Liberal Fallacies

[thaiboxerken]

See #193 for some.

Nothing you said in that post has been proven factual.

Do you have any science that says homosexual couples are less likely to reproduce?

 

[Spindrift]

That's not my contention. Speed limits and heterosexual marriage are evolved customs. Laws and traditions (usually) evolve in response to cost/benefit considerations (see Posner, "The Law and Economics Movement", AER). Reducing the costs that expanding the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples would entail.What "liberty" does restricting the definition of "marriage" to heterosexual couples deny? You're free to share living accommodations with any consenting adult. You're free to use any number of consenting adults of either sex or any sexual orientation for sexual purposes. You're free to call yourselves "married" or "a flock of sparrows" if you like (we still have free speech in this country). You're NOT free to make me pay for your choices.

So Loving v Virginia should have been upheld because it would increase the number of couples who could marry? ETA: There was a long evolved custom in many states against inter-racial marriage.

If things like speed limits and heterosexual married are evolved customs, why can't they continue to evolve? The national speed limit was raised a few years ago in response to changing conditions.

 

[jimbob]

What are the costs of allowing same-sex marriages, Malcolm?

See #193 for some.

I've had a look

Marriage confers benefits to married couples: tax-free inheritance, access to employer-funded health insurance, Social Security survivor benefits. If you advocate abolition of inheritance and estate taxes across the board, we agree. If you advocate expanding the class of people who benefit from exemption from these taxes to homosexual couples (who's checking, btw?), we disagree. If you advocate repeal of Social Security altogether, we agree. If you advocate extension of survivor benefits to partners of employed homosexuals, we disagree. In Hawaii, State law mandates that employers provide health insurance. Some employers (including the State and counties) offer policies that include spouses and dependent children. One of the claims by a party to the original Baer, et. al. v. Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health for their restriction of marriage licenses to heterosexual couples was that the policy denied her partnet access to her health insurance policy. Courts may allow non-government organizations to renegotiate compensation (redefinition of marriage is a material change in the contract), but I don't see governments changing their compensation packages. Taxpayers will pay increased health insurance costs for people who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of a very expensive medical condition. If you advocate that government-employers compensate all employees in cash only (no non-cash benefits, no unemployment insurance, etc.) and leave the terms of private-sector employment contracts to employers and employees (no mandated benefits, no unemployment insurance, etc.) we agree. If you advocate for an extension of the current spousal benefits in employment contracts to homosexual couples, we disagree.

Redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples is a tax increase on all heterosexuals and all celibates of either orientation. The cost/benefit considerations that may have justified heterosexual spousal benefits do not weigh the same in homosexual partnerships.

Your complaint seems to be that people get benefits and are able to pass their pensions to their lifepartner. You seem to think that nobody should get them, but failing that you would prefer to limit it to as few people as possible.

In the situation you describe above, what is the difference between childless homosexual couples and childless heterosexual couples?



Personally I see no reason to not make life as pleasant as possible to as many people as possible.


ETA: the callousness in the post above is astounding.

 

[Praktik]

Personally I see no reason to not make life as pleasant as possible to as many people as possible.

Funny, that sounds suspiciously like something Stalin might say...

 

[thaiboxerken]

You'd think that, instead of hypothesizing and theorizing about the consequences of same-sex marriage, we could look at places that have already legalized it.

Why is it, Malcolm, that in places were it's legal, we don't see the "costs" incurred that you speak of?

 

[Dancing David]

Typically obtuse. You've apparently never seen Animal Planet or Nature video of elk or elephant seals or lions or horses fighting for access to mates or in defense of their harem.

Defense of a harem is marriage?

There are animals that are mongamous, there are animals that are harem animals, there are animals that have serial relationships based on different factors, theer are also those that don't particularly semm to care.

Which one exactly is comparable to marriage?

(And do they get a license?)

 

[Upchurch]

Defense of a harem is marriage?

There are animals that are mongamous, there are animals that are harem animals, there are animals that have serial relationships based on different factors, theer are also those that don't particularly semm to care.

Which one exactly is comparable to marriage?

(And do they get a license?)

I've lost the thread of this particular conversation, but I'm pretty sure we don't mean "harem", especially in the general animal kingdom.

 

[Dancing David]

That's not my contention. Speed limits and heterosexual marriage are evolved customs. Laws and traditions (usually) evolve in response to cost/benefit considerations (see Posner, "The Law and Economics Movement", AER). Reducing the costs that expanding the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples would entail.What "liberty" does restricting the definition of "marriage" to heterosexual couples deny? You're free to share living accommodations with any consenting adult. You're free to use any number of consenting adults of either sex or any sexual orientation for sexual purposes. You're free to call yourselves "married" or "a flock of sparrows" if you like (we still have free speech in this country). You're NOT free to make me pay for your choices.

And how exactly are you paying for their choice to get married?

You as in you, not as in they get some benefit, how does this come out of your check?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not my contention.

You said the two make as much sense. Again, speed limits make sense because they serve a valid state interest in public safety. For laws that ban gay marriage to make as much sense, they must serve some valid public state interest.

You're NOT free to make me pay for your choices.

Oh. . . so we had an unfair tax situation before Prop 8 and DOMA were passed?

That's the position you're arguing?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And again, the new laws being challenged are not new laws that redefine marriage to allow for gay marriages. The "traditional marriage" laws Malcom refers to are a very recent phenomenon. Here in Missouri, it goes waaay back to 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s...ed_States#Efforts_to_prohibit_same-sex_unions

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And again, the new laws being challenged are not new laws that redefine marriage to allow for gay marriages. The "traditional marriage" laws Malcom refers to are a very recent phenomenon. Here in Missouri, it goes waaay back to 1996.

What is new is the enthusiasm of activists and judges to redefine traditionally-understood terms.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Defense of a harem is marriage?

No. It's jealousy.

 

[Dancing David]

I've lost the thread of this particular conversation, but I'm pretty sure we don't mean "harem", especially in the general animal kingdom.

Harem is a loose term for species like horses where a dominant male fights other males and tries to isolate the breeding females from other males.

 

[Dancing David]

No. It's jealousy.

What does that mean, how does it support animals having something like marriage?

 

[Dancing David]

What is new is the enthusiasm of activists and judges to redefine traditionally-understood terms.

Like property, liberty and equality?

 

[MaGZ]

1. The Iraqi War started about 10 years ago
2. Obama is "African American"
3. If we have a woman president, there won't be any wars
4. If we are kind or tolerant to our enemies, they will be kind and tolerant to us
5. 9-11 happened on "Bush's Watch" and that somehow means something
6. Obama told the truth in Cairo about the Golden Age of Islam and that helped the USA somehow
7. MSNBC repots the news more than gives opinions
8. The invasion of Iraq was done to find Weapons of Mass Destruction
9. The USA gassed the Kurds and the Irainians.
10. Less people died because of Bill Clinton's war decisions and actions or inactions than George W. Bush's
11. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the invasion of Iraq was wrong

I will add more when I think of or remember them.

1 yes
2 yes
3 no
4 no
5 ?
6 no
7 no
8 no
9 no
10 ?
11 yes

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Basically their argument boils down to "homos are icky so they shouldn't marry."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Basically their argument boils down to "homos are icky so they shouldn't marry."

You're not paying attention (or you deliberately misrepresent the argument). Extension of the category eligible for spousal benefits is a tax increase. That's all.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're not paying attention (or you deliberately misrepresent the argument). Extension of the category eligible for spousal benefits is a tax increase. That's all.

No, it's not.

 

[ehcks]

No, it's not.

And even if it were, that argument is like crying that banning slavery makes farming more expensive.