Gbaji's argument would be that the vast majority of babies are the result of boy-girl humping and so our marriage laws and benefits are based around the assumption of boy-girl humping potentially producing babies. While some non-baby-makin' boy-girl couples might be caught in the net, the system does an adequate job of catching most potential baby-makers and the inclusion of some layabouts is the price you pay for efficiency. It wouldn't be worth the trouble or expense to test for fertility, etc.
Conversely, boy-boy and girl-girl humping doesn't typically produce babies. While some edge cases may acquire children via some other means (IVF, adoption, gypsy web stores, etc) the value of including them is negated by the wasted money in allowing all the non-baby-producing couples into the mix.
There are, of course, many problems with this argument but the argument itself isn't especially complicated or hard to understand. For one, it's predicated on the assumption that (A) marriage is primarily about raising children and (B) government benefits are provided to encourage marriage. Neither of these are correct so the argument has no foundation from the start. The other issues is, obviously, the humanitarian issue of deciding which children are worthy of being in families with this state support and, if it is about children, how a just society could say "Sorry kid, you were adopted by a gay couple so your family doesn't deserve the support that you'd get if they were heterosexual". Frankly, I think that mindset is pretty reprehensible even allowing for the fact that marriage/benefits aren't primarily related to children but it's completely bonkers if you say they are.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Texas Gay Marriage Ban UnconstitutionalFollow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
There are, of course, many problems with this argument but the argument itself isn't especially complicated or hard to understand.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
There are, of course, many problems with this argument but the argument itself isn't especially complicated or hard to understand.
Who has the eye?!
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
People who are supporting children get a child tax credit.
Does it really have to be more involved than that?
Does it really have to be more involved than that?
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
It is if you erroneously attribute all the other marriage benefits to child rearing.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
*sigh*
The world is a complicated place.
The world is a complicated place.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Scamming the system is a-okay so long as your sex doesn't make old white dudes squirm.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Smasharoo wrote:
Most argue vehemently that the most important difference between those stuck in poverty and those who succeed is the opportunity for home ownership.
False. What a crazy bullsh*t idea. "If only we could get these catastrophically poor people into a loan for an overvalued home that they can't afford, THEN we might get some where."
False. What a crazy bullsh*t idea. "If only we could get these catastrophically poor people into a loan for an overvalued home that they can't afford, THEN we might get some where."
Massive excluded middle there Smash. We're talking about people for whom the existence of a tax deduction for the money spent on buying a home may be the difference between being able to afford a home and not. So by definition, not the "catastrophically poor".
Quote:
No one has thought this, ever.
Correct. Not even me. Which is why it's a strawman for you to bring it up.
Quote:
Now some have gone too far with this and caused the whole housing bubble, but the basic idea is true.
The housing bubble HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES. NOTHING
Let it sink it. It's a ludicrous "blame the poor people" fallacy that's never been even vaguely close to true. 93% of housing defaults tied to toxic mortgage securities were from homes that were not the owners primary residence.
The housing bubble HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES. NOTHING
Let it sink it. It's a ludicrous "blame the poor people" fallacy that's never been even vaguely close to true. 93% of housing defaults tied to toxic mortgage securities were from homes that were not the owners primary residence.
Again, nice job arguing against something I didn't say. What percentage of all housing defaults were primary residents is irrelevant to what led to the conditions which caused those defaults to occur. The loosening of lending requirements was directly the result of a desire for the government to help lower income people buy homes. You're looking at who took the most advantage of the loose rules. I'm looking at why the rules were so loose in the first place.
Quote:
If it's at all possible for someone to spend their housing dollars on buying a home rather than renting, that person's fortunes and the fortunes of his children and grandchildren will be affected for the better.
Nope.
Nope.
Huh? How do you figure? I mean, we can argue about the causes of the housing bubble, because there's at least some wiggle room to argue over. But the positive benefits of spending money buying your own home rather than renting from someone else is pretty much not debated. Is it? At the very least, if you're going to claim it's not, maybe more than a "nope" response is justified.
Quote:
The reason I'm so "blatant" about my opinion is that it's based on data, not a wild guess and what I saw on "Meet The Press" twenty years ago and sort of vaguely remember.
