The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow

I agree wholeheartedly.

Too bad families are not, and never were, so cut and dry. Marriage is about much more than "tax breaks", and the point has already been brought up that this argument is negated by the fact that couples with no intention or hope of procreating can form this union and still reap the benefits.

It's not a legitimate gripe unless the benefit only exists for a couple who is specifically using it.

Yea, the argument that "You don't need marriage because you can just pay a lawyer to draw up a contract that nobody will recognize" doesn't really hold up either though.

And that leaves him with nothing.

He has no answer because he's not got a problem with that part of the arguement.

He agrees they should be able to enter into a "marriage"
He agrees that they should have legal protection
He agrees that they should be recognised that they are a couple
He doesn't agree that they should receive cash incentives designed to (in his opinion) encourage reproduction.

He argues that there is other means for them to do points 1-3 without 4 being required.

So instead of fighting with the other 55% of Americans why not compromise and have same sex unions recognised with legal protection that doesn't involve tax breaks?

He would back that and you would have a workable solution that would evolve into what you want as public opinion changes with time.

and remember I totally back homosexual marriage before you start venting at me.

I'm not the one you need to compromise with remember, it's the people who voted no.

Because if our marriage are not equal, we remain a second-class. Now, I'd be all for eliminating the financial benefits of marriage for everyone, but that's just the mean old libertarian in me talking.

If separate but equal isn't good enough, separate and unequal certainly doesn't cut the mustard.

Edited, Nov 7th 2008 3:11pm by Mindel

Is there anyone that is reproducing because there is financial incentive to do so? Who is sitting there at the calculator saying, "I'm glad we got married, instead of paying twice as much in taxes now we're only paying one and two-thirds. But if we have a baby we'll only be paying one and a half times!"


Edited, Nov 7th 2008 1:33pm by baelnic

Well, and tarv can correct me if I'm off track, but I think the point he's making is that in politics, you compromise in order to further your cause with a long view toward further advances down the line.

Oh I guarantee gbaji has made the argument that blacks on welfare have had that exact conversation. It's part of what makes his stance on this so hilarious. Hilarious if you find bigoted hypocrites funny, of course.

Which is related to Gbaji's first point in the thread, that he shouldn't have to pay for the tax breaks given to same sex couples, which the leads to our response of "ok, so why am I paying for the tax benefits of straight couples?" This then leads to a bizarre argument about children, as though they were the most important part of marriage, etc. etc. (aka the rest of the seven pages here).

He's never really fully managed to answer that question, and instead continues to act as though that's not the issue here. He's the one that originally brought it up, it's the issue he created, so I'd imagine it must be part of the problem. I'm also all for just flat out eliminating the benefits if that solves the issue, but you can't even attempt to throw that argument out there unless you can truly answer to the intial premise of it - he said that he didn't feel he should have to pay for our tax breaks.

Basically, I understand and agree with the premise of voting "No" because you don't want to pay for the tax breaks, but you have to address that we're paying for YOUR tax breaks, regardless of whatever justification you have.

And sometimes you have to dig in and keep making noise until the powers that be listen, because it's the right thing to do.

Equality and freedom are not up for compromise.

I am happy when I hear about a jurisdiction adopting domestic partnerships or civil unions, but we cannot, and will not stop until our rights are honored and our marriages recognized. Separate but equal is always the former and never the latter.

The two greatest problems I see are:
(A) Marriage (and the benefits thereof) is not solely about reproducing. For an obvious example, the concept of extending pension benefits, Social Security, Medicare, veteran's benefits, etc most often applies not to young couple with minor children but to elderly couples who are no longer responsible for their children's welfare. These benefits do assist young couples in the event of a death or disability but, more often, their major traditional benefit is to keep our streets from being clogged with indigent widows pushing around rusted shopping carts full of old clothes and photos. Legal marriage is about providing the tools and legal benefits to create a self-sustaining household which can continue to exist (and even prosper) even after a catastrophic event occurs to one (or more) member. Children do not need to be a part of this. Each such household is a boon to society.

(B) Children can be part of a same sex household. Gbaji's "natural consequence" argument delegitimizes these children as being less worthy of the "healthy platform" in which to grow purely because their caregivers happen to be homosexual or because the children did not originate solely within that union. Even children raised in same sex families deserve the legally backed full support of their household family including financial care, automatic extension of insurance coverage, the ability to make medical decisions, ability to receieve government benefits (again, SS, Medicare, et al) and the rest of it. From both of their parents. We allow married stepparents these benefits towards their stepchildren as an immediate consequence of marriage, so why deprive children in SSM households the same?

Both of these include multiple benefits which can not be extended via private civil contract or even state-recognized unions.

Edited, Nov 7th 2008 2:32pm by Jophiel