Shouldn't you be comparing "no family structure" to "any family structure" if the topic is marriage and your stated goal is welfare of the child? The data on hetero vs [censored] families is debatable, but the effects on a child of having a stable family structure is pretty obvious.

Having gays marry does not suck more money out of me. If you're arguing that marriage costs tax payers money, should gays get tax breaks for being gay? That would seem to follow your logic.

God. You're so Rush-Limbaugh lite. First off- gays marrying is not increasing my taxes. Second, YOU are the one who has the government telling people who can and cannot marry.

What a intellectually dishonest, rhetoric spouting hypocrite you are.


You are the only one contending that marriage = bigger government.

Its difficult to discuss as matter with you since none of your arguments are based remotely in reality.

Just come out and say what you mean by "I believe our government should make laws based on the beliefs on which it was founded" and "I agree with following the law."

You keep using vague sentences around this issue which say nothing really on the surface but clearly indicate that you support the status quo. Then your head explodes when you think people misinterpret you.

Make it simple:

(1) Is the current law regarding marriage benefits fair: Yes No

(2) If no, should the law be changed: Yes No

Please clearly indicate yes/no to avoid us misinterpreting your position.

I dont mind discussion but I'm not keen on getting called a bigot. Im actually sort of surprised that kurto went down that since the two of us have had good discussion in the past (on this very issue).

ha. This made me laugh. Its like reading cliff notes of any over-the-top right wing radio personality. Rah Rah! You go boy.

It would actually be very easy to do (hell, you claim dependents on your tax forms.) If you have dependent children and are "married" you get the benefit. Apply it equally to gay and straight married couples. How is that difficult to determine?

I think extending it only to those with dependent children would be more appropriate, but it's largely irrelevant.


So you would support the following law:
Any two individuals are entitled to marry. State granted marriage benefits are only given to those with children (natural or adopted.) All employment associated marriage benefits can be determined by the employer insofar as they do not distinguish between same-sex and traditional marriages (they can distinguish between child/childless marriages.)

Thats actually not my stated goal, but see my response to Elwood vis a vis the extension of benefits to gay adoptees.

I, nor the government care who you marry. That's between you and your priest/partner. Just don't come asking for government handouts from a system designed for heterosexual family structures.

lol. Cool. I win.

btw- this is ironic because this 'liberal' (and we all know that you aren't thinking... anyone who is a liberal in just wrong... they don't have the 'values this country is founded on like us good conservatives do'.... I referenced studies earlier to make my case... and the good 'thinking conservatives' arbitrarily dismissed them because they contradicted the OPINIONS of the good value-holding conservatives.

I'm glad you declared victory for yourself. We know that was going to be your feelings regardless of the evidence presented.

carry on good American!

Imagine being so foolish to believe that the only factor in the success of future generations is reproduction? Its hard to imagine. Apparently, if you can give birth, that's all a generation needs to survive and thrive.

Fascinating.

So again you defend the status quo after pretending to support the abolition of these heterosexual-marriage-based tax breaks.

How many times are you going to go around this circle?

Edit: And as pointed out below, legal rights of married couples extend well beyond just tax issues.

Most of the benefits of legalized marriage are NOT handouts. Second- you have not been arguing about removing benefits to married people, you have simply argued that gays should not be entitled to similar benefits.

I don't think I've seen a person change his position more often in a thread.

Go away.

I've already responded to this.

Then continue to deny ever changing their position.

ANSWER THE [censored] QUESTIONS! YOUR RESPONSE TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE TO TALK OUT BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH!

Seems to me it would be hard to take care of a generation that doesn't exist.

I assume we're still talking about gay couples having children...

/facepalm

The non-financial benefits (and many that are financially related) can all be taken care of WITHOUT government involvement.

I haven't changed my position. Perhaps in early posts I wasn't very CLEAR on my position, but I haven't changed my mind at all.

You can leave the law as it's written, or get rid of it, but don't expand it.

I didn't call you a bigot. You are not one who is continuing to use the code that "you are correct because you suscribe to the values that the country is founded on"... And, throughout the thread I have given measured responses and posted information supporting my views. I have gone back to two specific posters over and over again looking for concrete reasons why they're singling out gays and get responses based on values and such. And I'm labeled 'liberal' as if that diminishes my argument.

If the entire argument was "let's remove marriage benefits because it bloats the government and increases taxes" then there would be no argument. But the people I was addressing are only intent on denying rights to gays.

Thats cool man. I'm all for some good-spirited anger in this forum, but I'm not a big fan of when things get nasty. But I apologize for ascribing something to you that you didnt do (call me a bigot).

Sorry, I haven't read your previous volumes on the subject and just lumped you in with everybody else in this thread who's obsessed with propagation of the species like we're about to go extinct.

So you're pro-gay marriage if children are involved. And you're willing to look past some "dead weight" of married hetero couples without children, but not [censored] ones without children? Isn't it getting fairly nitty to remain against gay marriage in this case?

LOL. Don't you guys see? It makes perfect sense.

heterosexual married couples having children are ENTITLED to tax breaks since the system was designed that way. It's axiomatically self-evident. These cannot be questioned, the idea of these not existing does not compute. They are eternal and perfect, like the heavenly spheres.

Since straight people are entitled, if they get them, it's not a handout, they'er just getting what they're supposed to get.

Gays are not entitled to those, they're entitled to zero, so if they get them, they're handouts.

DUH.

Once again- most of the benefits of marriage don't cost the taxpayers anything and are not handouts. If your intent was to argue that married people shouldn't get handouts, then you should say so and stop singling out gays.

I suppose you could get away with calling it nitty, I wont be offended. I'm willing to accept that deadweight loss because its too hard to combat it. However, basic sense tells us that a married homosexual couple is much less likely to have children than a heterosexual couple. In fact, the definitely wont unless they take extraordinary means to do so. Once they commit themselves to that path than I'm willing to extend the benefits.

re kaj: You went six rounds more than I.

No. You are the only one making such assumptions. That's not what I'm talking about. Use your imagination and think things through and you might realize that there is more to a generation succeeding then just people giving birth.