Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say **** BillFollow

#502 May 04 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let's not forget that we are really just arguing over who gets to qualify for benefits and who doesn't.
And we just can't let those gays get health insurance through their jobs for their significant others!


So you agree that it's about benefits?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#503 May 04 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why shouldn't two twelve year old siblings marry Joph?

Lack of (legally available) consent, genetic issues, issues with ability to self-support, social issues, etc. I'm not worried about going too deeply into it because it's off-track and irrelevant to anything aside from making you feel happier. If you want to propose reasons why they should, knock yourself out. If you can't see the difference, I'm not exactly going to be scared of you saying I need to prove it to you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#504 May 04 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you agree that it's about benefits?
If it makes you feel better about being a homophobe.

Edit:
Almalieque wrote:
Self-segregation, nope.
I didn't want you to think you were being ignored, but your first three words had nothing to do with what I said, therefore I'm not bothering with the rest.

Edited, May 4th 2011 9:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#505 May 04 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Yes, marriage discriminates, but not in the way he means. Marriage discriminates against **** people. Marital benefits discriminate against single people. He is saying marriage but is talking about the benefits.


Given that the only thing gained by "legally recognized marriage" is the benefits, I'm unsure why you want to make the distinction. There is nothing at all preventing a **** couple from marrying. Their marriage just wont be legally recognized and wont qualify them for any benefits. Let's not forget that we are really just arguing over who gets to qualify for benefits and who doesn't. Marriage discriminate against **** couples exactly as it discriminates against single people and exactly as it discriminates against polygamists and siblings and every other combination of people that doesn't include one adult male and one adult female.


Gay's are not special in this.


It doesn't discriminate against single people the same as the other groups you mentioned. Single people can get married.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#506 May 04 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
gbaji wrote:
But then isn't that completely arbitrary? We don't allow polygamy because our current laws don't allow it? Why not? Isn't that just arbitrary discrimination?


Yep. We should legalize it.

I imagine insurance companies and some places of business won't like that much, but oh well.
#507 May 04 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why shouldn't two twelve year old siblings marry Joph?

Lack of (legally available) consent, genetic issues, issues with ability to self-support, social issues, etc.


The first is arbitrary. The second involves the assumption of procreation, which is ignored when we're talking about **** couples. The third suggests that we should bar anyone from marrying who isn't able to support themselves. So no one who receives welfare can marry now? And the fourth is arbitrary as well.


So, you really got nothing? How about an adult who want to marry a 12 year old? If he gets the 12 year old's parents consent? How about marrying a 5 year old under the same conditions? Why not, right? Aren't we just being arbitrary here?

You are the one arguing that there are clear differences that any intelligent person could see. But there really aren't. At least not any more significant than the differences involved with same **** marriage. Yet you consistently argue that those are worth overcoming, so why those and not these? And if they are just arbitrary distinctions, then why did you earlier argue that acceptance of one wont constitute a slippery slope for others? Once you change the dynamic of marriage from "Only people in this category may legally marry" to "Everyone except those we choose to discriminate against may legally marry", you automatically open every single case to scrutiny based on that new criteria and give weight to each demanding marriage on the grounds that they shouldn't be discriminated against.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#508 May 04 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
It doesn't discriminate against single people the same as the other groups you mentioned. Single people can get married.


And a **** person can marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm not clear on the distinction here. So if I choose not to marry a woman, I'm not being discriminated against, but if a **** male chooses not to marry a woman, he is? How does that work?

Let's start with the basic fact that everyone who is not married pays more in some way to provide the benefits which married couples get. So *everyone* who doesn't qualify for those benefits is being discriminated against. In the same way everyone who doesn't qualify for medicaid is discriminated against, and everyone who doesn't qualify for food stamps is discriminated against, and everyone who doesn't qualify for social security is discriminated against, and well... everyone who doesn't qualify for any of the thousands of various government funded or mandated benefits out there are.


It's an irrelevant statement. The correct way to view this is to ask "Why do we provide those benefits, and who should we restrict the benefits to?". Don't you agree? When you start viewing everything the government does within the context of discrimination against anyone not included in something, you're going down a nasty rabbit hole IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#509 May 04 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let's start with the basic fact that everyone who is not married pays more in some way to provide the benefits which married couples get. So *everyone* who doesn't qualify for those benefits is being discriminated against. In the same way everyone who doesn't qualify for medicaid is discriminated against, and everyone who doesn't qualify for food stamps is discriminated against, and everyone who doesn't qualify for social security is discriminated against, and well... everyone who doesn't qualify for any of the thousands of various government funded or mandated benefits out there are.
That's not an argument against Same **** Marriage, that's an argument against all marriage.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#510 May 04 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:

And a **** person can marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm not clear on the distinction here. So if I choose not to marry a woman, I'm not being discriminated against, but if a **** male chooses not to marry a woman, he is? How does that work?


Wow...
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#511 May 04 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Annnnnnd... here we go.

/sigh
#512 May 04 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let's start with the basic fact that everyone who is not married pays more in some way to provide the benefits which married couples get. So *everyone* who doesn't qualify for those benefits is being discriminated against. In the same way everyone who doesn't qualify for medicaid is discriminated against, and everyone who doesn't qualify for food stamps is discriminated against, and everyone who doesn't qualify for social security is discriminated against, and well... everyone who doesn't qualify for any of the thousands of various government funded or mandated benefits out there are.
That's not an argument against Same **** Marriage, that's an argument against all marriage.


It's equally an argument against all government funded or mandated benefits. Why limit yourself just to marriage? My point is that if you follow that line of reasoning far enough, then the government should never ever do anything which costs one person more than another and benefits one person more than another. Which is an interesting position to take given that **** marriage is mostly fought for by liberals, who are by far the biggest champions of the same the sort of government discrimination which they would be arguing against.

If discrimination is always wrong, and discrimination includes the government providing benefits to one group but not to another (or costing a group more proportionately to the benefits received), then haven't we just concluded that pretty much the entire Democratic Party platform is wrong? I'm fine with that, of course, but I'm suggesting that if we use a logical argument that we apply it fairly instead of arbitrarily.

And for the record, I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating all government provided marriage benefits if at the same time we eliminate all those other programs. So no more welfare. No more medicaid. No more public education. No funding for planned parenthood, or npr, or pbs, or any of a thousand other organizations which receive funding with a specific mandate to benefits only a set of people in our society. No more affirmative action. Nothing. Heck. We'd eliminate our deficit problem at the same time! Bonus.



Somehow, I suspect that most liberals are more than happy to be inconsistent in the application of their own claimed principles. Because it's not really about principles, or ideals, or any sort of consistency at all. It's about picking groups of people to support and then trading benefits at public expense for those groups in exchange for votes. It always has been. They pretend it's about principles in order to sucker young ignorant people into thinking that the causes they're told to support are really worthwhile. But when you look closely, you find they really are just about supporting the groups that can support them back politically. Hence; unions, womens rights, **** rights, minorities, environmentalists. The list just goes on. Each of which is a group which can be organized into a voting block. If the Democrats could find a way to shoehorn teaching creationism in school with their existing set of supporters, they'd be championing that right now too. And they'd argue that it was a violation of civil rights not to teach it. And most of the liberals out there would buy it, pick up their signs, and march in support of it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#513 May 04 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
gbaji wrote:

And a **** person can marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm not clear on the distinction here. So if I choose not to marry a woman, I'm not being discriminated against, but if a **** male chooses not to marry a woman, he is? How does that work?


Wow...


It's funny how often I get this sort of assumed non-answer to questions like that. Don't just knee-jerk respond. Actually think about it and answer the question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#514 May 04 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's equally an argument against all government funded or mandated benefits.
And if the argument was about all government funded/mandated benefits, you might have a point, but as it stands you still have no argument against just Same **** Marriage.

You might as well say you're against SSM because of the ecological impact dairy farms used in the wedding cake have.

Edited, May 4th 2011 10:01pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#515 May 04 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here.


And same **** marriage doesn't? I'm not picking on you, it's just that what you wrote is almost exactly my argument about **** marriage. There's nothing preventing you from entering into a **** relationship, but you just can't be legally married. Found it funny is all.
Gay marriage is still between two people.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#516 May 04 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's equally an argument against all government funded or mandated benefits.
And if the argument was about all government funded/mandated benefits, you might have a point, but as it stands you still have no argument against just Same **** Marriage.


Huh? The argument being used *for* same **** marriage on the grounds of discrimination applies equally well to all those other government programs. So by making one, you are making the other. Or at least you should, if you are honest about your reasons for insisting that marriage benefits be extended to same **** couples.


