Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#252 Mar 09 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:

Here's the part that makes you an idiot. There's nothing stopping any single mother from realizing that she's gay and wanting to marry a female lover.


You're correct. And if the stated case for the TANF benefits is to encourage her to marry so as to reduce the likelihood of her producing yet another child out of wedlock, that reason no longer applies to her, right?

My argument has always been that the benefits for entering into a state marriage is to encourage heterosexual couples who might otherwise produce children outside of a marriage to get married, and thus increase the likelihood that any children they do produce will be produced within a marriage.

This is exactly the stated reason, in the source you provided for marriage benefits for TANF recipients. What more do you need?

Quote:
The same goes for a single father (which although more rare, does exist) who decides he's gay and wants to marry a male lover.


Yes. The state also no longer has any interest in him getting married since the states interest here is to reduce the rate of children born outside of marriage. I got that the first time.

Quote:
The same could even be said for an already gay couple who wishes to adopt a child.


Not a whole lot of TANF recipients are qualifying for adoption.

Quote:
In all three cases, there's no legitimate reason to deny the same benefits to such a couple should they fall on hard times.


No. You're not getting it. The stated reason isn't to reward people who have children for marrying. The stated reason is to reduce the likelihood of someone already on TANF from producing more children out of wedlock by providing benefits for marrying. You quoted and even bolded text that said precisely this. Let me requote it for you:

Quote:
Therefore, in light of this demonstration of the crisis in our Nation, it is the sense of the Congress that prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and reduction in out-of-wedlock birth are very important Government interests and the policy contained in part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (as amended by section 103(a) of this Act) is intended to address the crisis


Note, they said "out of wedlock pregnancy" and "out of wedlock birth". They did not say "we want to reward people who already have children and who marry after the fact". The source very clearly and directly states that the goal is to get people to marry each other so that their future children will be born within a legally defined marriage.

That does not apply to gay couples. Hence, there's no state reason to extend this benefit to gay couples.


Quote:
This does not justify your argument that marriage is only for heterosexual child-bearing couples, nor does it preempt the legitimacy of any homosexual marriage at all.


Stick to the point. I'm not talking about "legitimacy". I'm talking about whether a given couple's relationship should qualify for state issued benefits. And the stated reason for the benefits in this law absolutely preclude granting them to non-child bearing couples.


Quote:
This particular benefit has everything to do with providing for children, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the marriage of two people who love each other, except to say that marriage increases the likelihood that a child will have the benefit of two parents, regardless of the sex of each parent.


Ok. But the whole point of this exercise wasn't to look at *what* the law does, but *why* it was passed. My claim is that the state creates benefits for marriage out of a desire to encourage couples who might otherwise produce children outside of wedlock to get married so that their children are produced inside wedlock. The stated reason for this particular law, as quoted by you, absolutely and perfectly supports my position.




Quote:
Try again.


I'm not surprised, but still somewhat disappointed that even in the face of absolute proof that my position is valid, you're still going to try to spin it away. Again, read the quoted part. It nearly exactly says the same positions I've been saying for years now, and which most posters on this forum have insisted isn't true. Well, there it is. And you can't refute the source because *you* provided it (thanks for that btw).


Just can't admit anything, can you?


Edited, Mar 9th 2012 7:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#253 Mar 09 2012 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Quote:
They did not say "we want to reward people who already have children and who marry after the fact".

But they do reward those people.

Reward. Ha. So damn funny.
#254 Mar 09 2012 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I just realized something, that many of gbaji's paragraphs have two, three or more CRs between them. That's a whole lot of wasted space. Hell, I even make sure I take out the extra line after a quote since it adds a line itself.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#255Almalieque, Posted: Mar 09 2012 at 11:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Exactly. That's why you shouldn't vote for someone you don't support. That single vote makes it that much harder for someone else to win.
#256Almalieque, Posted: Mar 09 2012 at 11:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: dubious
#257 Mar 09 2012 at 11:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
But didn't you just say it was pointless to waste a vote on someone who couldn't win. You do realize that you can actually SUPPORT those people, right? I could do a write in for Senator Gretchen Whitmer, who I might very well like to see as president, and there's no chance in hell that she'd actually get elected.

