologize to you for it? It hurts people. Real people--the innocent kind.... Like you; like me.

I honestly don't know what to say to this.

Bullshit. You do know what to say to this. Come on man, really? Are you that stubbornly set against changing your position (that people shouldn't be forced to change their crazy beliefs even when it harms others) that you're gonna sit there and let me call you a mass murderer who kills nuns and babies, get you fired, make sure nobody else hires you, make sure society outcasts you, and ruin your life? Really? Bull... shit. You know that's wrong and you know if I actually did that, someone should literally or figuratively boot me in the ass to stop me.  You certainly know you'd be well within your rights to call me a malicious liar no matter how I felt about being called that.

You wanna tell me that a direct, false, ad hominem attack made with the express purpose of causing very real damage directly to you when I know it's completely false and I don't give a shit what the proof means is A-OK? It's A-OK for me to defame your character, slander, and liable you and damage you? You don't have the right to NOT be cast out of society as a mass murderer when you're completely innocent just because I say you're a mass murderer and everyone believes me? Nobody should stop me and you should use arguments to talk to my crazy, "don't-give-a-flying-shit-cause-I'm-dead-set-convinced-I'm-right" self?

You don't know what to say about that? Really? Bullshit. Same thing with the house example. What do I want you to say about it? I want you to admit it's wrong and that it's reasonable to expect some remedy for this wrong. If you can't admit THIS is a completely valid limit on free speech called defamation of character (slander/liable), then there's really no point to this. You're being completely unreasonable if you can't do that.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Every single solitary syllable you've said has been said before about not accpeting black people in the US.

The situations are not as extreme as it was back then.  Is it bad?  Yes, but its nowhere, NOWHERE near what black people went through.  Trying to draw comparisons between the two is absurd. 

I am not arguing for people who are bigots, or hold opposing viewpoints.  I am arguing against the whole need for creating the all for or against mentality.   

O really? http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2008/11/16/Gay_is_the_New_Black_/

First of all, it's not the same. Analogies don't have to be the same. They have to be similar. If two things are the same, then they aren't an analogy, it's a mirror. Both discriminated against; different ways of discrimination. I don't know who's got it worse. 

Quite frankly, you clearly don't get what's happened to gay people from this and your earlier remark wondering if transsexuals were discriminated against in the workplace. We've both had a civil rights movement with our leaders assassinated by bigoted assholes.  MLK and Harvey Mlik . We've both had lynch mobs after us, and it's ok.... There are numerous specific instances and we cant even talk about it or mourn/honor our dead in our own way.

Moreover, you probably don't realize that many gays were effectively imprisoned for years in the US pretty much for being gay.
O I'm sorry, it wasn't for being gay it was for "gay conduct." So you can be gay but never ever show it.
In the State of MI a "first time sodomy offender" could get up to 15 years in prison..... Yeah. No no, stop and think about that. If you're a gay male, how do you prove you've never had sex, because that's the only way you're avoiding a prison sentence of up to 15 years for a first time offender. If you got accused of sodomy and you were gay, you were fucking guilty and going to prison.... You have no defense and holy shit you should never have to prove your virginity even if you could.... O and that doesn't count "second time offenders." You know people will repeatedly "violate this law" (have sex) and thus be subjected to multiple prison terms..... It adds up.

Then of course, let's a assume a person was gay. Odds are they were having sex at some point so technically yes, they were "guilty" of "sodomy!" Consensual sex between two guys in their own bedroom, O noes! [fake gasp] So, what, are you supposed to just stop having sex and do you think the police would believe them when they said they did. NOPES! You'd get arrested again and serve another prison sentence, and sometimes another. It wasn't hard to do a grand total of 10 years or more in jail because you were repeatedly arrested for being gay....

How does that compare to slavery; I dunno. It doesn't minimize that horrible thing to compare it to this. Like I said, both discriminated against but in different ways. No black person alive in the US today has ever been personally enslaved and they don't know anyone who has given that it ended in the 1800s after the civil war. Sure they had absolute shit tons of discrimination, Jim Crow, Segregation, etc, and who knows how the scale comes down in terms of who had to bear the greater evil.... In either case of slavery or repeated bullshit imprisonment, you're losing your freedom and you're owned, privately in slavery and by the state penal system for criminal violation of sodomy laws. Did I mention felons still can't vote a lot of the time even after they get out, so there goes disenfranchisement....

Moreover, SCOTUS just recently stopped the whole "going to jail for sodomy thing," in 2003.... It wasn't done by popular consensus, because it would've never gotten done that way. Same thing with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v_board There would still be people in jail for that crap to this very day if the court didn't force this down people's throats to keep innocent people from suffering in prison. Same thing happened with slavery with a war. People are not going to agree on shit and at some point you've just got to make a decision. You can't sit on the fucking fence forever and if people fighting for their rights and calling the assholes holding them back or people who refuse to do what's right on this fact pisses you off, then that's your problem.

It isn't a free speech issue either, because you can say any bigoted thing you want in this country, but free speech also means people get to tell you exactly what they think of what you say <----- That's what people who are against GLBT have a problem about when they're called bigoted. Free speech: a two way street....

It comes down to free speech if you seek to actively define and dictate the terms of how people should approach the argument.  It is a very, very fine line to walk when discussing such issues because there are alot of heavy and heated opinions regarding this. 

And yes, unfortunately due to stupid people being smart enough to know how to abuse laws and shit (I'm looking at you westboro), we have to put up with alot of these kinds of abuses "within the law" (damn lawyers).  Such is the double edge of free speech, or the weakness of language due to such abuses due to semantics and sophistry.

You're still not getting it, but then again, if you're not gonna say someone should stop people from slandering.... Maybe you never will.

If they have the right to say horrible things, then I have the right to call them on it and call them bigots for saying it. THEY AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS AND IT IS NO USE TALKING TO THEM. I'm not going to have a fucking discussion with the KKK member, or neo nazi who doesn't like black people or jews. I'm gonna call him a fucking bigot, because he's a fucking bigot even if he "has the right to say" all the crap he says. I have the right to call him on it.

I'm not gonna have a conversation and talk to the WBC who hates gays and pickets the funerals of dead soldiers who aren't even gay. I'm gonna call them a fucking bigot. There's no discussion, because there's no point.

If you ever find yourself on the same side as a the KKK, Neo Nazis, or WBC, FOR ANY REASON AT ALL then you need to take a good long fucking look at why that's the case. You can expect to be called a bigot if your views are even remotely similar to these people and how dare anyone ever act surprised or turned off by being called  a bigot if they have views even remotely similar to these people. That isn't something you complain about; it's a fucking wake up call to you....

Look, we can't "all just get along." In a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws, police, courts or prisons, but this libertarian pipe dream doesn't exist. I'm not spending my life trying to reason with and change the minds of bigots who don't like being called bigots and are continually ruining my life for no real reason.

[Bauglir]

@NinjaBoot

I'm gonna have to bring up that whole Llamas With Hats thing again, because that really does seem to be the position you're arguing for - that when told that their behavior is bigoted, an appropriate reply for somebody to make is, "That offends me. Now we're both in the wrong. Quit trying to change what I believe." There's no comparison I can make that doesn't involve comedy. I get the sense that we're talking past one another here, but I really can't figure out what angle to approach from.