My point is that people make these arguments for what they want, but their arguments apply equally well for things they don't want. Thus, it's not really about the argument they are making but about "We want it this way because this is the way we want it". I'm just trying to get some of the people on this forum to realize this. This is not about consistent application of some ideology or principles with regard to discrimination within a society. It's a cherry picked issue chosen because there is political advantage to making it an issue and most people wont realize that they're being used.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#517 May 04 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here.


And same **** marriage doesn't? I'm not picking on you, it's just that what you wrote is almost exactly my argument about **** marriage. There's nothing preventing you from entering into a **** relationship, but you just can't be legally married. Found it funny is all.
Gay marriage is still between two people.


And? Aside from arbitrarily deciding that marriage must be restricted to two people, why does that matter? And is that restriction any more or less arbitrary than restricting it to couples of opposite sex? Why strongly hold a position on one, but not on the other as well?

I'm trying to get some of you to realize that you care so much about these issues only because those are the issues you've been told to care so much about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#518 May 04 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Aren't we just arbitrarily deciding what we like and we don't like here?

You can say that about the current state of affairs. Two twelve year old siblings can certainly fuck and make more children so let's let them marry, right?

I guess smarter people see the difference.


How about instead of talking about how easy it is to tell the difference (amusingly, this is the second time someone's used that form of counter), you actually state what the difference is?

Why shouldn't two twelve year old siblings marry Joph?
Because they're not developed enough mentally to allow into that sort of responsibility. Not to say that 12 year olds are stupid (although most are), they're just kids. There's a lot of mental development that goes on after 18 as well, mind you.

No idea why you're trying to make a big point about this, it really isn't that hard to see the differences here.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#519 May 04 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
gbaji wrote:

And a **** person can marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm not clear on the distinction here. So if I choose not to marry a woman, I'm not being discriminated against, but if a **** male chooses not to marry a woman, he is? How does that work?


Wow...


It's funny how often I get this sort of assumed non-answer to questions like that. Don't just knee-jerk respond. Actually think about it and answer the question.


Yeah, you'll get those types of responses when you say things that idiotic. Of all of the arguments against SSM, that was truly the dumbest I've ever heard. Why don't you think about it and come back with something that merits an actual response.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#520 May 04 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm trying to get some of you to realize that you care so much about these issues only because those are the issues you've been told to care so much about.

Remember when I told you that it's a fallacy to assume that all of your opponents only hold their views because of indoctrination or some other form of adverse influence? You're doing it again.
#521 May 04 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
gbaji wrote:

It's funny how often I get this sort of assumed non-answer to questions like that. Don't just knee-jerk respond. Actually think about it and answer the question.


Yeah, you'll get those types of responses when you say things that idiotic. Of all of the arguments against SSM, that was truly the dumbest I've ever heard. Why don't you think about it and come back with something that merits an actual response.


That's still not answering the question, is it? Just declaring it to be dumb is a cop out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#522 May 04 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
gbaji wrote:

And a **** person can marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm not clear on the distinction here. So if I choose not to marry a woman, I'm not being discriminated against, but if a **** male chooses not to marry a woman, he is? How does that work?


Wow...


It's funny how often I get this sort of assumed non-answer to questions like that. Don't just knee-jerk respond. Actually think about it and answer the question.


Yeah, you'll get those types of responses when you say things that idiotic. Of all of the arguments against SSM, that was truly the dumbest I've ever heard. Why don't you think about it and come back with something that merits an actual response.


Here's the kicker: it's actually Alma's old argument. That really oughta be a sign to gbaji that there's a lot wrong, but well, y'know.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#523 May 04 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's a cherry picked issue chosen because there is political advantage to making it an issue and most people wont realize that they're being used.
So what is the political advantage of you dodging the question of why Same **** Marriage shouldn't be treated the same as regular marriage? You've got the cherry picking part down, but you've yet to actually address the question.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#524 May 04 2011 at 8:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why shouldn't two twelve year old siblings marry Joph?
Because they're not developed enough mentally to allow into that sort of responsibility.


So now there's a mental development test for marriage? Why?

Quote:
No idea why you're trying to make a big point about this, it really isn't that hard to see the differences here.


Because it's not about the specifics. It's about the generalities. Why do we make one distinction, but not another? On what basis do we decide to reward people for entering into a state of marriage? Why do we do it in the first place? Why do we care? Most people seem to want to focus on who we're discriminating against and then try to justify discrimination against one group but not another. I happen to think that's the wrong approach. I think we should instead look at why we're including a group, and not why we're excluding a whole set of groups.

