Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Texas *** Marriage Ban UnconstitutionalFollow

#152 Mar 07 2014 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
I think we're at the cusp of that quota.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#153 Mar 07 2014 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji using "deltas" is my usual tell that he's just spinning crap to sound like he knows what he's talking about and I can safely tune out. It's like Gingrich saying "fundamentally".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Mar 07 2014 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,896 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
He's on the cusp, so he's bouncing back and forth.
It has been rather amusing. Smiley: grin
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#155 Mar 07 2014 at 10:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
Quote:
Infants don't give a @#%^ about marriage. They're form secure attachments to 10 people dressed as minotaurs so long as they take breaks from maze haunting and spend time with the infant

Had a rare actual laugh-out-loud on that one. Smiley: thumbsup


Edited, Mar 7th 2014 10:52pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#156 Mar 07 2014 at 11:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji using "deltas" is my usual tell that he's just spinning crap to sound like he knows what he's talking about and I can safely tune out. It's like Gingrich saying "fundamentally" anything.

FTFY
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#157 Mar 08 2014 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,004 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Um... You're really asking that question? You'd be hard pressed to find any social policy organization in the last half century who would argue otherwise.

Nope.
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."

No one has thought this, ever.

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.


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.



How does that help society as a whole?


It doesn't. It helps banks.


Lower crime. More responsibility. People who own rather than rent are much less likely to engage in vandalism and a host of other forms of crime. They're much more likely to be gainfully employed. Most importantly, when we get to second generation effects, they are less subject to a "wage slave" state. Owning property means that housing costs are much lower for successive generations. Losing a job when you own a home outright is bad, but not nearly as bad as if you are renting (or still buying). You have many more options, and can afford to take a lower paying job in the meantime rather than be "stuck" in a "must earn X dollars or not work at all" situation.


The benefits across the board for greater home ownership within a society are pretty significant. While I'm not surprised that you'd oppose it (cause your ideology more or less requires people remain as poor as possible), I am surprised you'd be so blatant about your opposition. I kinda expected you to be a bit more coy about it.


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.

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.


Having societal value gained from widespread home ownership was a thing in popular academia until fairly recently. Post crisis, policy institutions have started reevaluating this view. Saying there is no basis for this idea is fairly silly, as the view of this subject in the research is still evolving. Gbaji's cultural information is fairly well known to be 5-20 years out of date, when there was an attribution of a home ownership social boon. Now, granted, there have been a lot of self-interest driven studies by financial institutions which muddied the water on this issue, but assuming that the populous is plugged into things like the NPR piece on the 30-yr fixed seems overly rose-tinted , I mean, you seem to know at least something about the information transfer dynamics of low-information voters, so this can't be entirely new.


____________________________
Just as Planned.
#158 Mar 10 2014 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
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.

Also, you're a cunt.

Just tell us the real reason. It's because *** *** is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of *** marriage is far outpacing the support of *** intercourse.
#159 Mar 10 2014 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,267 posts
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.

Also, you're a cunt.

Just tell us the real reason. It's because *** *** is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of *** marriage is far outpacing the support of *** intercourse.


I'm not. Isn't the popular wisdom that people stop having *** after they get hitched? Clearly it's a conspiracy to stop *** ***.


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

#160 Mar 11 2014 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Samira wrote:

Isn't the popular wisdom that people stop having *** after they get hitched?
Some couples may slow down. But still some *** is more than no ***.






Edited, Mar 11th 2014 2:52pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#161 Mar 11 2014 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
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.

Also, you're a cunt.

Just tell us the real reason. It's because *** *** is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of *** marriage is far outpacing the support of *** intercourse.

Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#162 Mar 11 2014 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Elinda 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.

Also, you're a cunt.

Just tell us the real reason. It's because *** *** is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of *** marriage is far outpacing the support of *** intercourse.

Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?


Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
#163 Mar 11 2014 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh, Michelle Bachmann ********** Insane) whines that homosexuals are bullying America, including the Arizona veto:

Quote:
"There's nothing about gays in there. But the *** community decided to make this their measure," Bachmann said. "I think the thing that is getting a little tiresome, the *** community, they have so bullied the American people, and they've so intimidated politicians. The politicians fear them, so that they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Mar 11 2014 at 7:15 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Paskil wrote:
Elinda 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.

Also, you're a cunt.

Just tell us the real reason. It's because *** *** is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of *** marriage is far outpacing the support of *** intercourse.

Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?


Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
No, but your statement sure reads as if the 'one simple reason' that gbaji's statement is unsound is because of menopausal women.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#165 Mar 11 2014 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Heh, Michelle Bachmann (R-Batsh*t Insane) whines that homosexuals are bullying America, including the Arizona veto:

Quote:
"There's nothing about gays in there. But the *** community decided to make this their measure," Bachmann said. "I think the thing that is getting a little tiresome, the *** community, they have so bullied the American people, and they've so intimidated politicians. The politicians fear them, so that they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere."

*** bullying kind of tickles.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#166 Mar 11 2014 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
44,002 posts
They'll give you such a slap.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#167 Mar 11 2014 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,912 posts
*** bullying usually leads to *** ***.

*In porno world.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#168 Mar 11 2014 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
******
44,002 posts
Getting dragged into the restroom and your head shoved in the toilet takes on a whole 'nother level.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#169 Mar 11 2014 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,267 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
They'll give you such a slap.


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

#170 Mar 11 2014 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,896 posts
Paskil wrote:
Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
If I say yes will you do it?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#171 Mar 11 2014 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
If I say yes will you do it?

I was trying to make him label men who've had vasectomies.

What should we call them?

Snipsters?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#172 Mar 11 2014 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,896 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
If I say yes will you do it?

I was trying to make him label men who've had vasectomies.

What should we call them?

Snipsters?
Let's go with that. Whenever I try to think up something better I get caught in a loop.

All tied up.

Just can't seem to get it out.

Or something like that...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#173 Mar 11 2014 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,984 posts
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
They'll give you such a slap.


And a bad haircut.


Speak for yourself. The only straight man I'd trust to cut my hair is Me. (and even that trust is dubious)
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#174 Mar 12 2014 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Elinda 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.

Also, you're a cunt.

Just tell us the real reason. It's because *** *** is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of *** marriage is far outpacing the support of *** intercourse.

Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?


Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
No, but your statement sure reads as if the 'one simple reason' that gbaji's statement is unsound is because of menopausal women.



Reaching to be offended. My overarching point is that couples that have no ability to have children are still allowed to get married. I would think the vast majority of marriages that are made up of individuals that would never have children would be women that have passed menopause (hence using it in my example). In gbaji's world, marriage is a contract where two people should get married, have a child, and get a divorce once the child turns 18 if they intend to have no further children. I mean, why else do we give them federal/state benefits?

I have read the Utah, Virginia, Texas, and Kentucky rulings in their entirety and they pretty much all say at some point that having a child is not a prerequisite for marriage and never has been. This has to be addressed since the fancy new conservative argument against *** marriage in all of these cases (including the Michigan trial we should be hearing back on any day now) is about the children and how the ideal family unit is a father and a mother. His argument is irrelevant and fucking stupid.

If my choice of wording somehow offended you, well, I don't know what to tell you.
#175 Mar 12 2014 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Paskil wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Elinda 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.

Also, you're a cunt.

Just tell us the real reason. It's because *** *** is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of *** marriage is far outpacing the support of *** intercourse.

Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?


Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
No, but your statement sure reads as if the 'one simple reason' that gbaji's statement is unsound is because of menopausal women.



Reaching to be offended. .......

If my choice of wording somehow offended you, well, I don't know what to tell you.
Reaching maybe I was - because I read something that i thought was misleading by it's limited example and explanation, not because I was offended. What's to be offended about? I merely thought that your statement left much to be determined.

The reason that gbaji's point about marriage and rearing children is moot is because child creation is not, nor ever has been required to be married, and not simply because a menopausal woman can no longer have kids.

