Liberal Fallacies

[A'isha]

Do you recommend volleyball? Yes or no?
I'm not recommending any any lifestyle. I support repeal of inheritance and estate taxes. I support a return to a legal regime of freedom of association and freedom of contract in the private sector. I support policies that would ban non-job-related employment discrimination by government agencies and that would mandate that government agencies pay their employees in cash (you want a pension or a health plan, buy one from your wages). Add medical and financial power of attorney and there's nothing left to argue about, unless you want to reach into my bank balance.

That's a pathetically transparent dodge.

Answer the question: are you in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage if both partners are female, or are you against it?

 

[RandFan]

Do you recommend volleyball? Yes or no?
I'm not recommending any any lifestyle. I support repeal of inheritance and estate taxes. I support a return to a legal regime of freedom of association and freedom of contract in the private sector. I support policies that would ban non-job-related employment discrimination by government agencies and that would mandate that government agencies pay their employees in cash (you want a pension or a health plan, buy one from your wages). Add medical and financial power of attorney and there's nothing left to argue about, unless you want to reach into my bank balance.

An example of such a regime?

FTR: If the state got out of the marriage business that would be fine with me. But, that's not what you've been arguing here. You've been arguing to discriminate against millions of children and their families based solely on the gender of their parents.

Do you believe in equal protection?

 

[elbe]

This is the real discussion. Thanks. People respond to cost/benefit considerations.

Maybe I've missed it but where have you considered the benefits? All I seem to be seeing are costs - speculative ones at that. That's hardly a "real discussion".

 

[bruto]

This is the real discussion. Thanks. People respond to cost/benefit considerations. One of the plaintifs in the original Baer, et. al. versus Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health gave as her ground for complaint that the State's denial of marriage to same-sex couples denied her partner access to her State-funded health plan. I expect that health care costs for a lesbial spouse would be lower than for a female spouse of a male government employee (pregnancy is dangerous). OTOH, I expect that health care costs for male spouses of male employees would be larger than for male spouses of female government employees.
No. I don't have much hard data, but neither does the other side of this argument offer much (and RandFan's cited numbers are strange and only tangentially relevant). Advocates for legally-mandated redefinition of marriage recommend a leap into the dark. I see a risk of significant costs.

So you do not have data, but you make the assumption. Those opposing you do not really need to come up with data. The contention is yours, and many people who support gay marriage do not consider the issue pertinent anyway. If you do, it's your issue, and the burden is on you.

For how many decades can you presume an abstract risk? Vermont has had civil unions since 2000. Some Scandinavian countries have allowed gay marriage for over 20 years. It's a leap into the dark only if you're accustomed to going through life backwards.

 

[LashL]

This thread is being closed for clean up. Please do not start other threads (or derail existing threads) to discuss the same stuff; you'll have to wait until it is split and the thread(s) are reopened. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL