Liberal Fallacies

[jimbob]

No. Gay man + lesbian (I know of one such marriage) is a mixed-gender couple, just like white man+white woman, black man + white woman, Asian man + black woman, etc.

That sounds like a sitcom on Bravo.

You are right, but I suspect that in reality most would resemble several of marriages of the English upper classes in the Victorian or Edwardian periods due to the effect of boarding school. Not something to aim for.

 

[quadraginta]

We disagree.
The parallel with changes to laws regarding which members of which race could marry would fit if members of some race could not marry at all.

Case 1:

People were forbidden by law to marry whom they wanted to because of race.
​

Case 2:

People are forbidden by law to marry whom they want to because of gender.
​

In neither case is the overall pool of people changed.

In both cases people are still free to marry someone other than whom they may wish to, as long as that other someone is part of an approved group.

The distinction you seem to be trying to make is not apparent.

 

[RandFan]

At the end of the day some people fall in love and some of them want to marry. If they are capable of consent let them.

Bigots have a way of wanting to run other people's lives. Tell them who they can have sex with. Who they can marry. There is an ass in Virginia, a republican, who wants to make oral sex illegal. What's with Republicans wanting to control other people's lives?

GOP, get out of our bedrooms and out of our lives. It's really none of your business.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Isn't the anti-gay argument that gay people have just as much right to marry as anyone else, so long as they marry people of the opposite sex? Doesn't that satisfy your criteria?

Dunno what you mean. That's not my argument.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

At the end of the day some people fall in love and some of them want to marry. If they are capable of consent let them.

Bigots have a way of wanting to run other people's lives. Tell them who they can have sex with. Who they can marry.
... What's with Republicans wanting to control other people's lives?
GOP, get out of our bedrooms and out of our lives. It's really none of your business.

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. What two or more consenting adults agree to do with, by, for, or to each other is their business so long as no non-consenting party is harmed or made to pay for their indulgence. Want to set up house and promise to love, honor, and obey each other, for better or worse, in sickness and health, 'til death do you part? Go ahead. Just don't make me pay for it, okay? I don't see advocacy for same-sex marriage coupled with advocacy of repeal of spousal benefits. Expansion of the class of people eligible for tax-funded spousal benefits is a tax increase.

 

[SezMe]

MK. it appears that the only basis for your view of marriage is what it will cost YOU. Are there no other factors which you consider?

 

[RandFan]

MK. it appears that the only basis for your view of marriage is what it will cost YOU. Are there no other factors which you consider?

I don't buy the ad hoc rationalization for one moment. At the prop 8 trial evidence was produced and it was a finding of fact that gay marriage would be good for the families, society and the economy. The defendants only "expert" witness conceded that. There was no evidence that gay marriage was suddenly going to have a negative effect on the economy or taxes or any such thing. And that was exactly the kind of evidence the judge asked the defendants to produce.

So, why was there no such evidence provided? Let me quote David Boies: “The witness stand, under oath, is a lonely place to lie.”

Anyone can get on an internet forum and make all kinds of claims about harm to the economy, increase in taxes, and harm to children blah blah blah. But try that in court where there are REAL experts who have done real studies and have real data to rebut you and make you look like an idiot (and a perjurer).

ETA: IIRC the "expert witness" was in the end not accepted as an expert by the judge.

 

[Dancing David]

No, it did not. It expanded the number of possible marriages, but not the number of people.

Huh?

That is assuming gay people would not marry people of the opposite gender as well.

 

[Tony]

Expansion of the class of people eligible for tax-funded spousal benefits is a tax increase.

This expansion of eligible people happens every year as people age. Why don't you support the criminalization of growing up? That would make about as much sense as the wooish drivel you're peddling.

 

[Travis]

I take it Malcolm would welcome a law that prevents Steves from marrying Sallys since it would reduce the number of tax break giving marriages.

 

[Upchurch]

Isn't the anti-gay argument that gay people have just as much right to marry as anyone else, so long as they marry people of the opposite sex? Doesn't that satisfy your criteria?

Dunno what you mean. That's not my argument.

Well, it kind of is. Let's look at your argument again:

The parallel with changes to laws regarding which members of which race could marry would fit if members of some race could not marry at all.

You are saying that the parallel between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage doesn't work because at no time could blacks and white NOT get married. They just couldn't marry between races. Whereas, gay men and women can't get married, thus the analogy breaks down.

But, of course, gay men and women can get married. They just can't marry someone of the same sex.

In other words, the parallel condition is met because while no race was ever prevented from marrying at all, neither has a person of any sexual orientation ever prevented from marrying at all. In both cases, people have always been able to marry people within the legally acceptable parameters, just not necessarily of the people of their choice, weither of a different race or of the same sexual orientation.

Ergo, this also defeats your economic argument because the pool of people capable of entering marriage will not change any more than it did when interracial marriage was legalized.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, it kind of is. Let's look at your argument again:

You are saying that the parallel bnetween interracial marriage and same-sex marriage doesn't work because at no time could blacks and white NOT get married. They just couldn't marry between races. Whereas, gay men and women can't get married, thus the analogy breaks down.

But, of course, gay men and women can get married. They just can't marry someone of the same sex.

In other words, the parallel condition is met because while no race was ever prevented from marrying at all, neither has a person of any sexual orientation ever prevented from marrying at all. In both cases, people have always been able to marry people within the legally acceptable parameters, just not necessarily of the people of their choice, weither of a different race or of the same sexual orientation.

Ergo, this also defeats your economic argument because the pool of people capable of entering marriage will not change any more than it did when interracial marriage was legalized.

The parallel was made even more clear during oral arguments. Defenders of DOMA wanted to say that it's not about targeting a group of people as inferior (the way the anti-miscegenation laws did) but only about defending a traditional definition of marriage. Sotomayor, IIRC, then read some piece of legislative history that said explicitly otherwise. Let me find the quote. . . .

ETA: It was Kagan:

JUSTICE KAGAN:


Well, is what happened in
1996 -- and I'm going to quote from the House Report
here -- is that "Congress decided to reflect an honor of
collective moral judgment and to express moral
disapproval of homosexuality."

So the just defending a traditional definition of marriage stuff is BS, the same way that argument was BS when used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. The laws in both cases were meant to express disapproval of a class of people.

 

[bruto]

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. What two or more consenting adults agree to do with, by, for, or to each other is their business so long as no non-consenting party is harmed or made to pay for their indulgence. Want to set up house and promise to love, honor, and obey each other, for better or worse, in sickness and health, 'til death do you part? Go ahead. Just don't make me pay for it, okay? I don't see advocacy for same-sex marriage coupled with advocacy of repeal of spousal benefits. Expansion of the class of people eligible for tax-funded spousal benefits is a tax increase.

So you contend. Do you have some information about the actual cost, not just in income tax but in other offsetting taxes? Most of the studies I've seen have suggested that the overall economic effect is positive, and usually, at least, when an economy improves taxes go down. A Maine study I read also suggested that income taxes revenue itself would increase (for gay couples) as a result of more joint filings. I have not searched hard, and not found any direct statistics on Vermont, where I live. It is complicated here by a non-related change in the rate of taxation during that time. But here we are in a state where civil unions (and joint state taxation) have been in effect for over a decade, and gay marriage is now the law, and other states have similar laws. If you're going to argue the economics, perhaps you should find an argument.

e.t.a. I'm busy preparing for a trip, so someone else will have to take the time if it's necessary for those not making the economic argument in the first place to find it. But I will mention that in my various readings, it is interesting to note that many of the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage, and of gay rights in general, avoid the economic argument and declare it a red herring, just as some of the remnant of anti-gay activists in Vermont who retain their opposition to civil unions declare that the fact that the institution has been harmless and almost entirely invisible in society is irrelevant to the moral issue. The fact-free anti-homosexual argument is, in the end, about the only argument that cannot be successfully challenged with facts.

 

[jimbob]

So you contend. Do you have some information about the actual cost, not just in income tax but in other offsetting taxes? Most of the studies I've seen have suggested that the overall economic effect is positive, and usually, at least, when an economy improves taxes go down. A Maine study I read also suggested that income taxes revenue itself would increase (for gay couples) as a result of more joint filings. I have not searched hard, and not found any direct statistics on Vermont, where I live. It is complicated here by a non-related change in the rate of taxation during that time. But here we are in a state where civil unions (and joint state taxation) have been in effect for over a decade, and gay marriage is now the law, and other states have similar laws. If you're going to argue the economics, perhaps you should find an argument.

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

And it doesn't matter anyway. The costs to some states of abolishing slavery were considerable and significant, and that was not a valid reason for not abolishing slavery.

States could save a LOT of money by simply taxing white people at a higher rate than black people. That state benefit doesn't make such a proposal constitutional.

ETA: Also, as I pointed out earlier Prop 8 and DOMA are relatively recent laws. Even if you bought this argument of Malcom's, you'd have to characterize striking down these laws as a repeal of a recent tax increase, and not as a tax cut.

 

[RandFan]

So you contend. Do you have some information about the actual cost, not just in income tax but in other offsetting taxes? Most of the studies I've seen have suggested that the overall economic effect is positive, and usually, at least, when an economy improves taxes go down. A Maine study I read also suggested that income taxes revenue itself would increase (for gay couples) as a result of more joint filings. I have not searched hard, and not found any direct statistics on Vermont, where I live. It is complicated here by a non-related change in the rate of taxation during that time. But here we are in a state where civil unions (and joint state taxation) have been in effect for over a decade, and gay marriage is now the law, and other states have similar laws. If you're going to argue the economics, perhaps you should find an argument.

The tax objection is a dodge. It's a way to justify denying equal rights to gays and lesbians.

If Malcolm's pretext had any value whatsoever the defendants would have provided evidence in open court during the Prop 8 trial. The fact is the evidence for the defendants was non-existent and the atty for defendants admitted as much.

There is no evidence for Malcolm's excuse. And the idea that he is giving permission to gays and lesbians to do what they lawfully can do, cohabitate, is silly and transparent rhetoric. It's like giving someone permission to breathe. Aren't you merciful.

Marriage equality for gays and lesbians is good for the families of gays and lesbians. That was a finding of fact stipulated to by the defense "expert" witness. Marriage equality for gays would improve the state of the economy. Also a finding of fact in the trial. Marriage equality for gays and lesbians would be good for society.

Bitching about your tax bill sans any evidence whatsoever that marriage equality for gays and lesbians would cost someone more money is a blatant red herring. 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.

It's pretty transparent BS people.

 

[jimbob]

And it doesn't matter anyway. The costs to some states of abolishing slavery were considerable and significant, and that was not a valid reason for not abolishing slavery.

Indeed, which practically every poster in this thread has said several times.

However it might be worth repeating (yet) again.

Still being against gay marriage is one of Malcolm's more mainstream views


Repealing child labour laws is something he is in favour of.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The tax objection is a dodge. It's a way to justify denying equal rights to gays and lesbians.
<snip>

It's pretty transparent BS people.

Exactly.

Just because something can be portrayed as a tax increase that benefits a state doesn't mean it's necessarily constitutional.

FWIW, Scalia and proponents of these laws weren't even making that argument. They were just trying to address the standing issue by showing that the parties defending the laws are representing an entity that has suffered damages by the lower court rulings, since in both cases the normal party that would defend the law in the name of the people are not doing so.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...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?

...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."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As the saying goes: "When someone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle', it's the money."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, when you have to invent fake quotes to characterize your opponent's argument, it's a pretty good sign you're probably arguing against a strawman version of your opponent.

We're not saying "It's not the money; it's the principle." We're saying that the question of monetary harm or benefit to a state (or the federal government) doesn't settle the question of the constitutionality of these laws.

The fact that a plaintiff or appellant suffered damages only gets you in the courtroom; it doesn't settle the case.

ETA: As I said earlier, even Scalia and the people arguing in favor of these laws didn't try to make the argument that economic harm settles the question of constitutionality. They only used it to try to address the issue of standing.