And yet, you don't seem willing to present a single shred of data or logic to support your opinion. Strange, isn't it? ;)
Quote:
The Home Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction is pointless and basically a gift to the upper middle class. It should be eliminated and the dependent deduction increased for people below certain income thresholds.
That kinda depends on what your vision of society is. If you want a society where people are encouraged to improve their lives and the lives of their children via their own accomplishments, then the deduction is a good thing. However, if you want a society full of working class wage slaves living in apartments and dependent on government assistance, then it's a bad thing. So, it's not surprising that you'd want it eliminated. Can't have the government actually make it easier for people to become successful, can we! Why, if we allow that, people might actually become successful, and then they won't vote for big government social programs anymore! The horror!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Strange, isn't 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.
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
I've already answered this, several times. It's a good argument for further restricting marriage requirements, but a crappy one for expanding them. So you're basically saying that since marriage restrictions aren't perfect now, we should just make them less perfect? How does that make any sense?
Oh. And BTW, the domestic partnership status which we had here in California *also* applied to elderly couples. So it's not like this idea isn't known already. The problem is that there isn't a great solution. Unless we have a perfect means to determine if any given couple can or can't procreate together, we have to err on the side of "as large a set as necessary". The basic sexual makeup of the couple is a good starting point though. We know that 0% of all couples which consist of two people of the same sex will produce children as a result of their sexual activities. Things get progressively less certain as we attempt to narrow it down further.
Edited, Mar 13th 2014 6:51pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I've already answered this, several times.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
someproteinguy wrote:
People who are supporting children get a child tax credit.
Does it really have to be more involved than that?
Does it really have to be more involved than that?
Already answered this. Tax credits for merely supporting a child provides the wrong incentive. If you accept the premise that the state (all of society really) has an interest in the marital status of people who produce children and desires to have more children produced by married couples than single moms, then handing out cash for raising a child is counter productive.
I suppose this is the big difference between liberal versus conservative approaches to social policy. Liberals look for people who need help and provide it to them, thus treating the symptom of the problem. Conservatives prefer to try to create systems in which people are less likely to end out in a state where they need help in the first place, thus actually treating the problem itself. More married heterosexual couples means fewer children born to single mothers, and thus less need for social programs to help single mothers raise their children. That's the idea here.
Both approaches would work together just fine except that the act of providing help to people often also acts as an incentive for the very behavior that results in the condition of needing the help. I suppose if you buy the idea that people are helpless to affect their own outcomes, then you will reject that and label any opposition to helping them as hateful. But, if you do believe that people have the power to affect their own outcomes, then you find anything which makes their ability to make good choices harder "bad". It's something that's hard to explain to people when they're calling you a hater though, but that is honestly why we conservatives oppose this approach to social policy. It's not that we want poor people to suffer, but we believe that the "help" is only increasing the number of people in need.
Bit of a tangent, but I feel that explaining *why* we hold these positions is kinda important. It's the same thing with the mortgage interest deduction versus just handing more deductions to people who are poor. If we believe that owning a home is a good thing for people to strive for, then providing additional incentive/assistance increases the number of people who will make that choice. By taking it away and just handing it to people based on their income, you basically reward people for lack of success. Which seems silly. Again though, it all hinges on whether you think of such things as incentives for behavior we like or just benefits for those in need. I think that conservatives tend to lean more towards the former, and liberals more the latter.
Edited, Mar 13th 2014 6:50pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Bit of a tangent, but I feel that explaining *why* we hold these positions is kinda important.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bit of a tangent, but I feel that explaining *why* we hold these positions is kinda important.
I'd buy that if it wasn't for the fact that every single time I take a position on a whole set of issues, I'm bombarded with responses which assume that my reasons for doing so are completely different than they really are. So there's that.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I'd buy that if it wasn't for the fact that every single time I take a position on a whole set of issues, I'm bombarded with responses which assume that my reasons for doing so are completely different than they really are. So there's 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.
gbaji wrote:
Conservatives prefer to try to create systems in which people are less likely to end out in a state where they need help in the first place, thus actually treating the problem itself.
Were this to be true, wages would be higher and profits and very high salaries would be lower, thus improving society.
Your trousers are smouldering, gbaji.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
So you're basically saying that since marriage restrictions aren't perfect now, we should just make them less perfect? How does that make any sense?
What does this even mean? What I mean is that each ruling since Windsor has in some capacity pointed out that the only reason that laws barring marriage equality exist are because conservatives hate gays. These laws deny partnership benefits granted under marriage and make domestic partnerships separate and less equal. The laws go waaaaaaay above and beyond protecting the "institution of traditional marriage" by banning civil unions and any legally recognized contracts that are similar to a marriage.
Now why would they do that? Why gbaji? The result of these laws is simple. It doesn't only deny the apparent cash grab you expect from gay couples filing for dem govmint benefits (still waiting for the stampede you are apparently expecting), but they make these partnerships between same sex couples one major life event away from complete devastation for the surviving spouse/families life, in the event that something were to happen to one of the partners.
Here's a few examples for you:
Surviving same sex partners are not allowed to bring wrongful death suits on behalf of their deceased partner because their relationship is not legally recognized.
Cannot seek spousal maintenance if they divorce because their relationship is not legally recognized.
Do not have the right to make burial arrangements for their spouse because their relationship is not legally recognized.
Cannot solicit a court for equitable division of community property, including for pension or retirement plans because their relationship is not legally recognized.
Do not enjoy the zone of privacy privileges that heterosexual married couples enjoy in evidentiary proceedings because their relationship is not legally recognized.
Even when a living will exists or other legal documents exist showing power of attorney, hospitals will sometimes delay the visitation rights enjoyed by other married couples because their relationship is not legally recognized..
Shall I go on? Do you see a pattern? Oh, those are too high level? How about I Google a couple of real world applications:
In Alabama wrote:
Hard says he was treated cruelly after the death of his husband, David Fancher, virtually ignored at the Alabama hospital where Fancher was taken after the accident.
Hard said he also is fighting to be considered as the surviving spouse in ongoing litigation over Fancher’s death.
Fancher, 53, died within moments of the crash, but Hard said hospital staff refused to give him any information about his condition because the two weren’t considered legally related. An orderly later passed on the news that Fancher had died, Hard said. The pain was compounded when the death certificate listed Fancher as never married. Hard said he futilely begged to have that changed.
...
Part of the legal peg for the lawsuit is that Hard can’t be considered the surviving spouse and can’t collect any judgment in the ongoing wrongful death litigation over the crash.
Hard said he also is fighting to be considered as the surviving spouse in ongoing litigation over Fancher’s death.
Fancher, 53, died within moments of the crash, but Hard said hospital staff refused to give him any information about his condition because the two weren’t considered legally related. An orderly later passed on the news that Fancher had died, Hard said. The pain was compounded when the death certificate listed Fancher as never married. Hard said he futilely begged to have that changed.
...
Part of the legal peg for the lawsuit is that Hard can’t be considered the surviving spouse and can’t collect any judgment in the ongoing wrongful death litigation over the crash.
In Michigan wrote:
In opposing gay marriage, the state has focused on the well-being of children, arguing that their interests are best served by having both a father and a mother, a position dismissed by gay rights advocates and their allies.
"No other group in society has to pass a parental competency test before they're allowed to marry," attorney Carole Stanyar, who represents the couple, said in an opening statement. "We would like this to be the last trial in America where same-sex couples have to defend themselves."
...
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who live in the Detroit suburb of Hazel Park, are asking Friedman to overturn a state law that prevents them from adopting each other's children in addition to taking on the state ban on gay marriage, which was approved as a constitutional amendment by voters in 2004.
"No other group in society has to pass a parental competency test before they're allowed to marry," attorney Carole Stanyar, who represents the couple, said in an opening statement. "We would like this to be the last trial in America where same-sex couples have to defend themselves."
...
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who live in the Detroit suburb of Hazel Park, are asking Friedman to overturn a state law that prevents them from adopting each other's children in addition to taking on the state ban on gay marriage, which was approved as a constitutional amendment by voters in 2004.
In the event of one of their deaths, some states could easily remove the child of the deceased from the home because the other parent has no legal standing in the childs life BECAUSE THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED.
gbaji wrote:
"It's a good argument for further restricting marriage requirements, but a crappy one for expanding them."
