Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

CA State Senator DUI (with bonus gay nightclub hijinks)Follow

#102 Mar 09 2010 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory wrote:
No, that isn't my argument. I was making fun of you.

Maybe you missed the sarcasm?


The day that the argument for gay marriage doesn't consist almost entirely of similarly sarcastic accusatory exaggerations, I'll stop responding to them as though they were meant seriously.
No you won't.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#103 Mar 09 2010 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory wrote:
No, that isn't my argument. I was making fun of you.

Maybe you missed the sarcasm?


The day that the argument for gay marriage doesn't consist almost entirely of similarly sarcastic accusatory exaggerations, I'll stop responding to them as though they were meant seriously.
No you won't.


Lol... We'll never find out though, will we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Mar 09 2010 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But can we please agree that the number quoted earlier does not in any way reflect sustained revenue from gay marriage? Pretty please?

I didn't see a study explictly for Washington but the Vermont study they did predicted $11.8 million in year one, $9.5 in year two and $9.1 in year three. Which makes sense -- a quick rush to get married tapering down to a more sustained number. I could easily imagine continued revenues in the seven or eight million per year range.

Massachusetts had 5,994 same sex marriages in 2004 and "only" 1,347 in 2005. I'm having a devil of a time finding data beyond that but even if we assume only 1,000 marriages per year following that, at an average of $7,200 per wedding (from their Mass. study), you have $7.2 million annually not counting government fees.

I've no interest in doing the math for DC but I could believe that it will have a lasting and significant positive impact on the local economy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#105 Mar 09 2010 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
gbaji wrote:
Lol... We'll never find out though, will we?

I'm curious, how do you think the question of gay marriage will be looked at in 100 years in the U.S.? Do you think it is an issue our society will still be debating? Will the conservatives ultimately prove their point to the majority of people and the issue largely put to rest in their favor? Do you think liberals will successfully convince everyone for a short period before we all see the problem and overturn it?
#106 Mar 09 2010 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Massachusetts had 5,994 same sex marriages in 2004 and "only" 1,347 in 2005. I'm having a devil of a time finding data beyond that but even if we assume only 1,000 marriages per year following that, at an average of $7,200 per wedding (from their Mass. study), you have $7.2 million annually not counting government fees.


Massachusetts has 6 million people. D.C has 500k. Even if we assumed a similar ratio of gay marriages in D.C (unlikely), we'd be looking at $600k/year.

The numbers just don't add up. Hence, why I call them "bogus". It's an appropriate term to use when the number being floated around is an order of magnitude higher than what can reasonably be extrapolated from available data.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Mar 09 2010 at 8:47 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
So what if it is only 500K a year? That's still more than we're getting NOW.

Thus, it is still an increase. Does it matter if it is only 500K vs. 6 Million?

You can argue whatever you like, but an increase is an increase. I'm not aware of any 1 million revenue minimum for laws passed in the US.

[EDIT]

And to be perfectly fair, you aren't factoring in couples that will head to DC in order to get married, because they can't in (say) Virginia.

And in this economy, getting money moving through small businesses is a must. Because we just keep dumping cash into huge corporations, and it isn't doing crap.

Oh wait, you're a Republican...

[EDIT2]

Btw, Vermont has 600K people. Washinton does as well.

The numbers DO add up, for the NEXT 3 YEARS.

Again, L2Read.

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 9:54pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#108 Mar 09 2010 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
And to be perfectly fair, you aren't factoring in couples that will head to DC in order to get married, because they can't in (say) Virginia.

Depends largely on the DC marriage laws. As I recall, in Mass. you had to be a resident for a while before you could apply for a marriage license. If the DC laws are looser, it could draw in a considerable number of people from the region.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109gbaji, Posted: Mar 09 2010 at 8:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If we go the way the liberals want, instead of becoming an enlightened group of people who realize the fact I stated in the first sentence of this post, we will almost certainly be debating the minutia of whether or not a marriage consisting of two men, a goat, three women, and 5 children should qualify for the same benefits from the government as one consisting of three men, a pig, two women, and 8 children. And we'll have a zillion lines of legal code defining each and every single one of them in order to ensure that no one misses out on their rights to have the full amount of government benefits to which they are entitled.
#110 Mar 09 2010 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
SLIPPERY SLOPE IS SLIPPERY

Screenshot

____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#111 Mar 09 2010 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
If we're going to start with ridiculous exaggerations, I get to say that you will all eventually become a group of paranoid survivalists in the heart of Appalachia, too busy composting your fecal matter to even pay attention to politics anymore. That is, if you don't kill each other first. They were eyein' your pile.

It's only fair.

