Liberal Fallacies

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What is your point about heritable traits?

Okay, I'll stop. It's an allusion to Randfan's poor reading comprehension. Relatedly, I'd like to take up the arguments that proponents make regarding cost advantages to legalization of same-sex marriage. Some of the advantages that attend entering a stable relationship (e.g a lifetime supply of moral support and safe sex) do not require State sanction. Sharing housing costs and grocery bills with a partner or three makes sense regardless of whether a government official joins in the rice-throwing.

I observe that many of the advocates for same-sex marriage in this forum also supported expansion of the government's presence in the medical services industry (Obamacare) and claimed that the government presence would reduce costs. How's that working out? Pitchmen routinely minimize or dismiss costs when they make a sales pitch. Advocates for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps wildly understated the costs.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, I'll stop. It's an allusion to Randfan's poor reading comprehension. Relatedly, I'd like to take up the arguments that proponents make regarding cost advantages to legalization of same-sex marriage. Some of the advantages that attend entering a stable relationship (e.g a lifetime supply of moral support and safe sex) do not require State sanction. Sharing housing costs and grocery bills with a partner or three makes sense regardless of whether a government official joins in the rice-throwing.

I observe that many of the advocates for same-sex marriage in this forum also supported expansion of the government's presence in the medical services industry (Obamacare) and claimed that the government presence would reduce costs. How's that working out? Pitchmen routinely minimize or dismiss costs when they make a sales pitch. Advocates for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps wildly understated the costs.

Dude, you have no argument. You flail about desperately to find an excuse for your bigotry but no one is buying it. You don't care if gay men marry lesbians and then get benefits. You only care if men marry men.

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[Upchurch]

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

I don't see how you can make that claim. How is it different?

 

[jimbob]

Okay, I'll stop. It's an allusion to Randfan's poor reading comprehension. Relatedly, I'd like to take up the arguments that proponents make regarding cost advantages to legalization of same-sex marriage. Some of the advantages that attend entering a stable relationship (e.g a lifetime supply of moral support and safe sex) do not require State sanction. Sharing housing costs and grocery bills with a partner or three makes sense regardless of whether a government official joins in the rice-throwing.

I observe that many of the advocates for same-sex marriage in this forum also supported expansion of the government's presence in the medical services industry (Obamacare) and claimed that the government presence would reduce costs. How's that working out? Pitchmen routinely minimize or dismiss costs when they make a sales pitch. Advocates for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps wildly understated the costs.

And the bit about the people wanting to support their lifepartners? IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BY THESE CITIZENS. Given the numbers of people involved, we don't even need to worry about how to fund it.

BTW If you want to see the costs of a universal healthcare system, I suggest that you check out my signature - The NHS still is more cost efficient than the US system and covers the whole population. Admittedly this is partly because the reforms haven't kicked in yet.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And the bit about the people wanting to support their lifepartners? IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BY THESE CITIZENS.

Unless you want something FROM me, you don't need me to do it.

 

[jimbob]

And the bit about the people wanting to support their lifepartners? IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BY THESE CITIZENS. Given the numbers of people involved, we don't even need to worry about how to fund it.

Unless you want something FROM me, you don't need me to do it.

I'm sorry but I don't understand.

Many jobs have benefits that are available to the workers and their families as part of the employment terms.

Family is often identified by marriage - spousal benefits, for example. On occasion, some can be assigned without marriage but marriage is, like the best credit cards, universally accepted.

Marriage also implies that the state fully accepts the relationship as equal to other marriages.

If a one member of a homosexual couple can't get the same worker benefits for their loved one as someone who is married, due to their inability to marry, then their employment terms are worse than for couples who are married.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You irrationally oppose gay marriage¹, and have to twist your own stated principles unto unrecognizable shapes in order to justify arguing against lessening government intrusion into something and increasing personal liberty.² Even Charles Murray knows better than you do.

1. Presuming the conclusion. Expansion of the category eligible for marriage benefits is a tax increase.
2. No. The principle remains. We both recognize that the real world complicates the application of principles.

 

[RandFan]

1. Presuming the conclusion. Expansion of the category eligible for marriage benefits is a tax increase.

p1 Marriage equality would improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.
p2 Marriage equality would boost the economy.

Those are findings of fact from the prop 8 trial. You have offered zero evidence that your tax bill would be increased if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry same sex partners. You don't know that benefits would not be offset by an improved economy due to increase in marriages (finding of fact from the prop 8 trial). You've not addressed these premises that I have made countless of times.

The defendants in the prop 8 trial were asked time and again for precisely the kind of evidence that you refuse to provide. The defense didn't provide it for precisely the reason you won't provide it. It doesn't exist. You know that. I know that. The attys and judge in the prop 8 trial know that.

We won't be seeing any evidence from you because it doesn't exist.

 

[RandFan]

Equal protection

Another argument that you refuse to address is the equal protection clause. Why is it that the families of gays and lesbians do not merit equal protection? Those families exist right now. Why should they be discriminated against? Your argument that it would cost you money is A.) insufficient justification. B.) Without any evidentiary basis.

Yet you keep making that argument. Why?

 

[bruto]

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

Many cost benefit considerations can be made for many circumstances, but there is a constitutional guarantee that families get equal protection. Of course you can redefine the family as you please, but if a family exists and is defined as a family, the constitutional right of equal protection is not dependent on fiscal fine-tuning. If it were, then one could and should judge different sorts of heterosexual families separately as well, but this is fortunately not done.

Are you saying that children whose custodial parents are homosexual should not have the rights of other children?

In any case, you keep bringing up a hypothetical cost/benefit issue, but aside from our not seeing any evidence that there is a cost, that criterion only applies if you do not (as many here do) consider the underlying issue as an important moral and social one. Submitting rights to economic standards is, to say the least, dangerous. There are many groups of people we could disenfranchise, discard or even kill to do that, but few here would consider that a good bargain.

 

[A'isha]

1. Presuming the conclusion.

Yes, that is indeed what you're doing.

Expansion of the category eligible for marriage benefits is a tax increase.

No, it's not. Your annual taxes are not calculated on the basis of how many people get married during the year. More marriages (and thus more people being eligible for marriage benefits) aren't a tax increase any more than the Pentagon issuing a new purchase contract is a tax increase.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Why don't you show evidence for your statement that all human behaviors are inheritable?

Steven Pinker hasn't got evidence, he has a lot of speculation.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Some traits that are inherited may predispose people to respond differently, but even 'behavioral traits' being inherited in humans is a stretch. Pinker speculates a lot but really lacks any data to back it up.

Just because Pinker says somethings does not make it so, there is little evidence to show a genetic basis for complex behaviors.

 

[RandFan]

Some traits that are inherited may predispose people to respond differently, but even 'behavioral traits' being inherited in humans is a stretch. Pinker speculates a lot but really lacks any data to back it up.

Just because Pinker says somethings does not make it so, there is little evidence to show a genetic basis for complex behaviors.

It's not "behaviors". It's "behavioral traits". There is a difference. But I'm happy to agree to disagree on Pinker. Though I will concede your premise that just because Pinker says something doesn't make it true.

 

[jimbob]

Moved back from AAH, because I think it had got caught in the sweepup:

Edited by Darat: 

Removed the quote from an infracted post in AAH.

It would make nine tenths of bugger all difference.

Any tax rebates for married couples would involve tax cuts to a particular segment of the population. Only state pensions given to surviving spouses of a gay government employee would actually count as a cost increase. This has to be a very small fraction of governmental spending.

And even if it did make a significant difference it would still be the right thing to do.

Society is for the inhabitants of that society. We have moved away from "L'etat, c'est moi"

Anyway, because I was curious about this I googled "CBO fiscal implications gay marriage" without the quotation marks.

There were a couple of interesting links - both showing that the CBO has looked into this in 2004.

Bloomberg -What Is the Fiscal Impact of Gay Marriage?

The Congressional Budget Office looked into the question in 2004 at the request of Republican Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio. The CBO’s findings suggest that federally recognized gay marriage would reduce the budget deficit by about $450 million a year, or roughly 0.01 percent of total federal spending. So, I’m sorry, straight America: We’re not going to balance your budget by getting married, but we’ll help a little bit.

Even though the cost components are different, the net effect would probably be similar at the state and federal levels: positive, but very small. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law has reached this conclusion in fiscal analyses across various states; for example, they estimated in 2009 that legal same-sex marriage in Maine would generate $8 million in annual fiscal benefits for the state, mostly through reductions in Medicaid and other public assistance payments.

The fiscal benefits aren't a crucial reason to support same-sex marriage, but they do lend support to one of the “conservative” cases for it. Marriage is a structure through which people depend on each other, so they don’t have to depend on the government. For gay men and lesbians to take advantage of that fiscally friendly option, the government has to make it legal for us to marry.

Or this Washington post blog

A 2011 Williams Institute study similarly found that gay marriage in Rhode Island would save the state $406,722 over three years in public assistance spending.

(I think this barely manages to be even nine tenths of bugger all).

 

[Tricky]

Assuming that some gay parents will adopt children, that will lower the burden of the government to to support foster parents and other "orphan" programs. That's gonna decrease taxes.

And indeed the "don't increase my taxes" line is failing at every turn.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Tony]

And indeed the "don't increase my taxes" line is failing at every turn.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

If he was consistent, he would extend this same line of reasoning to every other item for which people receive a tax rebate or any other kind of tax benefit (which magically become "tax increases" for some reason). Basically, it would mean no more children, no more marriage, no more home ownership, and no more businesses. Of course he could argue for ending tax benefits for those things, but he isn't. The "tax increase" argument is only used to argue against gay marriage. I wonder why?

 

[Dancing David]

1. Presuming the conclusion. Expansion of the category eligible for marriage benefits is a tax increase.
2. No. The principle remains. We both recognize that the real world complicates the application of principles.

No more so then the Bush tax cuts were a tax increase.

 

[jimbob]

If he was consistent, he would extend this same line of reasoning to every other item for which people receive a tax rebate or any other kind of tax benefit (which magically become "tax increases" for some reason). Basically, it would mean no more children, no more marriage, no more home ownership, and no more businesses. Of course he could argue for ending tax benefits for those things, but he isn't. The "tax increase" argument is only used to argue against gay marriage. I wonder why?

Be fair to Malcolm,

He doesn't like most of the constructs of government.

I thought it was simpler than that - tax and governmental interference is wrong on all levels (unless it is to prohibit certain private behaviours). Child labour laws and compulsory education are also somehow bad.

Thanks. Enforcement of certain arbitrary rules of the road (e.g., drive on the right) facilitate commerce. Standardized measures facilitate contract enforcement. There's a "public goods" role for an EPA And I'd say "narrowly self-interested but destructive in aggregate" instead of "private", but that's a minor quibble.

If I am recalling his posts correctly, he doesn't like any form of state-mandated marriage. I think the argument is that manifest injustice is not a sufficient reason to extend the benefits of marriage to anyone else.

 

[bruto]

If he was consistent, he would extend this same line of reasoning to every other item for which people receive a tax rebate or any other kind of tax benefit (which magically become "tax increases" for some reason). Basically, it would mean no more children, no more marriage, no more home ownership, and no more businesses. Of course he could argue for ending tax benefits for those things, but he isn't. The "tax increase" argument is only used to argue against gay marriage. I wonder why?

Indeed, all tax loopholes and exemptions are, in effect, a tax increase for those who remain. Back in a former life when I was involved in town government in Connecticut, and related seminars and the like, it was a standing principle in property tax assessment, and a rationale for being very careful and selective in granting exemptions. Of course, when making these decisions, one must weigh the social and philosophical advantages of such exemptions, and many are made for those reasons, but it is always understood that when you relieve a school, a church or a camp of property taxation, you are increasing the tax rate for everyone else. If you're dealing with a fixed income need and a fixed base, there's no magic involved. It's plain math. You divide the grand list by the budget and you get the rate.

Now in the overall tax situation of states and nations the computation can be a little more complex, as more than one tax is involved, and total revenues and offsets harder to calculate. But the decision of whom to include or exclude from any tax situation is, in short, a clear indicator of one's values.