Liberal Fallacies

[Spindrift]

How so, if the economic argument is empty, as RandFan asserts?All human behavioral traits are heritable (including reading comprehension).
RandFan does not deal with the argument at all. The cost/benefit calculations that justify the heterosexual marriage tradition (protecting pregnant women from fathers who skip, surrounding children with a supportive environment) do not apply with the same force to same-sex couples, who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of a very expensive medical condition.One of the plaintifsf in the Baer, et. al. v. Miike lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health against their policy of restricting marriage licenses to heterosexual couples gave as the basis of her claim to standing was that the State's denial of a marriage license denied her access to her (government) employer-funded spousal medical benefit. As the saying goes: "When someone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle', it's the money."

Hetero blacks are far more likely to have "a very expensive medical condition" than hetero whites. Does your cost/benefit calculation justify blacks marrying whites?

And when someone say "It's not the principle, it's the money', it's the principle?

 

[jimbob]

...Marriage equality for gays and lesbians is good for the families of gays and lesbians.

How so, if the economic argument is empty, as RandFan asserts?

Whether it is the right thing is a separate question from economic arguments.


If it was a costly measure, but it was the right thing to do, then the discussion would have had to move to be about how to fund it.

However, it is fiscally near neutral at both a state and federal level. As most estimates suggest it would be fiscally slightly positive, there is no worry about funding.

This is not to say that the effect on individuals or affected families is going to be near zero. There are effects beyond economics.

My 14-year old daughter helps out at brownies, there is no financial incentive for her, but she enjoys it and is a competent helper. By your reckoning she either is losing out because she is giving her time without wages, or her help is worthless because she isn't paid. Neither is true.

...If Malcolm truly cared about the issue then he would fight against the benefits offered to married people across the board and not carve out an exception for the LGBT community to focus on keeping his tax bill low..

All human behavioral traits are heritable (including reading comprehension).
RandFan does not deal with the argument at all. The cost/benefit calculations that justify the heterosexual marriage tradition (protecting pregnant women from fathers who skip, surrounding children with a supportive environment) do not apply with the same force to same-sex couples, who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of a very expensive medical condition.

... It's pretty transparent BS people.

One of the plaintifsf in the Baer, et. al. v. Miike lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health against their policy of restricting marriage licenses to heterosexual couples gave as the basis of her claim to standing was that the State's denial of a marriage license denied her access to her (government) employer-funded spousal medical benefit. As the saying goes: "When someone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle', it's the money."

OF COURSE INDIVIDUALS WANT TO CARE FOR THEIR LOVED ONES AND OF COURSE THAT DOES HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR THEM*. WHY SHOULD SOME PEOPLE BE PREVENTED FROM PROVIDING FOR THEIR LIFE PARTNERS JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER? However that question doesn't affect my reasoning, just as it doesn't affect my support for it in the UK.

However in the scheme of things the impact is small, and I'd guess that the majority of posters on this thread are going to benefit economically from legalised gay marriage. As a heterosexual married father in the UK, I only get a karmic benefit from legalised gay marriage in the US or UK - it makes the world a nicer place.

*However for the state as a whole, this is offset by increased tax take from married couples jointly filing.

 

[jimbob]

How so, if the economic argument is empty, as RandFan asserts?All human behavioral traits are heritable (including reading comprehension).
RandFan does not deal with the argument at all. The cost/benefit calculations that justify the heterosexual marriage tradition (protecting pregnant women from fathers who skip, surrounding children with a supportive environment) do not apply with the same force to same-sex couples, who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of a very expensive medical condition.One of the plaintifsf in the Baer, et. al. v. Miike lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health against their policy of restricting marriage licenses to heterosexual couples gave as the basis of her claim to standing was that the State's denial of a marriage license denied her access to her (government) employer-funded spousal medical benefit. As the saying goes: "When someone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle', it's the money."

I've just realised what you might be getting at with the highlighted bit.

What is your point? That gay parents might have gay children?

 

[RandFan]

How so, if the economic argument is empty, as RandFan asserts?

The "expert" witness for the defense of Prop 8 testified that it would be benificial for the families of gays and lesbians because they would be less likely to be marganalized and they would be more likely to be accepted by the community.

Watch the reenactment for crying in the dark.

Malcolm,

• you have no evidence that you would be negatively impacted.
• Evidence was given at trial that marriage equality would benefit the lives of gays and lesbians and their families. This WAS STIPULATED BY THE DEFENSE.
• The benefits discussed were NOT financial. They were psychosocial.
• Evidence was presented that gay marriage would impact the economy in a positive way.

So, you have nothing Malcolm but rank speculation that even the defenders of prop 8 dared not present at trial because it is so pathetic and without basis.


What is it exactly do you not get about evidence? What's so hard about this for you? I'll tell you what it is, bigotry.

 

[RandFan]

Here's the problem Malcolm, now work with me here. You have suggested that gay men can get married to lesbians. Remember when you said:

No. Gay man + lesbian (I know of one such marriage)...

In such a case where is your concern for the gay man getting all of those marriage benefits? You only object to gay men getting the benefits of marriage when they marry men. Right? That's what follows from YOUR arguments.

So please stop trying to sell that argument that you are only concerned about your tax bill. No one buys that.

Look, if you had argued from the start that no one should get financial marriage benefits I'd be willing to cut you some slack and actually think it was a legitimate concern (even if there is no evidence that your tax bill would actually go up). At least you would be morally consistent. As it is you suggest that gay men can get married to lesbians in order to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. Who is it exactly that you think you are fooling?

 

[Dancing David]

This is exactly backwards. What you do with your body is your business, so long as you harm no one else or make me pay for your indulgence.

And so why did I have to pay for the Bush tax cuts? Hmmm? And corporate jets.

 

[Dancing David]

All human behavioral traits are heritable (including reading comprehension).

Out of all the outrageous silly assertions I have read in this thread, this is the winner.

Almost no human behaviors are inheritable you are wrong.

So are you sure it is the behaviors that are inheritable, and what evidence do you have for it?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Here's the problem Malcolm, now work with me here. You have suggested that gay men can get married to lesbians. Remember when you said:...In such a case where is your concern for the gay man getting all of those marriage benefits? You only object to gay men getting the benefits of marriage when they marry men. Right? That's what follows from YOUR arguments.

The law cannot predict all possible applications. Restricting marriage to male+female pairs addresses the concern that children have a stable family unit. True, some male+female pairs cannot reproduce due to age or other factors. True, also, that male+male can have children (through adoption) and female+female pairs can have children (through adoption or sperm donor. I know of one such case). That does not invalidate the argument for the restriction of "marriage" to the male+female case, any more than some hypothetical case for stealing a car or running a red light invalidates laws against auto theft or running traffic lights in general.

 

[RandFan]

The law cannot predict all possible applications. Restricting marriage to male+female pairs addresses the concern that children have a stable family unit. True, some male+female pairs cannot reproduce due to age or other factors. True, also, that male+male can have children (through adoption) and female+female pairs can have children (through adoption or sperm donor. I know of one such case). That does not invalidate the argument for the restriction of "marriage" to the male+female case, any more than some hypothetical case for stealing a car or running a red light invalidates laws against auto theft or running traffic lights in general.

What the hell does this have to do with my point? Nothing. It has nothing to do with my point. You don't mind if gay men get married to lesbians and have marriage benefits. There is nothing here to decipher, decode or figure out. No mystery here. You don't like men marrying men so you have an ad hoc rationalization to justify your bigotry.

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[bruto]

The amounts are miniscule anyway:

For example my link in post #358 estimates it would save the state of Rhode Island just over $400,000 over three years. This is "change down the back of the sofa" territory.

A while ago you were arguing loss. Now it's a small gain. I was under the impression that the two are different.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...your bigotry.

That's RandFan's argument in a nutshell (appropriately). I object to the expansion of the class of eligible recipients for tax-funded spousal benefits to include people to whom the original rational for those benefits does not apply (with the same force). Why is this so difficult to accept?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

All human behavioral traits are heritable (including reading comprehension).

Out of all the outrageous silly assertions I have read in this thread, this is the winner.

Almost no human behaviors are inheritable you are wrong.

RandFan, you want to set this
person straight? Or shall I?

 

[RandFan]

That's RandFan's argument in a nutshell (appropriately). I object to the expansion of the class of eligible recipients for tax-funded spousal benefits to include people to whom the original rational for those benefits does not apply (with the same force). Why is this so difficult to accept?

No, it's NOT my argument in a nutshell. My argument is that there was a trial against Prop 8. Evidence was presented. There were finding of facts that include:

• Marriage equality would improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.
• Marriage equality would improve the state of the economy.
• The defense provided no evidence that there would be any negative harm, financially or otherwise.

Now, I've stated these premises over and over so for you to state that my argument in a nutshell is your bigotry is dishonest. That's not my argument it is my conclusion given that:

1. You have not provided any evidence to support your thesis.
2. You have demonstrated moral inconsistency (you don't object to gays marrying lesbians and thus receiving benefits).

It's an easy conclusion to reach.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, you want to set this
person straight? Or shall I?

He is making the same mistake as I did. Which is obvious as he states "behavior" and not behavioral "traits".

Behavior is not heritable. Behavioral "traits" are.