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 9:01pm by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#112 Mar 09 2010 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Because I doubt you'll go back and read my edit, I'll post it here:

Quote:
I didn't see a study explictly for Washington but the Vermont study they did predicted $11.8 million in year one, $9.5 in year two and $9.1 in year three. Which makes sense -- a quick rush to get married tapering down to a more sustained number. I could easily imagine continued revenues in the seven or eight million per year range.


The Population of Vermont is, currently, something around 621,760.

The Population of DC is, currently, something around 599, 657.

These are numbers taken straight from the census.

They are predicting less than that in DC, but it is still a huge amount. Will it level off? Of course. But it will still level off at a value higher than before. Even if all it does is allow for some part time government workers to get more hours for 3 years and create a few more lasting jobs, that's still a nice increase. And it's for something that literally has overwhelming positive aspects.

Studies show that the children of gay couples grow up to be more tolerant and more accepting than the average child. This also means they are less likely to develop drug and alcohol addictions, and are more likely to become active citizens.

This also removes many children from government care, in favor of stable home environments. So, while some of these children will result from IV conception or surrogacy, many will still find themselves out of an orphanage and into a stable environment. In the long run, this increases revenue and decreases public costs.

Just one of the many examples.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#113 Mar 09 2010 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And to be perfectly fair, you aren't factoring in couples that will head to DC in order to get married, because they can't in (say) Virginia.

Depends largely on the DC marriage laws. As I recall, in Mass. you had to be a resident for a while before you could apply for a marriage license. If the DC laws are looser, it could draw in a considerable number of people from the region.


I don't think you thought that through. Try again.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Mar 09 2010 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
I guess I'm confused by your answer. By the main paragraph I'm guessing you think liberals will win out on the issue of gay marriage, but that we'll necessarily slide into a multitude of with significant support for almost any conceivable type of marriage? Or was that merely a suggested consequence? I'm just wondering how you think this will turn out. Not what you think should happen or will happen as a consequence if we make the wrong decision. What will actually happen?

My belief is that some time within the span of 100 years federal laws allowing for the marriage of same sex couples throughout every state will have been established. In 100 years, I believe the majority of people will believe it to be an acceptable and beneficial occurrence. I'm curious what people who differ on their views of gay marriage believe will happen.

This isn't a setup. I'm not going to harass or probably even question you further on it. I just want something more substantial than "I'd like to believe" or "If we go the way the liberals want."

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 9:10pm by Allegory
#115 Mar 09 2010 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Allegory wrote:
I guess I'm confused by your answer. By the main paragraph I'm guessing you think liberals will win out on the issue of gay marriage, but that we'll necessarily slide into a multitude of with significant support for almost any conceivable type of marriage? Or was tha tmerely a suggested consequence? I'm just wondering how you think this will turn out. Not what you think should happen or will happen as a consequence if we make the wrong decision. What will actually happen?

My belief is that some time within the span of 100 years federal laws allowing for the marriage of same sex couples throughout every state will have been established. In 100 years, I believe the majority of people will believe it to be an acceptable and beneficial occurrence. I'm curious what people who differ on their views of gay marriage believe will happen.
What are you confused about? Liberals are amoral bastards. Duhr.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#116 Mar 09 2010 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Sweetums wrote:
What are you confused about? Liberals are amoral bastards. Duhr.

From my perspective Gbaji has yet to answer my question, though he did seem interested in doing so.
#117 Mar 09 2010 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Allegory wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
What are you confused about? Liberals are amoral bastards. Duhr.

From my perspective Gbaji has yet to answer my question, though he did seem interested in doing so.
It's pretty easy to guess what he's going to say; just take what he said last time, but use slightly different words.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#118 Mar 09 2010 at 9:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
idiggory wrote:
Because I doubt you'll go back and read my edit, I'll post it here:

Quote:
I didn't see a study explictly for Washington but the Vermont study they did predicted $11.8 million in year one, $9.5 in year two and $9.1 in year three. Which makes sense -- a quick rush to get married tapering down to a more sustained number. I could easily imagine continued revenues in the seven or eight million per year range.


The Population of Vermont is, currently, something around 621,760.

The Population of DC is, currently, something around 599, 657.


Yes. Key word there is "predicted". That's as meaningless as the prediction for D.C. (and is almost certainly based on the same UCLA study and data btw).

Show me the actual numbers for Vermont. It's been a year, right? How about instead of continuing to parrot the same UCLA study that has produced exaggerated numbers for other states, we look at the actual economic impact. You know. Actual data instead of guesses?

Quote:
Studies show that the children of gay couples grow up to be more tolerant and more accepting than the average child. This also means they are less likely to develop drug and alcohol addictions, and are more likely to become active citizens.


All adopted kids tend to fare better statistically. That's not a valid counter to anything I'm talking about.

Quote:
This also removes many children from government care, in favor of stable home environments. So, while some of these children will result from IV conception or surrogacy, many will still find themselves out of an orphanage and into a stable environment. In the long run, this increases revenue and decreases public costs.


I have no issues with gay couples adopting kids. And I also have no problem with legal recognition of any sort of marriage contract in this context. But that also does not require a change to our laws regarding the granting of marriage licenses and state marriage benefits. There's a baby and bathwater analogy here somewhere...

Can you also understand that we'd have fewer kids in need of adoption in the first place if we placed more social importance on heterosexual couples getting married?


Quote:
Just one of the many examples.


Of what? Am I supposed to guess why you think those examples are relevant? Make a point, if you have one to make...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Mar 09 2010 at 9:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Sweetums wrote:
It's pretty easy to guess what he's going to say; just take what he said last time, but use slightly different words.
Then I suppose I am not smart enough to figure it out; I'd like to hear it said explicitly.

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 9:17pm by Allegory
#120 Mar 09 2010 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
gbaji wrote:

Can you also understand that we'd have fewer kids in need of adoption in the first place if we placed more social importance on heterosexual couples getting married?
You know what else would work? Mandatory abortions!

Cue segue!
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#121 Mar 09 2010 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Allegory wrote:
I guess I'm confused by your answer. By the main paragraph I'm guessing you think liberals will win out on the issue of gay marriage, but that we'll necessarily slide into a multitude of with significant support for almost any conceivable type of marriage? Or was that merely a suggested consequence? I'm just wondering how you think this will turn out. Not what you think should happen or will happen as a consequence if we make the wrong decision. What will actually happen?


You're making no sense here. You want me to say what I think will happen. But not what I think will happen, but what will actually happen? Could you repeat that again in the form of a valid question?

Quote:
My belief is that some time within the span of 100 years federal laws allowing for the marriage of same sex couples throughout every state will have been established. In 100 years, I believe the majority of people will believe it to be an acceptable and beneficial occurrence. I'm curious what people who differ on their views of gay marriage believe will happen.


I believe that the majority of people believe that right now. The problem isn't really about gay couples or acceptance. The problem is about whether one defines "marriage" in a way which absolutely requires that the government provide you with "marriage benefits". If you believe that the absence of government benefits equals a denial of the right to marry, you will arrive at the false conclusion that gay people are being denied their rights, and further that this derives from a broad misunderstanding about the "okness" of gay couples and marriages.

While there certainly is a small percentage of people who oppose gay marriage period, the majority of those who sway the results in bills like prop8 are those who care about the issue entirely in the context of the government benefits. It really is the deciding factor. The reason the gay marriage "cause" seems to be hitting so many roadblocks isn't because of some kind of social immaturity (as you seem to be suggesting). Because of that, no amount of trying to change social views of gay people or gay couples will adequately address the problem.

Hence, my answer. We will either realize that we're arguing different things and correct for it, or we'll continue to go the way we are. In that case, we will have accepted a "government benefits == social condition" paradigm and we will end out with more legislation and government used to define every social condition and status. My example was tongue in cheek, but meant to illustrate that point.

It's not really about gay rights or gay acceptance. Once you realize this, you'll realize that your question is off the mark. Your question assumes that the issue is a rather childishly simplistic conflict between a bunch of evil homophobic gay haters, and a group of enlightened respect-for-everyone types. While I suppose those labels may make some people feel better about themselves, it's *not* an accurate model of the issue itself. And attempting to "solve" the issue without first accurately defining it is kinda going to be non-productive...

Quote:
This isn't a setup. I'm not going to harass or probably even question you further on it. I just want something more substantial than "I'd like to believe" or "If we go the way the liberals want."


Somewhat by definition, you're asking for my opinion, right? I get what you mean though, so that's ok. ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Mar 09 2010 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Even if it were a privilege rather than a right, why do you really care that people are getting privileges that are costing neither you nor society anything? Well, unless you profess the rather nebulous proposition that it "devalues" marriage. Let's ignore the fact that out of the countries that legalized same sex marriage, the only one who has a higher divorce rate than the good ol' red white and blue is Sweden. What do you care, though? You probably hated the @#%^ers anyway. Filthy socialists.

So how are we going to quantify how marriage is devalued? Newtons per puppy kicking?

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 9:59pm by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#123 Mar 09 2010 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Well, except in this case it's the government saying that only certain people can buy hybrids.


No. It is exactly like the government deciding it will provide incentives to get people to buy hybrid cars, but not other types of cars. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
Then you're really not very bright.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The statement is that assuming the gay marriage will generate a net social benefit why not just let them get married.


I am letting them get married. I'm just not subsidizing their marriages. There are no laws preventing gay couples from having a marriage ceremony, exchanging vows, and entering into the exact sort of civil and social relationships which have been called "marriage" for thousands of years.
But it's not enough, and they don't feel it's enough. They feel their relationship is equivalent.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with your "reasons" for marriage laws, but assuming you're right, the same reasons don't have to apply to allowing gay marriage. If there are another set of reasons benefits and costs that apply to this scenario, that can also justify it, even though following your reasons it doesn't likely affect single parenting much.


Sure. And you're making a wonderful case for the creation of a new legal status designed specifically to recognize relationships not traditionally associated with child production. Which is exactly what the state of California passed. But instead of being happy, the gay rights folks pushed to get a ruling that said status was unconstitutional in that it represented a "separate but equal" condition. It was that ruling which forced the state to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and which prompted proposition 8.
You're insisting that people feel a certain way about an issue, that it is the only correct way to feel. However people are wrapped up in the institution of marriage. If letting them be married under the current laws is a net positive, then there is really no reason not to.

Right now we are in situation A. If we move to situation B where gay marriage is allowed, there is a net benefit, you've admitted as much in this thread. So what if the reasons aren't the same, it still has a positive effect and it makes a whole bunch of people feel less discriminated, which is also very important.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#124 Mar 09 2010 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,912 posts
Quote:

You're making no sense here. You want me to say what I think will happen. But not what I think will happen, but what will actually happen? Could you repeat that again in the form of a valid question?


He is. He wants to know what you think WILL happen, as in a prediction for the future, not what will happen if so and so.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#125 Mar 09 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're making no sense here. You want me to say what I think will happen. But not what I think will happen, but what will actually happen? Could you repeat that again in the form of a valid question?

What I mean is that neither of your responses before was worded as what will actually happen.
Quote:
I'd like to believe that in 100 years we'll become smart enough to realize that "marriage" isn't a piece of paper the government gives you and the people will realize what a silly silly thing it is we're arguing about today.

That is what you want to happen, what you hope will happen, or what you think should happen. That doesn't mean it is what you believe will happen. "I wish it would rain tomorrow," doesn't mean I think it will rain tomorrow, just that I'd like it to.
Quote:
If we go the way the liberals want, instead of becoming an enlightened group of people who realize the fact I stated in the first sentence of this post, we will almost certainly be debating the minutia of whether or not a marriage consisting of two men, a goat, three women, and 5 children should qualify for the same benefits from the government as one consisting of three men, a pig, two women, and 8 children. And we'll have a zillion lines of legal code defining each and every single one of them in order to ensure that no one misses out on their rights to have the full amount of government benefits to which they are entitled.

That is a hypothetical statement. You're suggesting that if the liberals win these are the consequences, but you aren't asserting that the liberals will or will not win. "If it rains tomorrow then I will bring an umbrella," does not mean I think it will rain tomorrow, it just says what I will do if it does.

It is not my intention to play a semantics game. But a literal interpretation of what you had said did not answer my question. You had said what you want to happen, you had said what hypothetically might happen, but you had not said what you think will happen. Do you understand my previous confusion and objection then?
gbaji wrote:

I believe that the majority of people believe that right now. The problem isn't really about gay couples or acceptance. The problem is about whether one defines "marriage" in a way which absolutely requires that the government provide you with "marriage benefits". If you believe that the absence of government benefits equals a denial of the right to marry, you will arrive at the false conclusion that gay people are being denied their rights, and further that this derives from a broad misunderstanding about the "okness" of gay couples and marriages.

While there certainly is a small percentage of people who oppose gay marriage period, the majority of those who sway the results in bills like prop8 are those who care about the issue entirely in the context of the government benefits. It really is the deciding factor. The reason the gay marriage "cause" seems to be hitting so many roadblocks isn't because of some kind of social immaturity (as you seem to be suggesting). Because of that, no amount of trying to change social views of gay people or gay couples will adequately address the problem.

Hence, my answer. We will either realize that we're arguing different things and correct for it, or we'll continue to go the way we are. In that case, we will have accepted a "government benefits == social condition" paradigm and we will end out with more legislation and government used to define every social condition and status. My example was tongue in cheek, but meant to illustrate that point.

It's not really about gay rights or gay acceptance. Once you realize this, you'll realize that your question is off the mark. Your question assumes that the issue is a rather childishly simplistic conflict between a bunch of evil homophobic gay haters, and a group of enlightened respect-for-everyone types. While I suppose those labels may make some people feel better about themselves, it's *not* an accurate model of the issue itself. And attempting to "solve" the issue without first accurately defining it is kinda going to be non-productive...

This is fairly close to what I want. I don't want to frustrate you too much, but I am going to have to ask for some clarification.

Are you saying that the small percentage of people who you believe understand the difference between marriage and marriage benefits will fail to convince the majority or will they succeed (in the context of creating legislation)? It seems like you think they will fail, which will lead to some further legislative gains by the majority who believe marriage and marriage benefits must be tied, and that this will lead to other issues.

Will then the issue of gay marriage be settled the way liberals want it (nationally, with full straight marriage benefits), and will this be permanent? Or do you think at some point this minority might convince or correct the alleged misunderstandings of the majority?

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 10:13pm by Allegory
#126 Mar 09 2010 at 10:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Show me the actual numbers for Vermont. It's been a year, right? How about instead of continuing to parrot the same UCLA study that has produced exaggerated numbers for other states, we look at the actual economic impact. You know. Actual data instead of guesses?

Exactly. It's only been a year. Studies usually take longer than that to collect all they need to know. You can look at the study they did of the first couple years of Mass though if you're actually interested in the "data" (it always tickles me when you pretend to care about data) and want to go look it up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#127 Mar 09 2010 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And to be perfectly fair, you aren't factoring in couples that will head to DC in order to get married, because they can't in (say) Virginia.
Depends largely on the DC marriage laws. As I recall, in Mass. you had to be a resident for a while before you could apply for a marriage license. If the DC laws are looser, it could draw in a considerable number of people from the region.
I don't think you thought that through. Try again.

I don't you thought that through. Try again.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Mar 10 2010 at 5:18 AM Rating: Decent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
"I believe that the majority of people believe that right now." --gbaji

Wrong. Empirically and emphatically wrong. Take any measure of the population of the United States and the majority will consistently and convincingly state that marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. No amount of massaging, contorting, or twisting the data can jiu jitsu the plain and simple truth that the majority of US citizens want the traditional definition of marriage to stand.

Rail against that all you want. Labor intensively to change those attitudes and beliefs, but right now gbaji's statement is utterly without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#129 Mar 10 2010 at 5:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And to be perfectly fair, you aren't factoring in couples that will head to DC in order to get married, because they can't in (say) Virginia.

Depends largely on the DC marriage laws. As I recall, in Mass. you had to be a resident for a while before you could apply for a marriage license. If the DC laws are looser, it could draw in a considerable number of people from the region.

No residency requirement. Virginians and West Virginians may marry, but their marriages are not recognized in their states. Maryland does not perform gay marriages, but does recognize their validity when performed outside the state.

I imagine this will be a huge $ boon for DC, as many couples will probably wish to move and the additional licenses will help as well, at least in the short run.

from dccourts.gov wrote:
Marriage License Information

The minimum age for marriage in the District of Columbia is 18 years or 16 years with the consent of a parent or guardian. Proof of age for the applicant's must be shown and may be demonstrated by driver's licenses, birth certificates, passports, or similar official documents. The Marriage License Application fee is $35.00 (this fee will be waived if the applicants’ original Domestic Partnership Certificate registered under D.C. Code §32-702 is presented at the time of application). The Certificate of Marriage fee is $10.00. All fees must be paid by cash or money order (made out to Clerk, D.C. Superior Court) for the license to be issued.

The Marriage License Application must include social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth for both parties as well as previous marriage information, that is, the city, state, country of each marriage and the ending status of each, such as, by divorce or death. Home and work telephone numbers for both parties are also requested.

Religious celebrants and judges other than those of the D.C. Courts must be authorized by the Court and registered by the Marriage Bureau in order to perform legal marriages in the District of Columbia. The full name of the intended celebrant must be given at the time of the application for verification and placement on the license. Otherwise, a request for a Civil Wedding may be made and a clerk will attempt to schedule the marriage ceremony with a court official on or near the date you request, but not sooner than ten business days after your license becomes valid.

By law, three full days must pass between the day of application to the day that the license can be issued. The fee payment receipt is required to pick up the license. Marriage licenses are not issued by mail.


Link to a bilingual application for a marriage license.

Some useful factoids and a FAQ from DC.org's glbt pride page (so proud).
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#130 Mar 10 2010 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And so there ya go. At the very least, tack the part of the population of Maryland onto that DC population number since Marylanders have reason to go to DC and wed knowing it'll be acknowledged back at home. You also have those who'll go to get married knowing that their own states may not support it yet but hopeful that they will in the future and still wanting it done today.

For that matter, I assume the "economic impact" of Washington DC is that of the entire metro area since DC isn't very large and there's nothing stopping you from having your reception in Virginia/Maryland. And the reception is where the real money is spent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Mar 10 2010 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
Seriously. We're taking something really really simple (Let's reduce the number of poor children in society by encouraging the people who produce those children to marry), into something so broad and so complex that it ceases to have any value or meaning. The farther we go down that path, the more ludicrous the entire thing becomes.


Another way of reduing the number of poor children (which includes those in the foster care system) in society is by encouraging people to get married and adopt when they can't have kids.

gbaji wrote:
The problem is about whether one defines "marriage" in a way which absolutely requires that the government provide you with "marriage benefits". If you believe that the absence of government benefits equals a denial of the right to marry, you will arrive at the false conclusion that gay people are being denied their rights, and further that this derives from a broad misunderstanding about the "okness" of gay couples and marriages.


Why wouldn't you couple the ceremony with the marriage benefits? It is part and parcel to what a marriage is. I think your problem is that you're only thinking of the tax issues, and not the slew of other benefits that go along with a marriage license. Like the right to visit a loved on in the hospital. Or inheritance rights.

____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#132 Mar 10 2010 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,905 posts
I realize this is by way of being a derail at this point, but apparently Ashburn's constituents are saying that he did vote the way they wanted him to vote, and that they probably wouldn't have elected him had they known he was gay.


Which really says a lot about the penetration into the public discourse of the fear of the "gay agenda".

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#133 Mar 10 2010 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Quote:
Which really says a lot about the penetration into the public discourse of the fear of the "gay agenda".


This is pretty much the entire idea. Certain groups of people, who will remain nameless, still have this irrational fear of people who are homosexual. It stemmed back from the idea that being gay was an illness that can spread from one person to the next. The only thing that was contagious was the raw stupidity. These certain groups of people still have that mindset and will try their damnedest to make sure that homosexuals are not on equal ground as they are and will try their hardest to treat them as inferiors. It is sad really, I mean the only difference between them is sexual preference (and one has a irrational fear of the other, but that goes without saying really).

I am starting to wonder if Gbaji in all his mindless banter is actually crying out for attention. Trying to tell us "Yes! I would rather be married to another man than a woman. All this arguing over same sex marriage is a cover towards my true feelings. Roy Ashburn, your my hero. If only I had the courage to admit my true feelings instead of hiding them from the world."
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#134 Mar 10 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Allegory wrote:
What I mean is that neither of your responses before was worded as what will actually happen.


Yes. I understand that. Do you understand that I don't know what will happen? Maybe you're unaware of this, but I provided you with more information (and more useful information) than you asked for. I suppose I could have just blindly stated a prediction, but that would have as much value as the pixels you're reading it on. Instead, I provided you with a pair of possibilities, with an explanation of what events might cause those possibilities to come to be.

If that's not satisfying for you, then I guess you'll just have to be unsatisfied.


Quote:
It is not my intention to play a semantics game.


Yet... That's what you're doing. For no really useful reason.

Quote:
But a literal interpretation of what you had said did not answer my question. You had said what you want to happen, you had said what hypothetically might happen, but you had not said what you think will happen. Do you understand my previous confusion and objection then?


What you asked for was a dumb thing to ask for. To follow your rain analogy. If someone asks if you think it will rain, which is more useful: Someone simply saying "Yes. I think it will rain". Or someone saying "Well. If the temperature and wind direction stay the same, it will rain. But if we're lucky, and that high pressure zone moves south, and we'll have clear skies".

One of those answers is useful. The other is worthless. Excuse me for automatically translating your question into one that served a purpose. I suppose I could be literal, but that would just be silly... ;)



Quote:
This is fairly close to what I want. I don't want to frustrate you too much, but I am going to have to ask for some clarification.

Are you saying that the small percentage of people who you believe understand the difference between marriage and marriage benefits will fail to convince the majority or will they succeed (in the context of creating legislation)? It seems like you think they will fail, which will lead to some further legislative gains by the majority who believe marriage and marriage benefits must be tied, and that this will lead to other issues.


I don't know if they will or not. That's the point. I can only tell you the effects in operation, how they interact, and what may result depending on how those interactions go forward. I told you what I'd *like* to have happen. But I honestly have no clue whether that will happen or not. None at all. Couldn't place even vague odds on it.

Quote:
Will then the issue of gay marriage be settled the way liberals want it (nationally, with full straight marriage benefits), and will this be permanent? Or do you think at some point this minority might convince or correct the alleged misunderstandings of the majority?


Perhaps. Again. I don't know. I can only keep on explaining my point of view on this issue in the hopes that if enough people are exposed to it, maybe the light will go on and they'll realize that the are charging off to fix a problem which isn't the one they really need to fix.

I kinda see it like a group of people working really hard to fix the oven in their home, but the problem is that the power lines are down. But when someone points out this fact, they get accused of not wanting to help fix the oven, followed with dire predictions of starvation if they can't cook their food, etc...

Yes. It's a silly analogy, but that's the way I see this. You've got a group of people who've become so wrapped up in the "cause" in front of them, that they just can't step back from it and see the larger picture.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Mar 10 2010 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
You've got a group of people who've become so wrapped up in the "cause" in front of them, that they just can't step back from it and see the larger picture.