I still wouldn't see that as a wasted vote. Maybe she wouldn't win, but if enough people were to do write-ins, it would increase the chance of her running in the future.

And even if she doesn't, at least I spent the vote the way I wanted to spend it.

And that's not to say that the only reason I could want to vote was because I actually wanted to see a specific person as president. I don't particularly care for Obama, but I sure as f*ck don't want Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney in office. So I will likely be voting for Obama. Not because he's the candidate I like best, but because he's the best opposition to the candidates I like least.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#258 Mar 10 2012 at 6:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Didn't the Reform Party run in 1992 without any hope of winning, rather just getting enough votes to secure a slot on the next election's ballots or something?



Am I just making shit up? It's a bit foggy now.
#259 Mar 10 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I dunno but the Illinois Green Party got enough votes a couple elections ago to secure a default slot on the state ballots. Which saves considerable time and expense in signature gathering each cycle.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#260 Mar 10 2012 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
13,251 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I dunno but the Illinois Green Party got enough votes a couple elections ago to secure a default slot on the state ballots. Which saves considerable time and expense in signature gathering each cycle.
Rhode Island has the Cool Moose Party.
#261 Mar 11 2012 at 5:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
A bit late, but here goes:
someone on reddit wrote:
Hitchen's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
#262 Mar 11 2012 at 6:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
A bit late, but here goes:
someone on reddit wrote:
Hitchen's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
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
#263 Mar 12 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Quote:
They did not say "we want to reward people who already have children and who marry after the fact".

But they do reward those people.


Well, this is part of TANF, so we're already dealing with a subset of people who've already reproduced. Their stated reason for providing that reward is to encourage people to marry so that they can reduce the number of children born out of wedlock. In the same way you might send someone ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt to a "buckle up for safety" class so as to increase the likelihood he'll wear one in the future. We can't undo the mistakes people have made in the past, but we can encourage them to not repeat them in the future. That's what this part of the law is trying to do.


The larger point is that this is *exactly* the rationale I've given in the past. The state's interest for creating a marriage benefit is clearly for encouraging future procreation to occur within a state recognized and enforced marriage contract. That state interest does not apply to gay couples since gay couples don't procreate. Pretty darn straightforward IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#264 Mar 12 2012 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Without bothering to argue the TANF bit, my comment has always been your suggestion that benefits were exclusively as an incentive to marry. Picking a single example about welfare doesn't provide evidence that any other benefit is for the same purpose, much less that benefits in general are primarily for that purpose.

I realize you were providing an example as asked and don't fault you for it. It's not just evidence of anything as a whole.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#265 Mar 12 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Without bothering to argue the TANF bit, my comment has always been your suggestion that benefits were exclusively as an incentive to marry.


You've inserted the word "exclusively" yourself. My argument has been that the primary reason for the creation of a state issued marriage license and the attendant benefits has always been to encourage couples who might produce children to do so within the bounds of a marriage contract.

Quote:
Picking a single example about welfare doesn't provide evidence that any other benefit is for the same purpose, much less that benefits in general are primarily for that purpose.


I was asked to provide "a primary source" giving this reason for the creation of the benefits. So what now? We have to go through every single one of the several thousand federal benefits for marriage as well? How about someone provide an alternative rationale? I'll point out that no one has yet done this, despite me asking for it numerous times.

Quote:
I realize you were providing an example as asked and don't fault you for it. It's not just evidence of anything as a whole.


It should be sufficient for folks to not just dismiss the rationale I've given out of hand though, right? I mean if one set of benefits is directly created for that reason, it stands to reason that others have as well. While I'll freely admit to having picked that law for non-random reasons, it would seem to me that if someone wanted to argue that this can't be the primary (much less only) reason, that said person could go find some other marriage law and find a similarly worded explanation to provide us with an alternative.

I'll point out (again) that I've met a standard of proof here that no one else has come close to. If you're going to demand a given level of proof for a position, you really ought to provide the same standard to your own, countering, position. Yet, no one seems willing or able to do so. At the very least, can we acknowledge that this is the reason for even "some" of the benefits, and that providing those benefits to a set of people for whom they do not apply is wasteful? Doubly so if there's an easier way to provide the things that gay couples want?

I think so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 Mar 12 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You failed to show it was primarily the reason if you want to use that word instead. And, no, one bit of legislation out of thousands isn't enough to take it seriously.

I personally don't think "some", in this case "one", is reason enough to deny someone their fundamental rights but I suppose you have a far different threshold than I do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 Mar 12 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You failed to show it was primarily the reason if you want to use that word instead.


I have, however, supported my argument that it is the primary reason. I have, at the very least, countered arguments that it can't be the reason because no-one says that's the reason, or no acceptable source lists that as the reason, etc.

Quote:
And, no, one bit of legislation out of thousands isn't enough to take it seriously.


It's called an example Joph. If I say "I think that giraffes have long necks", and someone says I'm wrong and demands that I show him a picture of a giraffe with a long neck, and I do exactly that, isn't a follow up of "well, that's just one picture" basically just petty? It would seem to me that if the other guy wants to counter my claim, then it's up to him to provide a picture of a giraffe that *doesn't* have a long neck, right?

Quote:
I personally don't think "some", in this case "one", is reason enough to deny someone their fundamental rights but I suppose you have a far different threshold than I do.


You're leaping about 5 steps there. I disagree that there are fundamental rights involved at all. We're not denying anyone any rights. We're denying a set of benefits to a group for whom those benefits do not apply and for whom they were not intended when they were created. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take at all. Quite the contrary, it should be the burden of the folks arguing that we should expand some legal status to include a never-before-included group that the benefits and requirements associated with that status make sense to expand to that group as well.


But no one wants to do that, do they? Instead they fall back to rhetoric about denying someone their rights or some other appeal to emotion argument. Look at the actual legal effects uniquely affecting those who are in the legal status of "married". Examine those effects and determine if it makes sense to extend them to a larger group. I don't believe that they do. Even absent the "primary source" demand, a basic logical assessment of most of those benefits supports that position. But if you want to make the argument that gay couples have something about them different than any random pair of roommates which might make it worth the state's while to provide the whole assortment of benefits which go with that legal status, then make that case.


While you keep moving the bar on me, I'm still waiting for you (or anyone) to provide *any* rational argument for inclusion of gay couples into that legal status. And to me a "rational" argument requires an examination of the benefits, the purpose of those benefits, and an argument that justifies why the state has an interest in extending them to gay couples. No one has come close to such an argument though. I'd love to hear it. But I wont hold my breath.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268 Mar 12 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not moving any bar. I'm explaining why your argument is lacking. I'm still not really looking to get into a debate about it since, as I pointed out, we've been around this carousel and I don't expect a different outcome after another fifteen pages. Go read all the previous threads and pretend I said that.

PS Your giraffe example was hysterically poor for at least several different reasons.

Edited, Mar 12th 2012 7:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#269 Mar 12 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not moving any bar.


Of course you are (you collectively in this case, not you specifically). I've made essentially the exact same argument with regards to gay marriage for years now. In the past, the argument against me has primarily been that my argument isn't the one made by others, and that I'm somehow making it up or something. I've been challenged to show that other conservatives hold this same position and use the same argument that I do. So I've provided links to other conservatives making the same arguments and using the same reasoning I do. But when I did that, suddenly the counter shifted to "but those are just opinions off random folks on the interwebs". So now, it's not good enough to show that the argument I use is the same argument used by many other conservatives, but I must show that there's some kind of "official" position regarding gay marriage. So I endeavor to produce links to sources that are less blog and more published paper, or that are from some recognizable conservative organization. And when I do that the counter shifts yet again to providing a "primary source", since apparently a whole bunch of people saying why they think marriage benefits exist isn't sufficient.

Now, we have a primary source that says exactly what I said was the rationale for creating those benefits, and what is the response? That's just one primary source for one specific set of marriage benefits.


That's a textbook example of moving the bar Joph. If I dig out another, you'll say that's just two. If I dig up 5, you'll still say it's not enough. The odds of me *ever* finding a number of acceptable "primary sources" supporting my argument which you (or most of the regular forum posters) will accept is more or less zero. You will find another reason why it's not enough, or once that argument becomes too weak, you'll shift to saying that it doesn't matter because the purpose of marriage in our society has changed, so those old rationales aren't important.

You will keep finding reasons to insist that my argument isn't sufficiently founded, while ignoring the actual argument itself. It's abundantly obvious that no amount of proof I provide will be acceptable to you, so why should I bother? IMO, my argument is sound all on its own. I posit a reason for the creation of the legal status and the benefits it grants that is consistent with the benefits and requirements for that status. That's a valid approach all by itself, and should be given some weight at least, doubly so in the absence of any counter explanation.


And I'm still waiting for someone to produce a counter explanation for those benefits. Why'd we create them? Just felt like it?

Quote:
I'm explaining why your argument is lacking.


Not really. More like you'll keep insisting that it's lacking no matter how much more evidence and support I provide, all the while providing *zero* support for your own position. Again, what's the counter rationale for the creation of the status and the benefits? Do you have one? If you can't produce one, then why so quick to dismiss mine?


Quote:
I'm still not really looking to get into a debate about it ...


That's obvious. You'd have to actually maybe take a position and defend it then. But absence of debate doesn't mean absence of a position on the issue, does it? And you sure as heck make that well known.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#270 Mar 12 2012 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not moving any bar.
Of course you are (you collectively in this case, not you specifically)

Yeah, I'm talking me specifically. If you want to cry about someone else, go cry to them.
Quote:
That's obvious. You'd have to actually maybe take a position and defend it then.

That would sting with the sensation of a thousand nettles if not for the many, many, many previous threads where I've done just that. Nice try though Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Mar 12 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not moving any bar.
Of course you are (you collectively in this case, not you specifically)

Yeah, I'm talking me specifically. If you want to cry about someone else, go cry to them.


/shrug

You're the one who jumped in with the whole "That's not sufficient proof" bit right after I provided someone else with exactly the proof they asked for . If you don't want to take some responsibility for the train of events leading up to that point, then don't jump in like that. I'm absolutely correct to say that you (collectively) are moving the bar, when one person demands a level of proof, I provide it, and then someone else jumps in and insists that's not sufficient and demands yet another level of proof. The effect is to move the bar.

Your claim that "you" aren't moving the bar would be a lot stronger if you had posted that BD's request for proof was insufficient *before* I met it. But you didn't, did you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Mar 12 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Naughty me for not posting the way you want Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#273 Mar 12 2012 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Naughty me for not posting the way you want Smiley: laugh


Not about being naughty, it's about being inconsistent. You hold yourself and your own positions to much much lower standards of proof than you hold mine. Note, I'm still waiting for someone to provide a counter reason for why the state would create benefits for married couples. Still, no one seems to be able to produce one, much less subject their reason to the same level of scrutiny that mine is.


I'm still going to say that failing to provide your own argument makes any criticism of mine pretty darn weak. I at least have one and am willing to defend it. Everyone else wants to jump right past the argument and to the conclusion and resulting course of action. I can only assume this is done because if you don't have an argument, then you don't have to defend it. But if you don't have an argument, then doesn't your conclusion automatically "lose"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#274 Mar 12 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Been done. Read old threads.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#275 Mar 12 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,159 posts
Why are these threads always so focused on what the original intent of the legislation was? It ought to be about the impact and implication of the legislation today. No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.
#276 Mar 12 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Majivo wrote:
No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.
They do when it gives them a reason to argue against something they don't personally like without having to give the real reason they're against it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 297 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (297)