 

[bruto]

The law cannot predict all possible applications. Restricting marriage to male+female pairs addresses the concern that children have a stable family unit. True, some male+female pairs cannot reproduce due to age or other factors. True, also, that male+male can have children (through adoption) and female+female pairs can have children (through adoption or sperm donor. I know of one such case). That does not invalidate the argument for the restriction of "marriage" to the male+female case, any more than some hypothetical case for stealing a car or running a red light invalidates laws against auto theft or running traffic lights in general.

That has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I've heard in a while. I can't even begin to figure out what the analogy of stealing cars has to do with the protection of children. Adoption does exist. Divorces and remarriages exist. Gay based families do exist and more than a few of them involve children. Of course if you argue the issue from a point of view of disapproving of homosexual unions, these things are secondary, but if, as you continually claim, you do not, then the protection of families demands that the families of homosexual unions enjoy equality of protection. As I have said over and over and you seem not to have registered, this is not just an issue of the rights of adults. It is an issue of equal protection for families that exist.* You have claimed that the reality of family welfare does not invalidate the argument for hetero-only marriage, but you use a theoretical idea of family welfare as your argument.

If, as one still vainly hopes, your argument is not based on a disapproval of homosexual unions, then I believe you are not thinking very clearly about all that the gay marriage issue really entails, and if, as one still vainly hopes, your mind is not nailed shut, you would do yourself a favor to give it some more thought.

*edit to add: and in case this bit was missed the first umpteen times I mentioned it, when the Vermont Supreme Court first mandated a legislative solution to the inequality here, it was with the explicit realization that gay based families already existed. Please keep this point in mind: before there was any civil union or gay marriage, gay parents were creating families and raising children, and those children were conspicuously lacking the equal protection that is presumed by at least many thinking persons and courts to be due them.

 

[RandFan]

That has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I've heard in a while. I can't even begin to figure out what the analogy of stealing cars has to do with the protection of children. Adoption does exist. Divorces and remarriages exist. Gay based families do exist and more than a few of them involve children. Of course if you argue the issue from a point of view of disapproving of homosexual unions, these things are secondary, but if, as you continually claim, you do not, then the protection of families demands that the families of homosexual unions enjoy equality of protection. As I have said over and over and you seem not to have registered, this is not just an issue of the rights of adults. It is an issue of equal protection for families that exist.* You have claimed that the reality of family welfare does not invalidate the argument for hetero-only marriage, but you use a theoretical idea of family welfare as your argument.

If, as one still vainly hopes, your argument is not based on a disapproval of homosexual unions, then I believe you are not thinking very clearly about all that the gay marriage issue really entails, and if, as one still vainly hopes, your mind is not nailed shut, you would do yourself a favor to give it some more thought.

*edit to add: and in case this bit was missed the first umpteen times I mentioned it, when the Vermont Supreme Court first mandated a legislative solution to the inequality here, it was with the explicit realization that gay based families already existed. Please keep this point in mind: before there was any civil union or gay marriage, gay parents were creating families and raising children, and those children were conspicuously lacking the equal protection that is presumed by at least many thinking persons and courts to be due them.

Good post.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The parallel was made even more clear during oral arguments.

Nudge-nudge, bet she did, say no more!











Sorry, I'll go to bed now.

 

[jimbob]

A while ago you were arguing loss. Now it's a small gain. I was under the impression that the two are different.

Nope.


All the figures I have seen say that it is a small net benefit.

I have also said that even if there was a significant fiscal cost, as it is the right thing to do, the discussion in that case shouldn't be about whether to allow rights to a section of citizens, but on *how* to fund the allowing of the rights to citizens.

 

[jimbob]

How so, if the economic argument is empty, as RandFan asserts?All human behavioral traits are heritable (including reading comprehension).
RandFan does not deal with the argument at all. The cost/benefit calculations that justify the heterosexual marriage tradition (protecting pregnant women from fathers who skip, surrounding children with a supportive environment) do not apply with the same force to same-sex couples, who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of a very expensive medical condition.One of the plaintifsf in the Baer, et. al. v. Miike lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health against their policy of restricting marriage licenses to heterosexual couples gave as the basis of her claim to standing was that the State's denial of a marriage license denied her access to her (government) employer-funded spousal medical benefit. As the saying goes: "When someone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle', it's the money."

I've just realised what you might be getting at with the highlighted bit.

What is your point? That gay parents might have gay children?

What is your point about heritable traits?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...if you argue the issue from a point of view of disapproving of homosexual unions, these things are secondary, but if, as you continually claim, you do not, then the protection of families demands that the families of homosexual unions enjoy equality of protection....

No. The cost/benefit considerations are not the same in both cases.