Why? Because if you do it your way, you then have to justify every single group you're excluding. If you do it the way I suggest, you only have to justify why you're including the one group. But of course, if we did it that way, then the argument for same **** marriage would evaporate, so the left chooses to do it the other way around. I'm just showing why that's the wrong approach since it allows for the same arguments to work for nearly every group. And at that point, it just becomes a matter of which groups we choose to argue in favor for.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#525 May 04 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Here's the kicker: it's actually Alma's old argument. That really oughta be a sign to gbaji that there's a lot wrong, but well, y'know.


And yet another non-answer dismissal. If it's so obviously wrong, you'd think someone could actually write a response to it rather than just talk about how wrong it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#526 May 04 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Here's the kicker: it's actually Alma's old argument. That really oughta be a sign to gbaji that there's a lot wrong, but well, y'know.


And yet another non-answer dismissal. If it's so obviously wrong, you'd think someone could actually write a response to it rather than just talk about how wrong it is.


It's because nobody gives a **** what kind of gbaji "gotcha!!!" you have planned. You get twice as boring when you start double posting in a thread because you have oh-so-many in your army of strawmen.
#527 May 04 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's a cherry picked issue chosen because there is political advantage to making it an issue and most people wont realize that they're being used.
So what is the political advantage of you dodging the question of why Same **** Marriage shouldn't be treated the same as regular marriage?


There's no political advantage at all. There is a principle at stake though. The principle is that if you create a set of benefits designed to encourage specific behavior among a specific group of people, it kinda makes sense to limit the benefits to the specific group and the specific behavior you want to encourage. Now, to be fair, if I were a hard core libertarian (which I'm not), I'd argue we shouldn't be doing this at all. But the fact is that we do this all the time. And, in fact, the left does this far far more than the right.

For example: Let's say that we see that there is a disproportionate percentage of poor people attending college. We might decide to create a program designed to encourage more poor kids to go to college, right? This might include scholarships, extra funding for college track classes at high schools with predominantly poor students, etc. Details aren't important, the point is that we create this program with a specific result for a specific group in mind. One might argue that it would be wrong to insist that since this is discrimination (which it most definitely is), that we can't exclude rich kids from receiving the same benefits. Yet that would defeat the purpose of the program.


Same principle involved. Our existing marriage status, including all of the government benefits attached to said status, was created with a specific group in mind: Opposite **** couples. Regardless of whether you agree on why the benefits exist, or what we're trying to encourage them to do (we've had this debate before and I don't want to rehash it), that was the group targeted when those benefits were created. There was some reason for doing so. So simply insisting that we should extend those benefits to another group, which was not considered at the time the benefits were created violates that principle. It violates it for exactly the reason that I've been talking about. If that's sufficient reason for expanding it, then the same argument applies for every single government program which exists, but which currently limits the recipients of the benefits of said programs.



You want to argue that this is about SSM, but it's not. If you were arguing that the Dodgers should win the pennant because they have the strongest pitching squad, you aren't really making an argument about the Dodgers, but about the relationship between strong pitching and winning pennants. If you insisted that the same argument can only be applied when we're talking about the Dodgers, then the rest of us can conclude that your argument is really irrelevant. You're just a Dodgers fan.

Similarly, if you are unwilling to extend the argument being made beyond just same **** marriage, then we can conclude that your argument is actually irrelevant. You are just a fan of same **** marriage. And just like a sports fan, that choice is purely arbitrary.

Edited, May 4th 2011 8:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#528 May 04 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Guenny wrote:
It's because nobody gives a sh*t what kind of gbaji "gotcha!!!" you have planned. You get twice as boring when you start double posting in a thread because you have oh-so-many in your army of strawmen.


There's no gotcha planned. I'd just honestly prefer someone answer the question instead of just dismissing it. When they refuse to do so, it makes me suspect that they don't have a good answer at all, but don't want to admit it.

For the record, I've always agreed that the argument that "Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex, so it's not discrimination" is bogus. However, I also think that the argument should apply equally to straight people. Shouldn't it? I mean, if it's wrong for us to punish a **** male for not wanting to marry a women, why is it ok to punish a single straight male for making the same choice? I'll point out that my answer to both is: It's not. The difference is that I look at marriage in terms of who we're targeting for a benefit and why, while the rest of you are looking at it in terms of who we're discriminating against by not providing said benefit. So I don't have a problem with the fact that only couples consisting of one male and one female qualify for marriage benefits.