For what purpose? What needs to be further restricted for marriage? Are you telling me that you actually believe that marriage should be restricted only to couples that procreate? If so, there's really no arguing with you. Marriage (no matter how many times you say it) has legally never had a child requirement and you implying that the state is giving you a marriage contract while winking, nudging and whispering that you should now hurry up and have a litter is ridiculous.
The reason gay marriage should not only be encouraged and allowed, but legally available to all consenting same sex couples is because the fourteenth amendment of the motherfucking United States Constitution guarantees all individuals equal protection under the law. SCOTUS and lower courts have many times over the last 100+ years stated that marriage is a right, most famously in the Loving opinion.
Warren wrote:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
So long as heterosexual couples are allowed to be married, without prerequisite, similar homosexual partnerships are inherently less equal under the law as long as they are denied a similar status under the law. This is unconstitutional and you should prepare yourself for the upcoming circuit court rulings that agree with the lower courts (except for maybe from that wacky panel in the 5th circuit).
gbaji wrote:
we should just make them less perfect?
In my opinion, allowing gay marriage makes marriage a more perfect institution. Marriage is a contract between two loving, consenting adults (usually, parental permission, other reasons) that is designed to legally join them together into what is essentially one person, in a way. If you allow heterosexual couples to have the government recognize their relationship but not homosexuals, you are saying that homosexual relationships are lesser. You are also saying that they are not capable of the same feelings and bond as the heterosexual couple.
I think that's disgusting and offensive.
Edited, Mar 13th 2014 11:57pm by Paskil
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
People who are supporting children get a child tax credit.
Does it really have to be more involved than that?
Does it really have to be more involved than that?
Already answered this. Tax credits for merely supporting a child provides the wrong incentive. If you accept the premise that the state (all of society really) has an interest in the marital status of people who produce children and desires to have more children produced by married couples than single moms, then handing out cash for raising a child is counter productive.
I suppose this is the big difference between liberal versus conservative approaches to social policy. Liberals look for people who need help and provide it to them, thus treating the symptom of the problem. Conservatives prefer to try to create systems in which people are less likely to end out in a state where they need help in the first place, thus actually treating the problem itself. More married heterosexual couples means fewer children born to single mothers, and thus less need for social programs to help single mothers raise their children. That's the idea here.
Best to actually reward the behavior you're trying to encourage, which is raising a kid in this case. If you want to do something about marriage, find the reasons people are getting divorced, and try and fix those or something like that.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
Marriage is awesome and all, but it's a roundabout way of encouraging people to raise their children at best, and you reward all sorts of behavior that isn't kid related. Can't have people getting sham married for the benefits, or mooching off the government for 50 years while remaining childless.
Best to actually reward the behavior you're trying to encourage, which is raising a kid in this case. If you want to do something about marriage, find the reasons people are getting divorced, and try and fix those or something like that.
Best to actually reward the behavior you're trying to encourage, which is raising a kid in this case. If you want to do something about marriage, find the reasons people are getting divorced, and try and fix those or something like that.
Well there are lots of other societal benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with children. Largely due to stability - if one partner loses their job, the couple can remain afloat and keep their home until a new job is found, rather than going on welfare. They can share a (private) healthcare plan rather than using the emergency room. All sorts of other shared resources that increase effiency and reduce reliance on public aid. It's like bundling 2 derivatives to reduce the overall default risk of the package.
Also, married people are also less likely to commit crime, are healthier, abuse drugs less, etc. (And a minor benefit that cohabitation is easier on the environment.)
gbaji wrote:
I suppose this is the big difference between liberal versus conservative approaches to social policy. Liberals look for people who need help and provide it to them, thus treating the symptom of the problem. Conservatives prefer to try to create systems in which people are less likely to end out in a state where they need help in the first place, thus actually treating the problem itself. More married heterosexual couples means fewer children born to single mothers, and thus less need for social programs to help single mothers raise their children. That's the idea here.
Are you just trying to get more wrong for the shock value?
Being proactive versus reactive is not a political ideal. Simplifying societal policy and practice into 'looking for people to help' verse 'insuring people don't need help' is just stupid.
