Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay MarriageFollow

I feel really bad for everyone who even knows he posts here.

Aww, he's been unrated again.

I assume he's asking how much people make, so he can claim that he pays more taxes so his point of view about paying taxes is more important?

Yeah, I did. Several times. Greater protection against catastrophic events thus decreasing the potential for accumulated debts, foreclosures, unemployment, etc. All the bad stuff that can happen to people in those situations and the same stuff which we monitor as a nation because it acts as a measurement of the nation's health.

Whether or not you think it's worth it is your opinion. But you saying over and over "You never said it!" isn't really helpful nor accurate.Greater social stability.Yes, they have.Justifies it to you. WEhich is far different than "justifies it" in general.So you admit that there is justification for it which may well be valid for those presenting the argument but which you find lacking. That's fair. It also means that you can drop the "No one has provided justification!" line now.That's not remotely the reason most people enter into marriage. It was a delightful strawman though so you should be proud of its craftsmanship.Better yet, let's just not provide those benefits until the married couple has a child on their taxes. This way we don't have to worry about single couples who don't have kids or gay couples who do have a kid living with them or anything. Everyone can get married and everyone can access the exact same benefits as each other once they're supporting children. If we're legitimately worried about the welfare of the children and the home they're raised in then it makes sense to ensure that every child, not just the ones "lucky" enough to be in heterosexual married households, has the same protections and benefits within their home. Otherwise, we're just using the children as an excuse. The best way to do this would be to make these benefits contingent upon the existance of a physical child, not contingent upon the theoretical existance of a potential child. Once the tyke turn 18 or 21 or whatever and gets off your taxes -- no more benefits for you except for those provided to the non-breeding married couples.

Hell, this would even keep the government from wasting money by providing these benefits to heterosexual couples who fail to bear child and yet still sap our precious, precious taxes with their slack-*** married, infertile selves. See? Win-Win!Well, my idea sounds like a winner, so get on board the Jophiel Express.

Edited, Apr 17th 2009 9:43pm by Jophiel

It doesn't "fail" to address it, it intentionally ignores it. I'm interested in spending my precious tax dollars on real existing children, not ones that might or might not one day exist. If you want to drain the federal and state coffers with your marriage benefits, you can do so when you can prove you have a child to support.Great. If you're planning on generating a child, get yourself married and you'll be all set to pick up on the benefits once you pop out some rug monkeys. But there's no reason for my tax meter to be ticking while her womb is idling.Apparently you can't read. I said that married couples will receive the benefit when they can prove (I said via tax returns but I'm flexible here) that they're supporting a child. Since my kid is on our joint return, we're golden. If a gay married couple (not yet getting benefits) adopts a child or has one enter their life through whatever means, they get benefits so they're golden. If a heterosexual couple has a "natural" baby, they're golden once the kid is out. Hell, I'm even willing to say at the six month gestation point just to prove how reasonable I am. If a heterosexual couple adopts or finds a baby in a basket of reeds or whatever, they're golden too. Get it yet? Being Married + Having a kid in your family = benefits.Sure. When you produce a child, you get benefits. Look, it's not as though people should be surprised when they find a child lying in the bed. You usually have at least six months notice. Plenty of time to get hitched and grab those benefits.

Also, again, my way supports all children who are in a marriage, hetero or ****. And this is really all about the children and making sure they're taken care of, isn't it? Plus it saves money by not wasting benefit spending on marriages where no children are being supported.

Edited, Apr 17th 2009 10:16pm by Jophiel

Why? I have never understood this concept of states rights (gbaji you may answer this question for me if you would like to, but we'll probably take it another three pages so tread lightly.) It's not like changing the authority to which you subjugate yourself has any less clout when it's a small state compared to a large nation state.

You still aren't going to be living your republican libertarian dream of being able to do whatever the sh*t you want to so long as it hurts no one. You government still isn't going to be able to be run by the collective of the people any more than at a federal level. Your minority rights aren't going to be anymore protected simply by localizing your government, unless of course you plan to segregate the entire @#%^ing country into pieces of like minded communes and put a dividing line across the country like some stupid fraternal feud.

Your state doesn't represent your interests anymore than the fed does. People are still going to be forced into paying taxes for things they don't like and people are still going to be ******** about whether or not we can legislate morality.

All that happens:

"WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH my taxes are going to gay people, stop it you stupid washington bastards"

"WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH my taxes are going to gay people, stop it you bastards in atlanta"

Moral issues are worth legislating. We have an imperative to do so, simply because of the contradictory nature of the first goddamn amendment.

The best thing that I can come up with allude to is the harm principle. Will you finally be the one to outwit Mill?


Lend me those cats next time this comes up 'kay? Thanks ari, you're awesome.

Edited, Apr 19th 2009 2:30am by Pensive

Edited, Apr 19th 2009 2:39am by Pensive

You mean we aren't going to tag team gbaji and varrus until 8 in the morning?

Wait a minute I always forget. It's like 9 pm there or something isn't it.

Shocked.Well, no, but I understand what you're trying to say about it not mattering anyway. Nature versus nurture? The answer is almost always both.

Edited, Apr 19th 2009 1:02pm by bsphil

I think you're either misunderstanding or misstating what people mean by "nature" in this sense.

Pensive, you're being a little overly general. There are plenty of things humans do that are innate. Seeking food, sleeping, reproducing, breathing.

Those are just the obvious ones.

And yes, reproduction is a innate human behavior. If you have a human that develops entirely outside of society, reproducing will still be something they are drawn to.

So how can you flat out deny that any human behavior is innate? Innate behavior exists, so how do you know what is and is not innate?

Even innate behaviors like breathing are not universal. 150-200 babies die each year from SIDS, they stop breathing when they sleep. Sure, some may be suffocated by outside sources, but others just stop. Even many adults stop breathing while asleep. This goes against the very universal natural behavior of breathing, but it still exists, and breathing is still innate even though there exists a group that it doesn't work properly with.

That doesn't explain how you can logically deny it, only why you might want to. I think you're trying to twist the definition of innate too much.

"1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : NATIVE, INBORN <innate behavior>"

So yeah. Breathing, the desire to eat, the need to ****, and sleeping are all innate. I'm going to have to apologize in advance though, because I really don't have time to do more than chime in as a fancy.

Edited, Apr 19th 2009 4:18pm by Allegory

It all cracks down to whether you believe humans are animals or not.

I do. We're naked apes. We can think and reason, but we're still animals whether we want to accept it or not. And as animals, there are many things that we consider our own thoughts and ideas that are actually just instincts.

The reason 6 billion human beings all act pretty much like it each is genetics. The genetic bottleneck meant that 30,000-40,000 years ago, there were between 1,000-10,000 **** sapiens on the planet. We're all descended from that same mixture of genes, and so we're a lot more homogeneous than our appearances would sometimes give away.

If you think that we're "blank slates" with no innate behaviors, then you can't believe in genetics, because genetics is the primary determinant of all behaviors. (Possibly even including homosexuality, but that's still being researched heavily.) And that includes the instinct to form a social pairing.

This is almost as bad as the "unnatural" argument.