It wasn't incorrect, it was only incomplete.




Edited, Mar 12th 2014 8:42pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#176 Mar 12 2014 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Gbaji, you are so caught up in a fantasy world that I seriously question your ability to think critically about the matter.

I understand that heterosexual *** can and often does result in the pregnancy and birth of additional human beings. What I don't understand is why that should be a requirement in order for two adults to make a commitment to one another and have their legal rights of partnership protected under the law.
#177 Mar 12 2014 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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 *** 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.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#178 Mar 12 2014 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
******
44,002 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There are, of course, many problems with this argument but the argument itself isn't especially complicated or hard to understand.
Wrong, it's so complicated and hard to understand that only one person is gifted enough to get it. Ever.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#179 Mar 12 2014 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
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.
Wrong, it's so complicated and hard to understand that only one person is gifted enough to get it. Ever.

Who has the eye?!

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#180 Mar 12 2014 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,896 posts
People who are supporting children get a child tax credit.

Does it really have to be more involved than that?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#181 Mar 12 2014 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It is if you erroneously attribute all the other marriage benefits to child rearing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#182 Mar 12 2014 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,896 posts
*sigh*

The world is a complicated place. Smiley: glare
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#183 Mar 13 2014 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
Scamming the system is a-okay so long as your *** 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.
#184 Mar 13 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
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."


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.


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.


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
#185 Mar 13 2014 at 7:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
gbaji wrote:
Strange, isn't it?
Would be a wasted effort.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#186 Mar 13 2014 at 7:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
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 *** 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
#187 Mar 13 2014 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
gbaji wrote:
I've already answered this, several times.
A hilariously faulty opinion of an answer, but I guess it's correct that you've repeated it often.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#188 Mar 13 2014 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
People who are supporting children get a child tax credit.

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
#189 Mar 13 2014 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bit of a tangent, but I feel that explaining *why* we hold these positions is kinda important.
Why you hold your positions is a secret only to yourself, it seems.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#190 Mar 13 2014 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bit of a tangent, but I feel that explaining *why* we hold these positions is kinda important.
Why you hold your positions is a secret only to yourself, it seems.


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
#191 Mar 13 2014 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
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.
Only advice I have is to let yourself in on the secret then.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#192 Mar 13 2014 at 10:25 PM Rating: Excellent
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.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#193 Mar 13 2014 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
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 *** couples filing for dem govmint benefits (still waiting for the stampede you are apparently expecting), but they make these partnerships between same *** 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 *** 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.


In Michigan wrote:
In opposing *** 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 *** 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-*** 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 *** 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 *** marriage should not only be encouraged and allowed, but legally available to all consenting same *** 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.


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 *** 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
#194 Mar 13 2014 at 10:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,896 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
People who are supporting children get a child tax credit.

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.
Meh, I'm not too picky about the whole marriage thing. Lots of people who aren't married have kids, it's a thing these days. If you're going through the trouble of raising a kid for the future of the country that's the important thing. I mean, the other way you end up penalizing someone for breaking off a bad marriage, and we don't need to be doing that. 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.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#195 Mar 13 2014 at 11:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
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.

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.)
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#196 Mar 14 2014 at 6:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
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 *** 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:
Post and be happy!
#197 Mar 14 2014 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
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 *** to marry isn't going to turn people who are already straight, ***! 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... *** 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
#198 Mar 14 2014 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
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?
What does this even mean?
He is saying that since we can't make them perfect in one try, we should do nothing at all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#199 Mar 14 2014 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
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?
What does this even mean?
He is saying that since we can't make them perfect in one try, we should do nothing at all.

I'm guessing he's never tried ssm, so he shouldn't try and critique it.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#200 Mar 14 2014 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
#201 Mar 14 2014 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,002 posts
Jophiel wrote:
All that's left is the wailing and gashing of teeth from the losing side as it comes to a close.
The most amusing part.
____________________________
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: 40 All times are in CDT
Kavekkk, RavennofTitan, Samira, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (36)