Edited, May 4th 2011 8:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#529 May 04 2011 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
It's because nobody gives a sh*t what kind of gbaji "gotcha!!!" you have planned. You get twice as boring when you start double posting in a thread because you have oh-so-many in your army of strawmen.


There's no gotcha planned. I'd just honestly prefer someone answer the question instead of just dismissing it. When they refuse to do so, it makes me suspect that they don't have a good answer at all, but don't want to admit it.


Or maybe nobody gives a f*ck, and the people you are arguing with don't want to make the exact same point-counterpoint **** debate that you seem so fond of having.
#530 May 04 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
For example: Let's say that we see that there is a disproportionate percentage of poor people attending college
Better example: A certain group of people, who's sexual preference is opposite of the norm. That is the only difference. These people fall in love and wish to be treated just like everyone else. Now, how about a reason why we don't do this. Why is this specific group not allowed to be treated the same?

By the way: Voting was created for the benefit of only one type of person, white men. We ended up changing that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#531 May 04 2011 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example: Let's say that we see that there is a disproportionate percentage of poor people attending college
Better example: A certain group of people, who's sexual preference is opposite of the norm. That is the only difference. These people fall in love and wish to be treated just like everyone else. Now, how about a reason why we don't do this. Why is this specific group not allowed to be treated the same?

By the way: Voting was created for the benefit of only one type of person, white men. We ended up changing that.


Spoiler alert: Gays only wanna get married for tax benefits, but if not, and if it's the principal of the matter, well, they can just have a symbolic ceremony and it's the same thing.
#532 May 04 2011 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
And why shouldn't they get those benefits?

Edited, May 4th 2011 11:26pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#533 May 04 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The first is arbitrary. The second involves the assumption of procreation, which is ignored when we're talking about **** couples. The third suggests that we should bar anyone from marrying who isn't able to support themselves. So no one who receives welfare can marry now? And the fourth is arbitrary as well.

You... don't actually know what "arbitrary" means, do you?

gbaji wrote:
You are the one arguing that there are clear differences that any intelligent person could see. But there really aren't.

Yeah, this one writes itself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#534 May 04 2011 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
And why shouldn't the get those benefits?


Tax exemption is to encourage reproduction. If **** couples aren't producing crotch spawns, well, they are just as productive as a couple as a single man is.
#535 May 04 2011 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why shouldn't two twelve year old siblings marry Joph?
Because they're not developed enough mentally to allow into that sort of responsibility.


So now there's a mental development test for marriage? Why?


Should we allow 12 years olds to drive? Work? Vote? Why stop at 12? Let's let infants have at it too!
#536 May 04 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rather than get drawn into another long debate about SSM where Gbaji repeatedly shows that he doesn't understand... anything?... let me link everyone to one of the more recent such debates (start at the end of page 3).

If anyone has anything NEW to say, let me know.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#537 May 04 2011 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
In during "What Joph said".
#538 May 04 2011 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Guenny wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example: Let's say that we see that there is a disproportionate percentage of poor people attending college
Better example: A certain group of people, who's sexual preference is opposite of the norm. That is the only difference. These people fall in love and wish to be treated just like everyone else. Now, how about a reason why we don't do this. Why is this specific group not allowed to be treated the same?

By the way: Voting was created for the benefit of only one type of person, white men. We ended up changing that.


Spoiler alert: Gays only wanna get married for tax benefits, but if not, and if it's the principal of the matter, well, they can just have a symbolic ceremony and it's the same thing.
Leaving aside the tax benefits. Do commitment ceremonies grant other spousal privileges? You know like not having to testify against your spouse in court?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I don't know much about your medical "system"), but aren't spouses covered by one another's medical insurance?

Plus there's the whole legal side to it. Spouses have other rights to property and such like that life partners just don't.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#539 May 04 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Guenny wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example: Let's say that we see that there is a disproportionate percentage of poor people attending college
Better example: A certain group of people, who's sexual preference is opposite of the norm. That is the only difference. These people fall in love and wish to be treated just like everyone else. Now, how about a reason why we don't do this. Why is this specific group not allowed to be treated the same?

By the way: Voting was created for the benefit of only one type of person, white men. We ended up changing that.


Spoiler alert: Gays only wanna get married for tax benefits, but if not, and if it's the principal of the matter, well, they can just have a symbolic ceremony and it's the same thing.
Leaving aside the tax benefits. Do commitment ceremonies grant other spousal privileges? You know like not having to testify against your spouse in court?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I don't know much about your medical "system"), but aren't spouses covered by one another's medical insurance?

Plus there's the whole legal side to it. Spouses have other rights to property and such like that life partners just don't.


Gbaji says that anyone can pay a lawyer to draw up said legal documents.
#540 May 04 2011 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Guenny wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Guenny wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example: Let's say that we see that there is a disproportionate percentage of poor people attending college
Better example: A certain group of people, who's sexual preference is opposite of the norm. That is the only difference. These people fall in love and wish to be treated just like everyone else. Now, how about a reason why we don't do this. Why is this specific group not allowed to be treated the same?

By the way: Voting was created for the benefit of only one type of person, white men. We ended up changing that.


Spoiler alert: Gays only wanna get married for tax benefits, but if not, and if it's the principal of the matter, well, they can just have a symbolic ceremony and it's the same thing.
Leaving aside the tax benefits. Do commitment ceremonies grant other spousal privileges? You know like not having to testify against your spouse in court?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I don't know much about your medical "system"), but aren't spouses covered by one another's medical insurance?

Plus there's the whole legal side to it. Spouses have other rights to property and such like that life partners just don't.


Gbaji says that anyone can pay a lawyer to draw up said legal documents.
Well then what dem gays complaining about, amirite? Instead of one neat little document that labels you as someone's spouse, you get to have and **** load of them. Yaaaay.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#541 May 04 2011 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Seriously: Read previous thread.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#542 May 04 2011 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Maybe in the morning...Well, later in the morning.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#543 May 04 2011 at 9:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example: Let's say that we see that there is a disproportionate percentage of poor people attending college
Better example: A certain group of people, who's sexual preference is opposite of the norm. That is the only difference.


So you're saying that homosexuality is abnormal? Sorry. Couldn't help myself there.

You're still looking at it from the point of view of differences and discrimination. Think the other way around. Why create marriage benefits, and who should we target them towards?

Quote:
These people fall in love and wish to be treated just like everyone else. Now, how about a reason why we don't do this. Why is this specific group not allowed to be treated the same?


Stop thinking in terms of why we *don't* provide something for a group and think instead about why we *do*. As I've said repeatedly so far, if you argue it the way you're arguing, then there is no end to the number of groups you can ask "why don't they get this?" about. And in each case you can say that the only difference is this, or that, or some other thing. It's a bad rationale.


Start with why we *should* reward **** couples who marry. Make a case for why I, as a single taxpaying homeowner should pay more taxes, more for health insurance, more for my pension, and more for my home loan so that a **** couple can pay less for those things (relative to their respective benefits of course). I can tell you right now why I should do this for heterosexual couples. But can you give me a reason why it's so important to me for that **** couple to get access to those benefits at my expense?

Quote:
By the way: Voting was created for the benefit of only one type of person, white men. We ended up changing that.


Completely different argument. You're now making the broad "all discrimination is wrong" claim. But that's clearly not true. Our government discriminates all the time. The question isn't whether it does when handing out some benefit (because they all do if we choose to look at it from that direction), but whether the group it's targeting for the benefit is appropriate for the purpose of the benefit itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#544 May 04 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why shouldn't two twelve year old siblings marry Joph?
Because they're not developed enough mentally to allow into that sort of responsibility.
So now there's a mental development test for marriage? Why?
Oh wow, you can't be serious. I suppose you don't think there should be an age of consent either? lol
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#545 May 04 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Leaving aside the tax benefits. Do commitment ceremonies grant other spousal privileges? You know like not having to testify against your spouse in court?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I don't know much about your medical "system"), but aren't spouses covered by one another's medical insurance?

Plus there's the whole legal side to it. Spouses have other rights to property and such like that life partners just don't.


There are a handful of actual government provided or mandated benefits which a "legal marriage" grants. Most of the rest of what we think of as marriage benefits are the result of the contract the two parties enter into. Honestly though, I've argued this part of the issue dozens of times, and don't feel a need to rehash it. In this thread, I'm not trying to be that specific or detailed (although I'm sure some of you will insist on dragging me into such detail anyway). I'm just trying to get people to change their viewpoint from "why not?" to "why?", and to understand why one of those approaches is a sane way to decide what government should do, and the other isn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#546gbaji, Posted: May 04 2011 at 10:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um. No. I'm not serious. I'm playing devils advocate to show how absurd the argument for SSM based on "but it's discrimination!!!" is. We can make the same argument for an infinite number of other cases and groups. Gee. I thought I made that pretty clear about 20 posts ago.
#547 May 04 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Leaving aside the tax benefits. Do commitment ceremonies grant other spousal privileges? You know like not having to testify against your spouse in court?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I don't know much about your medical "system"), but aren't spouses covered by one another's medical insurance?

Plus there's the whole legal side to it. Spouses have other rights to property and such like that life partners just don't.


There are a handful of actual government provided or mandated benefits which a "legal marriage" grants. Most of the rest of what we think of as marriage benefits are the result of the contract the two parties enter into. Honestly though, I've argued this part of the issue dozens of times, and don't feel a need to rehash it. In this thread, I'm not trying to be that specific or detailed (although I'm sure some of you will insist on dragging me into such detail anyway). I'm just trying to get people to change their viewpoint from "why not?" to "why?", and to understand why one of those approaches is a sane way to decide what government should do, and the other isn't.
And of course glossing over the tens of thousands of dollars only one of those two contracts costs.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#548 May 04 2011 at 10:11 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Leaving aside the tax benefits. Do commitment ceremonies grant other spousal privileges? You know like not having to testify against your spouse in court?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I don't know much about your medical "system"), but aren't spouses covered by one another's medical insurance?

Plus there's the whole legal side to it. Spouses have other rights to property and such like that life partners just don't.


There are a handful of actual government provided or mandated benefits which a "legal marriage" grants. Most of the rest of what we think of as marriage benefits are the result of the contract the two parties enter into. Honestly though, I've argued this part of the issue dozens of times, and don't feel a need to rehash it. In this thread, I'm not trying to be that specific or detailed (although I'm sure some of you will insist on dragging me into such detail anyway). I'm just trying to get people to change their viewpoint from "why not?" to "why?", and to understand why one of those approaches is a sane way to decide what government should do, and the other isn't.
A Shaq handful or an Ewok handful?
____________________________
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.
#549 May 04 2011 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Leaving aside the tax benefits. Do commitment ceremonies grant other spousal privileges? You know like not having to testify against your spouse in court?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I don't know much about your medical "system"), but aren't spouses covered by one another's medical insurance?

Plus there's the whole legal side to it. Spouses have other rights to property and such like that life partners just don't.


There are a handful of actual government provided or mandated benefits which a "legal marriage" grants. Most of the rest of what we think of as marriage benefits are the result of the contract the two parties enter into. Honestly though, I've argued this part of the issue dozens of times, and don't feel a need to rehash it. In this thread, I'm not trying to be that specific or detailed (although I'm sure some of you will insist on dragging me into such detail anyway). I'm just trying to get people to change their viewpoint from "why not?" to "why?", and to understand why one of those approaches is a sane way to decide what government should do, and the other isn't.
And of course glossing over the tens of thousands of dollars only one of those two contracts costs.


gbaji wrote:
Fuck you, I got mine.
____________________________
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.
#550 May 04 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm playing devils advocate to show how absurd the argument for SSM based on "but it's discrimination!!!" is.

It is discrimination. The courts have made it clear that you have a fundamental right to marry unless there's some overwhelming reason to not allow it. We discriminate against various types of couplings because we feel there is a great enough social concern to warrant doing so. The proponent argument for SSM is that there isn't a great enough social concern to warrant the discrimination and denial of this fundamental right.

That's where you start misusing the word "arbitrary" and trying to draw a comparison between twelve-year-old siblings and homosexual couples, apparently being unable to understand that the arguments for denying one group their fundamental right aren't the same reasons for denying another group their fundamental right (even if both denials were completely justified).

Edited, May 4th 2011 11:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#551gbaji, Posted: May 04 2011 at 10:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The first one costs tens of thousands of dollars. The rest cost the amount of a photocopy. How many millions have been spent on this issue? If it was just about the cost to enter into a marriage contract, they could have paid some lawyers to write up some boilerplate contracts and distributed them to every **** couple (or any two people for that matter) who wanted them and pocketed the several hundred million dollar difference.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CDT
paulsol, Anonymous Guests (27)