my solution to the gay marriage argument

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
Except nowhere in your cleverll vague post will you explicitly say these benefits for heterosexuals should go away.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So presumably you would support very low or zero taxes for both straight and gay couples and no wasteful benefit or tax credit nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely. (Me)

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe I did.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'd -- A+++++++++++++++ excellent poster, would read again.

Apparently, this guy has perfected asexual reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Join us in the 21st century. Humans indeed have perfected reproduction without intercourse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but $12,400.00 a pop for a less than perfect in vitro fertilization process, that isn't really the best option for maintaining the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, so I suspect people will still have sex on their own accord the old-fashioned way if they want kids. So what again is your problem? That they won't if gays marry?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except nowhere in your cleverll vague post will you explicitly say these benefits for heterosexuals should go away.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So presumably you would support very low or zero taxes for both straight and gay couples and no wasteful benefit or tax credit nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely. (Me)

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you both confirmed that they should go away and are defending why they shouldn't go away. Well ok then.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, so I suspect people will still have sex on their own accord the old-fashioned way if they want kids. So what again is your problem? That they won't if gays marry?

[/ QUOTE ]

/head asplode

READ SIR.


Edit: To your next post: Kaj, I cannot help you anymore. You either lack the ability to comprehend text, or you are willingly ignorant.

The law that gives tax breaks to married couples to assist with family finances would be UNNECESSARY if gov't didnt take so much money in the first place.

This is the last time I'll respond to you.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok I cant be quiet any longer.

Re: State interest: The legitimate state interest here is the continuance of a stable population base in the United States. As such, the union of a heterosexual union is the most likely way this is going to happen. No its not the only way so please dont throw that strawman out there.

Re: Marriage

The state isnt creating marriage. You can get married in a church that will do and you can call yourself married all you want, you can tell everyone that your same sex partner is your husband. What the state is doing is a recognizing a particular form of marriage that it believes is most beneficial to state interests. As such, it provides a variety of benefits to that institution. There are people going ZOMG its discrimination, but the government already discriminates in a number of ways, one of which springs to mind is certain programs that benefit minority business owners.

Also, the family is the basic social unit of our society and the government has interest in promoting the form of that we have discovered to be the most effective over thousands of years.

Re: Subsidizing marriage:

Its funny how there are so many posters who are quick to point out the economic effects of subsidies when the discussion is about other things, but as soon as we start takling about marriage, its suddenly as if the causal link doesnt exist anymore. Dont be willfully blind in this regard. Sure many people will still have children.

Anyhow, not sure if I will respond to any replies as I've dicussed this ad nauseum on this forum before and I'm not too keen on rehashing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you respond to this: The state has a legitimate state interest in a stable population. The best way to do that is through single-race unions. Bi-racial couples and their children have a difficult time in society (leading to instability) so the state has an interest in decreasing the likelihood of biracial children by only allowing same race marriages.

Would you support same race marriage laws? Why/Why Not?

[/ QUOTE ]


No I wouldnt because there is very little data (other than anecdotal) to support the assertion that bi-racial children have a hard time in society. And race has 0 effect on the simple ability to have a children. OTOH, we have tons of data that document that positive effect of having a heterosexual family structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it sound like you want to both
a) question the states interest (i.e. determine it's legitimacy) and
b) determine how closely the interest (if valid) is met by the law.

This sounds like a fine rubrick (and one that the courts use)

Basically, the court will see if the statute is narrowly tailored to meet the states legitimate interest. Here, marriage laws are not narrowly tailored to meet that interest because:
1) they apply to married individuals who plan to have no children
2) they apply to individuals with adult children
3) they do not apply to gay couples who have adopted children (while apply to straight couples who have adopted children)

The simple fact is that perpetuating the species is a legitimate interest, but marriage laws aren't tailored for that purpose insofar as they give marriage benefits to those who either intend to never have children or cannot have children.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I consider this deadweight loss if you will. Too expensive and/or time consuming to determine this. Also, this is something is constantly subject to change.
2. The "adult children" were "children children" at some point werent they? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] As such, I have no real issue with continuance of the benefits.
3. I'm willing to compromise on this point. If a gay couple adopts a child I'd be willing to extend marriage benefits to them. Of course it raises the "chicken or the egg" question but Id be willing to work towards a solution. Not a huge fan to be honest, but given the benefits of getting kids out of foster homes to parents that want them outweighs their place on my contiuum of desireable family structures.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
No I wouldn't because there is very little data (other than anecdotal) to support the assertion that bi-racial children have a hard time in society. And race has 0 effect on the simple ability to have a children. OTOH, we have tons of data that document that positive effect of having a heterosexual family structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you be comparing "no family structure" to "any family structure" if the topic is marriage and your stated goal is welfare of the child? The data on hetero vs [censored] families is debatable, but the effects on a child of having a stable family structure is pretty obvious.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
And this is where our true disconnect lies.

I don't believe the government should be inflated even further so as to suck more money out of me. You do.


[/ QUOTE ]

Having gays marry does not suck more money out of me. If you're arguing that marriage costs tax payers money, should gays get tax breaks for being gay? That would seem to follow your logic.

[ QUOTE ]
You = liberal = high taxes and a nanny state
Me = conservative = low taxes and a gov't that leaves me the [censored] alone


[/ QUOTE ]

God. You're so Rush-Limbaugh lite. First off- gays marrying is not increasing my taxes. Second, YOU are the one who has the government telling people who can and cannot marry.

What a intellectually dishonest, rhetoric spouting hypocrite you are.


[ QUOTE ]
Edit: If you want to set up your gay lover to be your PoA and put him on your private health insurance plan and every other thing under the sun, I have NO problem with that. When you start proposing bigger government just because you feel left out, THAT is where I start having a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the only one contending that marriage = bigger government.

Its difficult to discuss as matter with you since none of your arguments are based remotely in reality.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right, so I suspect people will still have sex on their own accord the old-fashioned way if they want kids. So what again is your problem? That they won't if gays marry?

[/ QUOTE ]

/head asplode

READ SIR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just come out and say what you mean by "I believe our government should make laws based on the beliefs on which it was founded" and "I agree with following the law."

You keep using vague sentences around this issue which say nothing really on the surface but clearly indicate that you support the status quo. Then your head explodes when you think people misinterpret you.

Make it simple:

(1) Is the current law regarding marriage benefits fair: Yes No

(2) If no, should the law be changed: Yes No

Please clearly indicate yes/no to avoid us misinterpreting your position.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok I cant be quiet any longer.

Re: State interest: The legitimate state interest here is the continuance of a stable population base in the United States. As such, the union of a heterosexual union is the most likely way this is going to happen. No its not the only way so please dont throw that strawman out there.

Re: Marriage

The state isnt creating marriage. You can get married in a church that will do and you can call yourself married all you want, you can tell everyone that your same sex partner is your husband. What the state is doing is a recognizing a particular form of marriage that it believes is most beneficial to state interests. As such, it provides a variety of benefits to that institution. There are people going ZOMG its discrimination, but the government already discriminates in a number of ways, one of which springs to mind is certain programs that benefit minority business owners.

Also, the family is the basic social unit of our society and the government has interest in promoting the form of that we have discovered to be the most effective over thousands of years.

Re: Subsidizing marriage:

Its funny how there are so many posters who are quick to point out the economic effects of subsidies when the discussion is about other things, but as soon as we start takling about marriage, its suddenly as if the causal link doesnt exist anymore. Dont be willfully blind in this regard. Sure many people will still have children.

Anyhow, not sure if I will respond to any replies as I've dicussed this ad nauseum on this forum before and I'm not too keen on rehashing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save this post stick it up here every few months as needed. Won't do any good but it makes too much sense to ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont mind discussion but I'm not keen on getting called a bigot. Im actually sort of surprised that kurto went down that since the two of us have had good discussion in the past (on this very issue).

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

And as for my personal values. Well, I hate to point it out, but my personal values coincide with those values that our nation was founded upon. As time went along, we forgot what those values were.


[/ QUOTE ]

ha. This made me laugh. Its like reading cliff notes of any over-the-top right wing radio personality. Rah Rah! You go boy.