Public policy is both - it doesn't matter if you're red, blue, green or libertarian. Many of those 'big government' regulations and programs you despise are preventive. Preventing worker injury, preventing contamination to the environment, preventing kids from becoming punching bags and convicts. Similarly, many of the 'conservative' policies are looking to simply stop a problem they've created in their heads ie - No gay marriage, no immigrants allowed etc etc.
You should stop thinking inside your head.
More marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, makes more stable family units; good for raising kids - like those ones the single women have so thoughtlessly borne, good for the economy, good for resource management etc etc.
Edited, Mar 14th 2014 2:49pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
Conservatives prefer to try to create systems in which people are less likely to end out in a state where they need help in the first place, thus actually treating the problem itself. More married heterosexual couples means fewer children born to single mothers, and thus less need for social programs to help single mothers raise their children. That's the idea here.
I agree that more married heterosexual couples may indeed translate into fewer children born to unwed parents (why are we singling out mothers and ignoring a father's responsibility?), but this only works in a black and white world. There is a very small subset of humans that marry just for these benefits, and the larger group marry for reasons that don't last. Aside from that, if we are going to use marriage as a 'tool' to ensure that the next generation is adequately cared for, shouldn't we also use that tool to ensure that the next generation is a solid and viable one, free of defects? Persons over a certain age shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are at higher risk of producing children with down syndrome. People should also be checked for undesirable genes so we don't pass those down. No one with a disease should ever be allowed to marry, no one who has survived cancer, because they might pass that tendency on. And certainly, no one who has had a vasectomy, is on birth control, or is infertile should ever be allowed to marry, because marriage is all about procreation, after all.
The way that some conservatives are framing marriage is absurd.
I have a little news for you. This may come as a shock, but I think you need to be told.
Even if (and it's a very remote 'if') you manage to convince enough of the population to support these bans, nothing is going to change about human relationships.
Homosexual people aren't going to wake up one morning, look at the partner they have loved for years and say, "Wow, golly gosh those conservatives are so right! Sweetie, we have to split up now because, because... MARRIAGE!"
Heterosexuals aren't going to suddenly decide that life was better a hundred years or so ago when they stayed in horrible relationships that died FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
The world will continue to turn, humans will continue to be produced because I have more news for you, and this is really, REALLY important:
Allowing people who are already gay to marry isn't going to turn people who are already straight, gay! Straight people aren't going to wake up, look at their partners whom they have loved for years and say "Honey we have to get a divorce RIGHT NAOW because, because... GAY MARRIAGE!!"
Now. let's divorce all this emotional bullsh*t from the issue and look at it from a taxpaying American's point of view.
Tell me, in a coherent and logical way, why my tax dollars are less valuable than yours, and why, under American laws, my choice for a life partner should be less important than your choice. Why shouldn't I be able to say, "I trust this person to make my decisions when I am incapacitated, to care for my estate when I am gone, and to share my life and my bed while I am here"? I pay the same taxes, to the same government, the same way you do, year after year. I deserve the same respect you get, and I shouldn't have to lie to myself, my family, my friends, and especially, my children, just to get it. I am an American, and I believe that my country is above asking me to do that.
Fortunately, it seems that more people are starting to agree with logic. It is a sign of the growing enlightenment of the human mind, and good gravy, it makes me proud of us.
Edited, Mar 14th 2014 9:26am by Torrence
Paskil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you're basically saying that since marriage restrictions aren't perfect now, we should just make them less perfect? How does that make any sense?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Paskil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you're basically saying that since marriage restrictions aren't perfect now, we should just make them less perfect? How does that make any sense?
I'm guessing he's never tried ssm, so he shouldn't try and critique it.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I find my interest in debating SSM has gone way down since it became apparent that the conservatives have already lost this one. State after state is flipping, court after court ruling that these are actual rights, poll after poll showing strong majority support for SSM rights -- It'll take a while for the full loss to take effect but this battle's as good as over. All that's left is the wailing and gashing of teeth from the losing side as it comes to a close.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
All that's left is the wailing and gashing of teeth from the losing side as it comes to a close.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 263
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC