Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
my solution to the gay marriage argument my solution to the gay marriage argument

11-21-2007 , 01:29 PM
Quote:
No I wouldn't because there is very little data (other than anecdotal) to support the assertion that bi-racial children have a hard time in society. And race has 0 effect on the simple ability to have a children. OTOH, we have tons of data that document that positive effect of having a heterosexual family structure.
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
And this is where our true disconnect lies.

I don't believe the government should be inflated even further so as to suck more money out of me. You do.

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.

Quote:
You = liberal = high taxes and a nanny state
Me = conservative = low taxes and a gov't that leaves me the [censored] alone

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.


Quote:
Edit: If you want to set up your gay lover to be your PoA and put him on your private health insurance plan and every other thing under the sun, I have NO problem with that. When you start proposing bigger government just because you feel left out, THAT is where I start having a problem.
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
Quote:
You're right, so I suspect people will still have sex on their own accord the old-fashioned way if they want kids. So what again is your problem? That they won't if gays marry?
/head asplode

READ SIR.
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:34 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Ok I cant be quiet any longer.

Re: State interest: The legitimate state interest here is the continuance of a stable population base in the United States. As such, the union of a heterosexual union is the most likely way this is going to happen. No its not the only way so please dont throw that strawman out there.

Re: Marriage

The state isnt creating marriage. You can get married in a church that will do and you can call yourself married all you want, you can tell everyone that your same sex partner is your husband. What the state is doing is a recognizing a particular form of marriage that it believes is most beneficial to state interests. As such, it provides a variety of benefits to that institution. There are people going ZOMG its discrimination, but the government already discriminates in a number of ways, one of which springs to mind is certain programs that benefit minority business owners.

Also, the family is the basic social unit of our society and the government has interest in promoting the form of that we have discovered to be the most effective over thousands of years.

Re: Subsidizing marriage:

Its funny how there are so many posters who are quick to point out the economic effects of subsidies when the discussion is about other things, but as soon as we start takling about marriage, its suddenly as if the causal link doesnt exist anymore. Dont be willfully blind in this regard. Sure many people will still have children.

Anyhow, not sure if I will respond to any replies as I've dicussed this ad nauseum on this forum before and I'm not too keen on rehashing it.
Save this post stick it up here every few months as needed. Won't do any good but it makes too much sense to ignore.
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).
11-21-2007 , 01:35 PM
Quote:

And as for my personal values. Well, I hate to point it out, but my personal values coincide with those values that our nation was founded upon. As time went along, we forgot what those values were.

ha. This made me laugh. Its like reading cliff notes of any over-the-top right wing radio personality. Rah Rah! You go boy.
11-21-2007 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
1. I consider this deadweight loss if you will. Too expensive and/or time consuming to determine this. Also, this is something is constantly subject to change.

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?

Quote:
2. The "adult children" were "children children" at some point werent they? As such, I have no real issue with continuance of the benefits.
I think extending it only to those with dependent children would be more appropriate, but it's largely irrelevant.

Quote:
3. I'm willing to compromise on this point. If a gay couple adopts a child I'd be willing to extend marriage benefits to them. Of course it raises the "chicken or the egg" question but Id be willing to work towards a solution. Not a huge fan to be honest, but given the benefits of getting kids out of foster homes to parents that want them outweighs their place on my contiuum of desireable family structures.

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.)
11-21-2007 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
Quote:
No I wouldn't because there is very little data (other than anecdotal) to support the assertion that bi-racial children have a hard time in society. And race has 0 effect on the simple ability to have a children. OTOH, we have tons of data that document that positive effect of having a heterosexual family structure.
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.
Thats actually not my stated goal, but see my response to Elwood vis a vis the extension of benefits to gay adoptees.
11-21-2007 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
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.
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
The modern liberal substitute for intellectual argument, labeling. Just trot out bigot or homophobe or .... and you win! No need to think or engage.

I cede to your superior technique.
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!
11-21-2007 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Quote:

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.
I lol'd -- A+++++++++++++++ excellent poster, would read again.

Apparently, this guy has perfected asexual reproduction.
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
I, nor the government care who you marry. ... Just don't come asking for government handouts from a system designed for heterosexual family structures.
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
It is doing just that by giving special tax credits to some but not others. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Are you even reading anything here?
Have you read all my posts? I said back on page one that we should stop bickering about who gets the handouts, but instead change government so people can afford to run their lives/families the way they see fit without needing tax relief to afford to raise said family.

In the meantime, don't "solve" the problem with more handouts! That accomplishes nothing.
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I, nor the government care who you marry. ... Just don't come asking for government handouts from a system designed for heterosexual family structures.
So again you defend the status quo after pretending to support the abolition of these tax breaks.

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

I've already responded to this.
11-21-2007 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
I don't think I've seen a person change his position more often in a thread.
Then continue to deny ever changing their position.
11-21-2007 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I, nor the government care who you marry. ... Just don't come asking for government handouts from a system designed for heterosexual family structures.
So again you defend the status quo after pretending to support the abolition of these tax breaks.

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

I've already responded to this.
ANSWER THE [censored] QUESTIONS! YOUR RESPONSE TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE TO TALK OUT BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH!

Quote:

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

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

11-21-2007 , 01:46 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.
I lol'd -- A+++++++++++++++ excellent poster, would read again.

Apparently, this guy has perfected asexual reproduction.
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.
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...
11-21-2007 , 01:55 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is doing just that by giving special tax credits to some but not others. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Are you even reading anything here?
Have you read all my posts? I said back on page one that we should stop bickering about who gets the handouts, but instead change government so people can afford to run their lives/families the way they see fit without needing tax relief to afford to raise said family.

In the meantime, don't "solve" the problem with more handouts! That accomplishes nothing.
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.
/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.
11-21-2007 , 01:56 PM
Quote:
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).
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.
11-21-2007 , 01:58 PM
Quote:
Quote:
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).
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).
11-21-2007 , 02:00 PM
Quote:
Thats actually not my stated goal, but see my response to Elwood vis a vis the extension of benefits to gay adoptees.
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?
11-21-2007 , 02:05 PM
Quote:
Quote:
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.
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. 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.
11-21-2007 , 02:06 PM
Quote:


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.
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.
11-21-2007 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Thats actually not my stated goal, but see my response to Elwood vis a vis the extension of benefits to gay adoptees.
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?
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.
11-21-2007 , 02:10 PM
re kaj:
Quote:
This is the last time I'll respond to you.
You went six rounds more than I.
11-21-2007 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
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...
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.

      
m