Marriage Debate

Meadmaker said:
So, more people get married, and government revenues go up, while government spending goes down.

That's a good thing, but while we're at it, someone might want to discuss the "benefits" that married couples get. It seems they are paying more and receiving less than if they were single.

(Doesn't surprise me a bit, but it's odd how that myth stays in place.)
Click to expand...

Good place to start:http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/university/publicbenefit/
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Originally Posted by HeavyAaron :
For the umteenth time, here is the assertion I disagree with:

This was I.D.'s reply to Hunster.

I am saying that this assertion would apply to pedophilia (i.e. it is a trait that a person is born with) and yet it's a vice. Therefore to claim that a born in trait is a vice cannot be prima facia absurd.

I am NOT supporting the notion that homosexuality is a vice. I am ONLY saying that because a characteristic is a trait one is born with is not evidence that it's NOT a vice. There is nothing absurd about the notion that a vice may be something someone is born with.

I seriously think I've been clear about this. Yet only Scott seems to understand what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Aaron
Being born a pedophile is not a vice. Predating on children is. Were you cognizant of the distinction?
Click to expand...

Trying to use the lame excuse of "I was born this way" doesn't work for the same reason it doesn't work for pediphiles, alcoholics, etc.

Behaviors are regulated by society. Currently, privacy interpretations allow many behaviors inside the privacy of one's one home. As one should expect, that results in further demands for outright legitimacy.
 
Huntster said:
Trying to use the lame excuse of "I was born this way" doesn't work for the same reason it doesn't work for pediphiles, alcoholics, etc.

Behaviors are regulated by society. Currently, privacy interpretations allow many behaviors inside the privacy of one's one home. As one should expect, that results in further demands for outright legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Correction, destructive behaviors are regulated by society. Being an alcoholic is not against the law. Drinking is not against the law. Driving while drunk is against the law because of the huge potential it poses for hurting people and property.

The "lame excuse" of "I was born this way" does not work for practicing pedophiles because their behavior is destructive, namely to the children. If "I was born this way" does not work for homosexuals in the same way, as you claim, then there must be a destructive aspect to practicing homosexual behavior. What would that destructive aspect be?
 
Upchurch said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Trying to use the lame excuse of "I was born this way" doesn't work for the same reason it doesn't work for pediphiles, alcoholics, etc.

Behaviors are regulated by society. Currently, privacy interpretations allow many behaviors inside the privacy of one's one home. As one should expect, that results in further demands for outright legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Correction, destructive behaviors are regulated by society. Being an alcoholic is not against the law. Drinking is not against the law. Driving while drunk is against the law because of the huge potential it poses for hurting people and property.
Click to expand...

In addition to prohibitions regarding drinking and driving there are regulations covering the manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption of alcohol.

Like prohibitions against homosexual behaviors in the past, there was a prohibition regarding the manufacture, sale, distribution, consumption, and possession of alcohol. And at that time, the "I was born this way" mantra not only didn't work, it hadn't been "invented" yet.

"I was born this way" works for bleeding hearts.

Those with bleeding hearts suffer from blood loss in the brain rather quickly.
 
Meadmaker said:
According to what Scot posted, having gays get married is a money-maker for the government. So where is my tax break I'm supposed to get because I'm married? Also, according to what Scot posted, government spending will go down as a result of allowing gay marriage. So, where are all the goodies I'm supposed to get as a result of being married? The point is that the economic "benefits" of marriage are illusory. If you single people expect tax breaks and government goodies as a result of getting married, don't bother. I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

Imaginaldisc is right here Meadmaker. Not zero-sum... Besides the box of the more intangible “goodies” we already typed about, my material loss is not always your gain; sometimes we both win.

As I pointed out a number of times, I’m in the odd situation where I could break about even. We could get about $5K/year in welfare, or, if we had legal marriage, we could just keep $5K/year of our income. For personal morals I can’t take the welfare we could due to our legal classification as “single” (not to say these threads don’t make it all the more tempting :)). But many gays do take what they legally can, and some get more and some get less (some legitimately, some not, imho), but those studies show the results. The results seem to be that we all pay more to keep gays from these legal rights and responsibilities.

You could either take 5K of our $, then add on the costs of pushing it around the government, and then give 5K back as a benevolent big government “donation to the poor”, or you could just let us keep what we make. Surely you can see one is more efficient than the other.

If you’re worried about the loss of a job for a government pencil pusher, we could pay them to do something more productive than juggle money; like cancer research (What I'm currently doing :D).

Furthermore, I don’t think these figures get near the actual cost in productivity. If something happens to my homemaker, my productivity goes out the window. It’s in society's best interest for homemakers to have health insurance (and unfettered access to the household income if, alternatively, something happens to the person making the money).
 
Huntster said:
In addition to prohibitions regarding drinking and driving there are regulations covering the manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption of alcohol.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Yes, and most of those prohibitions have to do with keeping alcohol out of the hands of minors for whom it presents an extreme detriment for their development.

Huntster said:
Like prohibitions against homosexual behaviors in the past, there was a prohibition regarding the manufacture, sale, distribution, consumption, and possession of alcohol. And at that time, the "I was born this way" mantra not only didn't work, it hadn't been "invented" yet.
Click to expand...
Before what was invented? Your argument doesn't make any sense. Can you be more specific and leave the personal attacks for someone is effected by such attacks?
 