It's funny, 'cause that's how I see the people on the opposition. People like you.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#136 Mar 10 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Another way of reduing the number of poor children (which includes those in the foster care system) in society is by encouraging people to get married and adopt when they can't have kids.


Sure. As I stated. I have no issues at all with gay couples adopting. Here's the thing though. There is zero need to tie adoption to the issuance of a state marriage license, or even being married, or a couple. Being able to provide a good home is the most important thing.

What you're essentially asking for is to weaken the thing which is supposed to reduce the number of kids in that state in the first place, but gaining nothing in return. You can accomplish both sides *without* hurting either. If you simply choose a different path...

gbaji wrote:
Why wouldn't you couple the ceremony with the marriage benefits?


Why would you? Let's flip this around. Are you saying we should pass a law making it illegal to hold a marriage ceremony unless the people in the ceremony hold a state issued marriage license? Isn't that a reduction of freedom? Right now, we're free to have any sort of ceremony we want (assuming it doesn't include ritual sacrifice or some other illegal activities). If I want to hold a marriage ceremony between me and my cat, I can. If I'm willing to pay for it, invite friends and family (and they want to show up), I can do that. There's nothing stopping me. Or you. Or any gay couple. Or whatever.

By insisting on tying the concept of a marriage (or even a wedding) to a state issued piece of paper, you are limiting our rights, not expanding them. Break out of that mindset. Understand that our actions are not mandated by the state. The state grants a piece of paper, which in turn grants a set of benefits if we meet the criteria. That is all. That does not define what a "marriage" is. It only really defines a set of benefits which match up with a set of requirements. No matter what labels we apply, that's all that's really going on here.

Quote:
It is part and parcel to what a marriage is.


No! Oh god please no! It's not. It really isn't. You've become so convinced of this that you're not just willingly giving up your own freedom, but demanding that you be required to. Can't you see that? There is no law requiring a state marriage license for you to be married. Zip. Zero. Nada. The laws go the other direction. You must be married (and a specific subset of marriages) to qualify for the state license. The state may even demand that you be defined as married (common law) if you meet certain requirements. Nowhere does the law go the other direction. No where does the law say you cannot marry without a state license. You simply can't qualify for the benefits of having that license.

You have to stop thinking that a marriage "is" the state license. It's not. People got married for thousands of years before governments started creating licenses and attaching benefits to them. Why on earth do you believe now that marriage can 't exist without those things?

Open your mind.


Quote:
I think your problem is that you're only thinking of the tax issues, and not the slew of other benefits that go along with a marriage license. Like the right to visit a loved on in the hospital. Or inheritance rights.


/banghead

Sigh... Not this again.

The power to visit a loved one in the hospital, and to make health decisions regarding that person is *not* one of the things you get with the state license. I've pointed this out in every single gay marriage thread we've had. I know you've read this before. But. Exactly as I predicted the last time, the next time the subject comes up, it's like you all forget that I debunked this the last time. And the time before that. And the time before that.

That power derives from the civil contract you and your partner enter into. You do *not* need a marriage license to legally enter into a marriage contract. As I just pointed out. The law goes in the other direction. You must enter into a marriage contract to get a marriage license. There is no restriction or requirement in the other direction. None at all.


It's like no matter how many times I say that same thing, it just fails to sink in. Stop arguing and listen to what I"m saying. Think about it for yourself. Make your own decision. Don't let the "cause" blind you to common sense and reason.

Edited, Mar 10th 2010 1:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Mar 10 2010 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
There is no law requiring a state marriage license for you to be married. Zip. Zero. Nada. The laws go the other direction. You must be married (and a specific subset of marriages) to qualify for the state license.


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Mar 10 2010 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,905 posts
What the fUCk.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#139 Mar 10 2010 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Mar 10 2010 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,711 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's like no matter how many times I say that same thing, it just fails to sink in. Stop arguing and listen to what I"m saying. Think about it for yourself. Make your own decision. Don't let the "cause" blind you to common sense and reason.


It fails to sink in because it's demonstrably false.

He's arguing with you because you are wrong.

I'm betting he has thought about it; and made a decision.

Don't let the "cause" blind you to common sense and reason.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#141 Mar 10 2010 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,711 posts
It's like he's Gene Ray or something.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#142 Mar 10 2010 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Due to my forum youth, I have idea what Niobia was like aside from whatever fetish thing she was into at the time.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#143 Mar 10 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's trying to slip into the New Age "Dude, if you just say you're married then you're married, man!" bullshit. Which is just as true as if I say I'm a lawyer and hold that true in my heart, then I'm a real lawyer no matter what the Man says.

Unfortunately, it's pretty much accepted by the non-retarded that discussions about what it takes to becomes married (or become a lawyer) are discussions about what it takes to be in legally recognized married (or a legally licensed laywer).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Mar 10 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,905 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Due to my forum youth, I have idea what Niobia was like aside from whatever fetish thing she was into at the time.


Oh, gosh. There was a truly epic thread in which she insisted that you are guilty until proven innocent, or some such.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#145 Mar 10 2010 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,616 posts
She had some really good internet lawyers too.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#146 Mar 10 2010 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,905 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Due to my forum youth, I have idea what Niobia was like aside from whatever fetish thing she was into at the time.


Found it. Enjoy that, now.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#147 Mar 10 2010 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Technically Gbaji is the new Niobia who was the new Gbaji since I'm pretty sure the infamous date rape thread predated Niobia.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Mar 10 2010 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,905 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Technically Gbaji is the new Niobia who was the new Gbaji since I'm pretty sure the infamous date rape thread predated Niobia.


You know, I saw a post of yours in the thread I linked in which you said something like the only active thread in =4 was the stupid rape thread, and I wondered whether that was the infamous date rape thread.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#149 Mar 10 2010 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why would you? Let's flip this around. Are you saying we should pass a law making it illegal to hold a marriage ceremony unless the people in the ceremony hold a state issued marriage license? Isn't that a reduction of freedom? Right now, we're free to have any sort of ceremony we want (assuming it doesn't include ritual sacrifice or some other illegal activities). If I want to hold a marriage ceremony between me and my cat, I can. If I'm willing to pay for it, invite friends and family (and they want to show up), I can do that. There's nothing stopping me. Or you. Or any gay couple. Or whatever.


You can hold the ceremony, but it's meaningless to the outside world. The world you have to live in. Where you have to call the cable company and get something changed, but your name isn't on the account as the primary contact and your "husband" (who isn't your husband because you can't get married) is out of town.

gbaji wrote:
By insisting on tying the concept of a marriage (or even a wedding) to a state issued piece of paper, you are limiting our rights, not expanding them. Break out of that mindset. Understand that our actions are not mandated by the state. The state grants a piece of paper, which in turn grants a set of benefits if we meet the criteria. That is all. That does not define what a "marriage" is. It only really defines a set of benefits which match up with a set of requirements. No matter what labels we apply, that's all that's really going on here.


It defines a marriage to everyone outside of your household. Everyone in the REAL world.

gbaji wrote:
No! Oh god please no! It's not. It really isn't. You've become so convinced of this that you're not just willingly giving up your own freedom, but demanding that you be required to. Can't you see that? There is no law requiring a state marriage license for you to be married. Zip. Zero. Nada. The laws go the other direction. You must be married (and a specific subset of marriages) to qualify for the state license. The state may even demand that you be defined as married (common law) if you meet certain requirements. Nowhere does the law go the other direction. No where does the law say you cannot marry without a state license. You simply can't qualify for the benefits of having that license.

You have to stop thinking that a marriage "is" the state license. It's not. People got married for thousands of years before governments started creating licenses and attaching benefits to them. Why on earth do you believe now that marriage can 't exist without those things?


You're confusing the terms relationship and marriage. Once again, in the real world, a piece of paper is required to do certain things. I'm not even talking about the state benefits.

gbaji wrote:
The power to visit a loved one in the hospital, and to make health decisions regarding that person is *not* one of the things you get with the state license. I've pointed this out in every single gay marriage thread we've had. I know you've read this before. But. Exactly as I predicted the last time, the next time the subject comes up, it's like you all forget that I debunked this the last time. And the time before that. And the time before that.

That power derives from the civil contract you and your partner enter into. You do *not* need a marriage license to legally enter into a marriage contract. As I just pointed out. The law goes in the other direction. You must enter into a marriage contract to get a marriage license. There is no restriction or requirement in the other direction. None at all.


You've never debunked it. You've claimed that these benefits can be given by paying gobs of money to a lawyer to draft up a contract and by jumping through a minefield of legal loopholes. All of which can be avoided simply by issuing the two people in question a @#%^ing marriage license. Nobody has forgotten your twisted logic on the subject. It just doesn't make sense.

And I would say that, making two people jump through hoops and pay through the nose to make a lawyer grant them the same rights that two other people can get from a $90 marriage certificate is discrimination.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#150 Mar 10 2010 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Samira wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Due to my forum youth, I have idea what Niobia was like aside from whatever fetish thing she was into at the time.


Found it. Enjoy that, now.
niobia wrote:
Please refrain from foul language in the OOT jophiel,

I guess you can't say @#%^ here, either.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#151 Mar 10 2010 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,905 posts
Sure you can. That thread was in the OOT.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CDT
Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (50)