I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

But it is much more fun for everyone else if you do! You worm the best lines out of him.

That missing key point being I'm not going to waste time on a circular argument with you tonight. So take it however you want.

If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Some might say he's guilty of love in the first degree.

So, when people made this argument 50 years ago about interracial marriage, that was cool. Right?

I mean, because you do understand it's exactly the same non-argument, right? Oh, no, of course you don't!

What, explicitly can a heterosexual couple do which a homosexual couple can not? I can't think of a single thing which would justify your position. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to say "procreate".

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 8:10pm by Nilatai

I thought he was being attacked because of his hypocrisy.

Excellent, you said procreate. Do you support those same tax benefits that married people get going to single parents?

What about those people who marry, but don't/can't have children? What about heterosexual couples that adopt instead? Should they get the tax benefits?



Sorry but you don't allow anything. If you think you do, go ahead and try not paying all of your taxes. See how that works out for you. When they ask you why, say it's because you don't agree with the government's social programmes.

I bet you whatever you like it doesn't fly, and the government take those taxes regardless.

We've already established pretty thoroughly that most if not all of the "benefits" are not related in any way to children.

The problem is that Gbaji has decided that for some reason children are his personal justification for having any benefits, regardless of why they actually were implemented, and that anything else just doesn't count. You can see it in this thread where he stated it right out, they are his reasons for not opposing them. The problem is that his contrived structure doesn't actually reflect the reasons for any of them, so they are pretty much useless. He won't engage though, because having constructed something he finds comforting, he won't leave it. /shrug.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 7:36pm by Xsarus

Interesting case indeed, but not the one I am making. Simply being republican is not the hypocrisy. I have friends who are gay republicans - one works on the hill for a republican representative. But my friend never sat by quietly eating up the support of anti-gay agenda politicians. Babeu is a hypocrite because he sat there saying nothing while being supported by people that openly spoke the opposite of what he believed. Now that he is outed? Oh, look, he is for marriage equality. He supported the repeal of DADT. Huh, now why didn't he say that before, I wonder?



Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 9:24pm by Dozer

If they marry, sure. There's more than one criteria here.



Really? Do I actually have to give the exact same answers I've given before (to you at least once that I can recall)? Why pretend that you've forgotten the answers? I haven't changed my position, nor my reasoning for it. Sigh...

The objective isn't to reward people for having children. People will do that all on their own without us providing an incentive. The objective is to reward the set of couples who might produce children together for marrying (preferably *before* having children). That way, if/when they do produce children it'll be while bound to a marriage contract and in an environment most likely to result in those children being contributing members of society rather than burdens on it. Obviously, not every couple consisting of a man and a woman will produce children together. However, we can say with certainty that every couple not consisting of a man and a woman will *never* produce children together. Not as a natural consequence of being a couple.

You did learn how babies were made, right? No amount of two people of the same sex bumping uglies will result in pregnancy. Ergo, there is no reason to create an incentive for same sex couples to get married. They're free to do so on their own if they wish, but the state has no interest in the matter at all.




Um... I was responding to a hypothetical which asked why I don't oppose providing those benefits for heterosexual couples. The whole train of thought assumes that my support or opposition has some meaning. I'm ok with my tax dollars being used to subsidize marriage benefits for opposite sex couples. I'm not ok with extending those benefits (and the cost) to same sex couples.

I was asked the question. I answered. And your response is to say that my opinion doesn't matter anyway? That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it?


How about you answer my question? I've asked it twice now. Why I should be ok with paying more taxes to extend those benefits to gay couples? Do you have an answer for this?

I like how he didn't even reference my post proving, from the text of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, that he was wrong concerning what the court was specifically objecting to with reference to separate but equal.

I'm a little disappointed, to tell the truth. I was curious to see where his 180 would take him.