Huntster said:
"I was born this way" works for bleeding hearts.

Those with bleeding hearts suffer from blood loss in the brain rather quickly.
Click to expand...

:confused: I too don’t think “born that way” matters, or should “work”.

What’s more funny to me though is that it’s not liberals that I’ve found to care about “born that way”. They often couldn’t care less if sexual orientation was congenital or a whim for the hour. Instead, it’s always seemed to me like “born that way” was a point in this debate that those against gay rights cared about most; one that “worked” for them, often claiming that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral. But none of them struck me as bleeding hearts.
 
Upchurch said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
In addition to prohibitions regarding drinking and driving there are regulations covering the manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption of alcohol.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Yes, and most of those prohibitions have to do with keeping alcohol out of the hands of minors for whom it presents an extreme detriment for their development.
Click to expand...

The Prohibition of 1918-1936 had absolutely nothing to do with driving and or minors.

It was a constitutional amendment to prohibit the stuff, and there was another constitutional amendment to undo the intitial, stupid, political, legal, and futile attempt to rid the nation of alcohol.

It wasn't until recent years when "science" "informed" us that an alcoholic was "born that way".

As a hard drinking guy, I say that's a bunch of bull***t. I drink beer when tinkering cause I damned well feel like it, and if it was made illegal, I'd do it anyway.

That's an attitude and a behavior.

That said, I really don't give much of a damn about the openly admitted punitive taxes imposed on alchohol and tobacco products by those who are using the excuse about "destructive addictions". If the taxes get out of hand, I'll brew or grow my own.

I also don't fall for the "I was born this way" line of bull***t regarding homosexuality, I have no wish for government to prohibit homosexual behavior in the privacy of one's own home, but I also refuse to appease the homosexual community's demands for marriage to be redefined to include same sex marriages.

Can you be more specific and leave the personal attacks for someone is effected by such attacks?
Click to expand...

Specific enough?

Did I hurt you with that "vicious attack"?
 
Scot C. Trypal said:
...What’s more funny to me though is that it’s not liberals that I’ve found to care about “born that way”. They often couldn’t care less if sexual orientation was congenital or a whim for the hour. Instead, it’s always seemed to me like “born that way” was a point in this debate that those against gay rights cared about most; one that “worked” for them, often claiming that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral. But none of them struck me as bleeding hearts.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I just don't fit with either side, do I?
 
Huntster said:
I also don't fall for the "I was born this way" line of bull***t regarding homosexuality, I have no wish for government to prohibit homosexual behavior in the privacy of one's own home, but I also refuse to appease the homosexual community's demands for marriage to be redefined to include same sex marriages.



Specific enough?
Click to expand...

yeah, we know. But why not?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
That's not what I asked you. Who is harmed by allowing two men or two women to marry?
Click to expand...

I read what you asked. I gave you my answer.

It's what will be harmed by allowing SSM, and that is the current and historical legal definition of marriage.
 
So by allowing SSM, we harm the current legal definition of marriage. Is that your strongest case of harm that will be caused?! Wow.
 
thaiboxerken said:
So by allowing SSM, we harm the current legal definition of marriage. Is that your strongest case of harm that will be caused?! Wow.
Click to expand...

Which is why opponents of SSM will never succeed in their mission. Their arguments are weak and their bigotry obvious.
 
Huntster said:
The Prohibition of 1918-1936 had absolutely nothing to do with driving and or minors.

It was a constitutional amendment to prohibit the stuff, and there was another constitutional amendment to undo the intitial, stupid, political, legal, and futile attempt to rid the nation of alcohol.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A constitutional amendment designed to regulate non-destructive behavior didn't work because there was no good reason to do it. But, I suppose you don't see the parallel

Huntster said:
It wasn't until recent years when "science" "informed" us that an alcoholic was "born that way".

As a hard drinking guy, I say that's a bunch of bull***t. I drink beer when tinkering cause I damned well feel like it, and if it was made illegal, I'd do it anyway.

That's an attitude and a behavior.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that "science". When has "science" ever been right or useful about anything? :rolleyes:

Not all alcoholics are genetically disposed to be alcoholics. Second, how do you know that you aren't genetically

Huntster said:
I also don't fall for the "I was born this way" line of bull***t regarding homosexuality, I have no wish for government to prohibit homosexual behavior in the privacy of one's own home, but I also refuse to appease the homosexual community's demands for marriage to be redefined to include same sex marriages.

Specific enough?
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't explain what you said earlier at all.

Huntster said:
Did I hurt you with that "vicious attack"?
Click to expand...
No. It wasn't "vicious". It wasn't even relevent, let alone correctly aimed.
 
Scot C. Trypal said:
Imaginaldisc is right here Meadmaker. Not zero-sum... Besides the box of the more intangible “goodies” we already typed about, my material loss is not always your gain; sometimes we both win.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything about that. I'm saying one thing and one thing only. The average couple doesn't get a tax break because they are married, nor does the average couple get a bunch of financial benefits because they are married. I think your data showed that, because changing a bunch of single people to married people results in more tax revenue and fewer government outlays.

That's all I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom