my solution to the gay marriage argument

[Inso0]

[ 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 ]

Imagine being so foolish to believe that the only factor in the success of future generations is reproduction? Its hard to imagine. Apparently, if you can give birth, that's all a generation needs to survive and thrive.

Fascinating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me it would be hard to take care of a generation that doesn't exist.

I assume we're still talking about gay couples having children...

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is doing just that by giving special tax credits to some but not others. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Are you even reading anything here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read all my posts? I said back on page one that we should stop bickering about who gets the handouts, but instead change government so people can afford to run their lives/families the way they see fit without needing tax relief to afford to raise said family.

In the meantime, don't "solve" the problem with more handouts! That accomplishes nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the benefits of legalized marriage are NOT handouts. Second- you have not been arguing about removing benefits to married people, you have simply argued that gays should not be entitled to similar benefits.

I don't think I've seen a person change his position more often in a thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

/facepalm

The non-financial benefits (and many that are financially related) can all be taken care of WITHOUT government involvement.

I haven't changed my position. Perhaps in early posts I wasn't very CLEAR on my position, but I haven't changed my mind at all.

You can leave the law as it's written, or get rid of it, but don't expand it.

[kurto]

[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call you a bigot. You are not one who is continuing to use the code that "you are correct because you suscribe to the values that the country is founded on"... And, throughout the thread I have given measured responses and posted information supporting my views. I have gone back to two specific posters over and over again looking for concrete reasons why they're singling out gays and get responses based on values and such. And I'm labeled 'liberal' as if that diminishes my argument.

If the entire argument was "let's remove marriage benefits because it bloats the government and increases taxes" then there would be no argument. But the people I was addressing are only intent on denying rights to gays.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call you a bigot. You are not one who is continuing to use the code that "you are correct because you suscribe to the values that the country is founded on"... And, throughout the thread I have given measured responses and posted information supporting my views. I have gone back to two specific posters over and over again looking for concrete reasons why they're singling out gays and get responses based on values and such. And I'm labeled 'liberal' as if that diminishes my argument.

If the entire argument was "let's remove marriage benefits because it bloats the government and increases taxes" then there would be no argument. But the people I was addressing are only intent on denying rights to gays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats cool man. I'm all for some good-spirited anger in this forum, but I'm not a big fan of when things get nasty. But I apologize for ascribing something to you that you didnt do (call me a bigot).

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats actually not my stated goal, but see my response to Elwood vis a vis the extension of benefits to gay adoptees.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I haven't read your previous volumes on the subject and just lumped you in with everybody else in this thread who's obsessed with propagation of the species like we're about to go extinct.

So you're pro-gay marriage if children are involved. And you're willing to look past some "dead weight" of married hetero couples without children, but not [censored] ones without children? Isn't it getting fairly nitty to remain against gay marriage in this case?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I, nor the government care who you marry. That's between you and your priest/partner. Just don't come asking for government handouts from a system designed for heterosexual family structures.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Don't you guys see? It makes perfect sense.

heterosexual married couples having children are ENTITLED to tax breaks since the system was designed that way. It's axiomatically self-evident. These cannot be questioned, the idea of these not existing does not compute. They are eternal and perfect, like the heavenly spheres.

Since straight people are entitled, if they get them, it's not a handout, they'er just getting what they're supposed to get.

Gays are not entitled to those, they're entitled to zero, so if they get them, they're handouts.

DUH.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]


I, nor the government care who you marry. That's between you and your priest/partner. Just don't come asking for government handouts from a system designed for heterosexual family structures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again- most of the benefits of marriage don't cost the taxpayers anything and are not handouts. If your intent was to argue that married people shouldn't get handouts, then you should say so and stop singling out gays.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats actually not my stated goal, but see my response to Elwood vis a vis the extension of benefits to gay adoptees.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I haven't read your previous volumes on the subject and just lumped you in with everybody else in this thread who's obsessed with propagation of the species like we're about to go extinct.

So you're pro-gay marriage if children are involved. And you're willing to look past some "dead weight" of married hetero couples without children, but not [censored] ones without children? Isn't it getting fairly nitty to remain against gay marriage in this case?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you could get away with calling it nitty, I wont be offended. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I'm willing to accept that deadweight loss because its too hard to combat it. However, basic sense tells us that a married homosexual couple is much less likely to have children than a heterosexual couple. In fact, the definitely wont unless they take extraordinary means to do so. Once they commit themselves to that path than I'm willing to extend the benefits.

[InTheDark]

re kaj:[ QUOTE ]
This is the last time I'll respond to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You went six rounds more than I.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me it would be hard to take care of a generation that doesn't exist.

I assume we're still talking about gay couples having children...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are the only one making such assumptions. That's not what I'm talking about. Use your imagination and think things through and you might realize that there is more to a generation succeeding then just people giving birth.