1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Texas Gay Marriage Ban UnconstitutionalFollow

#102 Mar 05 2014 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I understand perfectly why people wish to grant those benefits to gay couples. I disagree that we should. Those are completely different things. My argument largely revolves around the fact that the cost to society if same sex couples don't marry is significantly lower than the cost to society if opposite sex couples don't. The question is not "how does it hurt you if a gay couple marries?". It's "how does it hurt you if they don't?".

The social effects of marriage show no indication of being tied to sexual orientation, and primarily revolve around stability for children, the increased stability of two income households in times of stress, etc. Not rocket science. There's certainly an argument that there is no benefit to legally codifying cohabitation. There is no valid argument that there is a benefit to codifying hetro cohabitation but not SSM. This isn't new ground, been endlessly thrashed out in court cases and academia for decades now.


Now rewrite that, but eliminate benefits that only apply to the couple themselves versus benefits that apply to the rest of society.


The statistical deltas for the outcomes of children based on whether their parents were married when the children were born is massive. Those deltas affect whether those children grow up to be productive members of society, or whether they end out being in and out of jail, so it's of interest to society as a whole. Additionally, those deltas aren't nearly as large based on if they are raised by a married couple. It's the actual legal status of your parents when you were born that matters the most. This is why it's not about benefit for people raising children. It's about having parents in a legally binding marriage when they produce children. This is incredibly relevant to opposite sex couples, and completely irrelevant to same sex couples. Surely you can see why?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103 Mar 05 2014 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The other encourages people to form into relationships most beneficial to raising children *if* they reproduce. That's a pretty important distinction.
Except that hetero couples who genetically can't breed still get the benefits, so the encouragement actually isn't about having kids. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't the first time you trotted that line out so it really isn't any more now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 Mar 05 2014 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers
I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?
You constantly make a "slipperly slope" argument equating them, yes.


Um... No. I don't. If for no other reason than slippery slope arguments don't actually involve equating the two ends of the slope.

Quote:
On top of being a horrible American and human being, try not to be a liar, too.


There's some serious irony there.

gbaji wrote:
Ehcks wrote:
This thread is confusing.

Almalieque.. You're arguing against gay marriage because you disagree with age of consent laws?


I believe the argument is that if you change marriage to remove the restriction that it consist of one man and one woman, that there's no reason not to also remove the requirement that both be adults. Which, while actually valid, is kinda strange since in some states (most states in the US in fact), you don't have to be an adult to get married anyway (but must have parental permission if under the age of consent for that state).


The basic premise is reasonable though. Yes. It's a slippery slope, but I think it's overly simplistic to just point at the words being changed and presume that the rest of the words can't also be changed for similar reasons. The core "change" that gay marriage creates is the idea that marriage is no longer something that some people should or must do as responsible adults, but something that people have a right to have. Once you make changes based on labeling it a "right", it's suddenly much much harder to prevent the next group that feels disenfranchised from also claiming that they're being unfairly discriminated against by not being allowed the same right as gay and straight couples.


While concepts of beastiality and object-marriage might be a bit farther out, I can definitely see polygamy/polyany and a whole assortment of variant marriage concepts like extended extended marriages (with multiple husbands and wives) for example. There's no argument for gay marriage that doesn't equally apply for those other types of relationships. Since you've removed the limitation of marriage from being about two people potentially creating a child together to two people forming a loving relationship, the next obvious question is: "Why only two?".

It's kinda hard to find any argument against such things that doesn't work or fail (depending on your position) equally to those against gay marriage.

GFY
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#105 Mar 05 2014 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
hahaha :rimshot:
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#106 Mar 05 2014 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
99% of marriage benefits aren't to "encourage" anything. Hell, probably 100% but I'll leave allowances for error.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Mar 05 2014 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Jophiel wrote:
99% of marriage benefits aren't to "encourage" anything. Hell, probably 100% but I'll leave allowances for error.

They probably encourage divorce tbh. But I don't feel like looking up the stats on that.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#108gbaji, Posted: Mar 05 2014 at 9:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yup. Hence the "if". We're dealing with social statistics here, not individual cases. We can say with certainty that out of the entire set of all couples consisting of one man and one woman, some number of them greater than zero will will result in a pregnancy as a consequence of their sexual activity every single year. We can also say that out of the entire set of couples consisting of two people of the same sex, not one of them will result in a pregnancy as a consequence of their sexual activity. Therefore, we have a reason to encourage all couples in the first set to marry, and zero reason to encourage any of the couples in the second set to do so.
#109 Mar 05 2014 at 9:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers
I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?
You constantly make a "slipperly slope" argument equating them, yes.


Um... No. I don't. If for no other reason than slippery slope arguments don't actually involve equating the two ends of the slope.

Quote:
On top of being a horrible American and human being, try not to be a liar, too.


There's some serious irony there.

gbaji wrote:
Ehcks wrote:
This thread is confusing.

Almalieque.. You're arguing against gay marriage because you disagree with age of consent laws?


I believe the argument is that if you change marriage to remove the restriction that it consist of one man and one woman, that there's no reason not to also remove the requirement that both be adults. Which, while actually valid, is kinda strange since in some states (most states in the US in fact), you don't have to be an adult to get married anyway (but must have parental permission if under the age of consent for that state).


The basic premise is reasonable though. Yes. It's a slippery slope, but I think it's overly simplistic to just point at the words being changed and presume that the rest of the words can't also be changed for similar reasons. The core "change" that gay marriage creates is the idea that marriage is no longer something that some people should or must do as responsible adults, but something that people have a right to have. Once you make changes based on labeling it a "right", it's suddenly much much harder to prevent the next group that feels disenfranchised from also claiming that they're being unfairly discriminated against by not being allowed the same right as gay and straight couples.


While concepts of beastiality and object-marriage might be a bit farther out, I can definitely see polygamy/polyany and a whole assortment of variant marriage concepts like extended extended marriages (with multiple husbands and wives) for example. There's no argument for gay marriage that doesn't equally apply for those other types of relationships. Since you've removed the limitation of marriage from being about two people potentially creating a child together to two people forming a loving relationship, the next obvious question is: "Why only two?".

It's kinda hard to find any argument against such things that doesn't work or fail (depending on your position) equally to those against gay marriage.

GFY



Wow. Reading comprehension really has gone downhill.

Let me simplify this for you. A slippery slope argument, by definition, not only does not equate the two things at the ends of the slope, but in fact rests on the assumption that they are different. That's the whole point of the form of argument. You point at something that people don't view as bad/harmful/whatever, and say that it'll lead to something else that is. If the first thing was bad, you wouldn't need to use a slippery slope.

When someone argues that if we legalize pot it may lead to legalization of other harder drugs down the line, they are absolutely *not* saying that pot is as bad as those other drugs. Claiming the other person compared pot to heroin is a ridiculous response and completely misses the point of the first persons argument.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Mar 05 2014 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're basically arguing that since not all cars will get flat tires, then there's no point spending money equipping your car with a spare tire unless you also equip your boat with one.
Wow, another bad car analogy that ignores the actual point. Didn't see that coming.

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 10:50pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111gbaji, Posted: Mar 05 2014 at 9:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I disagree. There is no reason to create state marriage statuses except to encourage couples to marry within those statuses. Note, I'm not saying that people wouldn't get married in the absence of the state status (in fact, I'm arguing that everyone, including gay couples are always free to do that if they want). I'm saying that fewer would enter into marriages which meet the set of legal conditions and enforceability which the state wants them to. That's why they exist.
#112 Mar 05 2014 at 9:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're basically arguing that since not all cars will get flat tires, then there's no point spending money equipping your car with a spare tire unless you also equip your boat with one.
Wow, another bad car analogy that ignores the actual point. Didn't see that coming.


Wow. Another pointless response that adds nothing to the discussion. Didn't see that coming either!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Mar 05 2014 at 10:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
There is no reason to create state marriage statuses except to encourage couples to marry within those statuses

Of course there is. Marriage benefits were created primarily to benefit people currently married at the time they were created. Transferring Social Security benefits (to pick a random example) wasn't enacted to encourage marriage, it was enacted because currently married people wanted access to their spouse's benefits. No grandiose "Let's think of the future couples!" bullsh*t, just plain and simple "I want mine so pass a law to make sure I get it".

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 10:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Mar 05 2014 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Another pointless response that adds nothing to the discussion.
You're not adding anything to the discussion, so why should I?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#115 Mar 06 2014 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There is no reason to create state marriage statuses except to encourage couples to marry within those statuses

Of course there is. Marriage benefits were created primarily to benefit people currently married at the time they were created. Transferring Social Security benefits (to pick a random example) wasn't enacted to encourage marriage, it was enacted because currently married people wanted access to their spouse's benefits. No grandiose "Let's think of the future couples!" bullsh*t, just plain and simple "I want mine so pass a law to make sure I get it".
It doesn't work that way. You have to get married to have kids, and having kids is why you need to get married. We need to encourage people to have kids. Everything else is secondary and liberal bloat added to water down what marriage should be about. Kids, kids, kids.

Won't somebody please think of the children?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#116 Mar 06 2014 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
No, I don't. Why? My point is that my position isn't based on liking or disliking "homeowners". In this specific case, it's about making it easier to own a home. We clearly believe that society is better off having more people owning their own homes, than fewer. Ergo, it makes sense to make owning a home easier. It's not about liking or disliking homeowners. That's silly.

I don't believe that. Do you believe that? Society is better off with more people owning homes? Why?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#117gbaji, Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 7:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That makes no sense though. Why create the benefits then? Again, it's not about whether the group that receives it would like it and benefit from it. Because that's always going to be true. I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military? I think it's kinda obvious that the objective is to get people to serve and not to just hand out free education. Cause if it was the latter, they'd give it to everyone, right? Same logic here. If the objective was just to help people out with these benefits, they'd not attach them to whether a couple was married. Clearly, the intent is to get people to marry.
#118 Mar 06 2014 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119gbaji, Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 7:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... You're really asking that question? You'd be hard pressed to find any social policy organization in the last half century who would argue otherwise. Most argue vehemently that the most important difference between those stuck in poverty and those who succeed is the opportunity for home ownership. Now some have gone too far with this and caused the whole housing bubble, but the basic idea is true. If it's at all possible for someone to spend their housing dollars on buying a home rather than renting, that person's fortunes and the fortunes of his children and grandchildren will be affected for the better.
#120 Mar 06 2014 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.


Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Mar 06 2014 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.


Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Which is transferable to a spouse, unless the spouse is same sex. So, hosed out of a marriage benefit that has nothing to do with kids.

Holy sh*t, you're slow.


Edited, Mar 6th 2014 7:00pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#122 Mar 06 2014 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.
Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Faulty logic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#123 Mar 06 2014 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What other reason could there be?

Smiley: laugh

Right on, then.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124 Mar 06 2014 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.


Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Which is transferable to a spouse, unless the spouse is same sex.


Which again does not change the fact that the college education is an incentive to get people to serve in the military.

At least try to follow the logic here. Similarly, marriage benefits, including the transfer of said college education, are incentives to get people to marry. See, if you marry that soldier instead of just shacking up with him, you will qualify for the college credit if he chooses not to take it himself. That's an incentive to get people to marry.

Get it?

So now that we've accepted that marriage benefits are an incentive to marry, we should then ask "why do we care if people marry or not?". Which is where I started this whole line of reasoning prior to Joph running of on his ridiculous "but the benefits aren't an incentive!" tangent. They are incentives. Period.


Quote:
So, hosed out of a marriage benefit that has nothing to to with kids.



You honestly can't noodle out that the primary reason we might want to encourage soldiers and their SOs to marry instead of just shacking up might just have something to do with children? Really? O... M... G...!


Quote:
Holy sh*t, you're slow.


I'm slow? It's like upside down world or something. Engage the brain. Think! I'm begging you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Mar 06 2014 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
So we only let the straights get benefits to lure them into getting married, and we don't give those benefits to the gays because they're not married, but we don't let them get married because they want benefits that comes with being married and we can't give those benefits to just anyone!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 Mar 06 2014 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.
Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Faulty logic.


How is that faulty logic? If the objective was purely about providing people with college educations, we'd just give them to everyone. By giving it to someone who serves, it's pretty clearly about encouraging people to serve. That's pretty darn straightforward.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 333 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (333)