Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow

#127 Jan 18 2010 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
publiusvarus wrote:
In my book, also known as the Bible, homosexuality is a harmful lifestyle choice. Why shouldn't I vote for someone based on this?


Who said you shouldn't vote based on this?

There's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I don't like it because I disagree with you and I think it's silly and hypocritical do to so, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote the way you see fit for whatever reason you see fit.

That, however, doesn't mean that our government should make or break laws based on the Bible. There is a difference. And if you're voting that way because of the Bible, and the only reason they're inhibiting the rights of the homosexual population is because of that silly book, that's a problem.
#128REDACTED, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 1:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#129 Jan 18 2010 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
That, however, doesn't mean that our government should make or break laws based on the Bible.


Why not?

As long as 51% can vote to remove the wealth of the other 49% there is no justice. If I can't live in a just society I might as well vote to make it a more morally responsible one.


Because our constitution keeps people like you from creating laws to restrict the freedoms, religious or otherwise, of people like me, who don't believe in your gobbilty **** religion.

See, morals are a funny thing. Let's say that I find being an insurance salesman immoral. That 51% of the voting public agree with me. So we vote to outlaw all insurance salesmen. Well, lookee there, Varus. You'd be out of a job. Why is that fair? Why is that ok?

Promiscuity is immoral. As a matter of fact, it says so in your book, there. Should we outlaw that? Should we outlaw polyester and shellfish, too? Since that's in your magic little book?

And what if the voting block changes from being 51% Christian to being 51% Muslim. Do we then get to impose Muslim rule, and we all have to bow to Mecca every day at noon? Will women have to start wearing burquas and keep every inch of their flesh covered at all times?

Here in the good ol' USA, we (usually) need reason and logic in order to start restricting freedoms. Not some centuries old book quoting an invisible man.
#130REDACTED, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 1:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#131 Jan 18 2010 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Because our constitution keeps people like you from creating laws to restrict the freedoms


It was supposed to. Apparently now it's ok to take from one person to pay for the housing, food, and healthcare of another. When you tax one person to subsidize the life of another you are "restricting the freedoms" of the individual who is being forced to support another.

If you want to talk about restricting freedoms let's talk about it. I'd be willing to support homosexual marriage if every Democrat promised to vote against govn housing, food, and healthcare.


Nice try, Varus. This isn't what we're talking about in this thread. Unfortunately for you, the constitution doesn't consider taxes as "restricting freedom."
#132REDACTED, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 2:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#133 Jan 18 2010 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Unfortunately for you, the constitution doesn't consider taxes as "restricting freedom."


And unfortunately for you the people of this country don't want homosexual marriage.



Right now, you're right. It's a shame, too, but eventually it won't matter. Once people realize that the minority need protection from the majority, it won't matter as much.
#134 Jan 18 2010 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
That, however, doesn't mean that our government should make or break laws based on the Bible.


Why not?

As long as 51% can vote to remove the wealth of the other 49% there is no justice. If I can't live in a just society I might as well vote to make it a more morally responsible one.
I thought we weren't allowed to pass laws to enact morals (re: aiding the poor).

Don't bother trying to weasel your way out of an answer; I don't care.

I'm still waiting to hear the specific costs of allowing gay marriage.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#135REDACTED, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 2:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#136REDACTED, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 2:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#137 Jan 18 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
I'm still waiting to hear the specific costs of allowing gay marriage.
You mean in tax dollars? Well generally speaking married couples pay less in taxes that non-married couples do. So if we give another subset of society a huge tax break that will be less money the govn has collected from that subset.

You don't know what "specific" means, do you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Jan 18 2010 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The government should not be in the practice of rewarding *any* behavior just because it likes or doesn't like the behavior, or because individual groups do. It should assess such things based on the cost or value of the behavior to the whole of civil society. We don't just make stealing a crime because we don't like people who steal. We do it because not punishing theft costs us all as a society in the long run (and leads to worse crimes as well).
Ok, so, what are the costs of having gay marriage?


I'm not clear what you're asking here. If we're talking about marriage benefits granted by the state, there is a cost to us all no matter the makeup of the couple receiving them. It's not about "gay marriage" specifically. Every single marriage costs us. Thus, we should only spend that cost in areas where the benefits the rest of us gain are worth it.


In terms of the social/civil relationship of marriage, gay marriages cost us nothing. But a lack of gay marriages costs us nothing either. A lack of heterosexual marriages does cost us. That's why we can justify the cost of the state benefits in the case of heterosexual couples who enter into the civil/social condition of marriage, but not in the case of gay couples.


The logic behind this sort of benefit criteria is the same as used for pretty much every other government funded program. We don't spend money on drug rehabilitation for people who don't have drug problems. We don't spend money building expensive highway systems in areas without high traffic volume. We don't (in theory anyway) build bridges to places where not enough people go to justify the cost of the bridge. You presumably agree with that logic in all those cases, right? It's no different here. The need from the point of view of society to spend money to encourage gay couples to marry simply isn't as great as that need as it relates to straight couples.


I thought that the last half a zillion times I explained this, I was pretty clear. It's just strange that I keep explaining this, and I continue to get responses indicating that most people just plain don't understand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Jan 18 2010 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
bsphil wrote:
the specific costs of allowing gay marriage
Well generally speaking...


publiusvarus wrote:
That work for ya?
No, not even close.

gbaji wrote:
I'm not clear what you're asking here.
I don't know how to make it more obvious than "what are the costs" when you say "there are costs".

gbaji wrote:
A lack of heterosexual marriages does cost us.
How?

Edited, Jan 18th 2010 2:51pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#140 Jan 18 2010 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bsphil wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear about the costs to society for having gay marriage.


Again. The cost for a gay marriage is the same as that for a straight marriage.

Quote:
Especially because it is analogous to insurance for a ~80 pound boat versus a supertanker between 10,000 and 550,000 tons. Considering that's a factor of 250,000 BEST CASE SCENARIO, I'd like to hear how gay marriage is at least 250,000 times as costly as straight marriage.


You failed to grasp the analogy. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was relating an insurance cost. The "cost" is the same in both cases. The difference is that in one case, you pay that cost to insure a supertanker, while in the other case you pay that cost to insure a dinghy. The "cost" is the same. The issue is a lack of justification for the cost.


gbaji wrote:
Your argument is like saying that we should pay the same amount of insurance for a dinghy that we pay for a supertanker. One represents a greater risk of harm than the other, thus it's wroth paying more for inseurance.



You even quoted me and still got it wrong. Um... I wasn't saying that gay marriages represented greater harm. I was saying that straight couples who don't get married represent greater harm than gay couples who don't. It's the straight couples who are a "problem" which needs to be addressed. Marriage, from the point of view of the state, is how we address that problem.


It makes zero sense to apply that to gay couples. I'm not saying they can't choose to marry in the social and contractual sense. But it's absurd to insist that we apply existing state benefits to those relationships.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Jan 18 2010 at 2:54 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear about the costs to society for having gay marriage.
Again. The cost for a gay marriage is the same as that for a straight marriage.
Which would be?

gbaji wrote:
It makes zero sense to apply that to gay couples. I'm not saying they can't choose to marry in the social and contractual sense. But it's absurd to insist that we apply existing state benefits to those relationships.
Separate but equal institutions don't work.



Edited, Jan 18th 2010 3:03pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#142 Jan 18 2010 at 2:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A lack of heterosexual marriages does cost us.
How?


Gah! I've answered this a dozen times!


Sexually active heterosexual couples as a group *will* produce children. Not occasionally. Not under conditions in which they artificially inseminate themselves. The set of "sexually active heterosexual couples" in society will produce a statistically certain number of children every single year. Period.

Those children can be born to a couple who are bound to a set of civil contacts which ensure that both parents (specifically the father) must provide for them, or they can be born to a single mother. The socio-economic impact to society based on the ratio of children born into one state versus the other is vast. It is arguably the single most relevant factor in terms of future cost vs productivity of that child.


The government's interest is to get as many heterosexual couples as possible to marry. This should be obvious. The benefits provided to married couples are a cost. Call it the "insurance" designed to hopefully reduce the larger costs mentioned above. It only makes sense to pay that insurance cost if the benefits outweigh the cost itself.

Heterosexual couples are the "supertanker" here. If things go wrong, the cost to society is large. Thus, it's worth spending money to try to get as many of them to marry as possible. Gay couples are the "dinghy". If things go wrong, it really doesn't affect the rest of society much. Gay couples relationships are of no greater interest to the rest of us as any other non-child-producing relationships. There's literally no more reason for me to subsidize a gay couple than a son or daughter moving their elderly mother in to live with them later in life. That's nice and all that. But I'm not going to create a special status for them and provide them benefits.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Jan 18 2010 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But a lack of gay marriages costs us nothing either.

Although I've neither the means nor interest to quantify them, saying that there is no cost to "us" as a result of catastrophic events in a non-married homosexual household is false.

Also, semi-relevant article from today's paper is semi-relevant
The Chicago Tribune wrote:
If Howard Wax and Robert Pooley Jr. were a heterosexual couple, they could've gone to their nearest Cook County clerk's office, paid $40 for a marriage license and been wed.

That would have provided them an array of legal protections -- the right to make medical decisions for one another, the ability for one to inherit the other's property.

Instead, the couple paid $10,000 for an attorney to help them roughly simulate -- using wills, trusts and powers of attorney -- the protections that marriage affords. It was a price the men, parents of 3-year-old twins, were willing to pay for peace of mind, though they admit it's far from perfect.
[...]
Melissa Walker and Erin Ferguson had a wedding ceremony in Chicago in 2008. A couple of friends who are attorneys offered their services as a gift, helping the couple prepare powers of attorney and wills.

Now Walker is eight months pregnant and said it will cost about $2,000 for Ferguson to adopt the child, along with additional legal costs to make sure their parental rights are protected.

"Erin and I are spending thousands of dollars out of our savings account," Walker said. "How does it benefit anyone when our child is going to come into this world with a less economically sound family?"
[...]
"There are protections under the law that would help a heterosexual couple if they didn't have those protections in place," said Christopher Clark, senior staff attorney in the Midwest Regional Office of Lambda Legal, a national gay and lesbian civil rights organization. "A same-sex couple, without these steps, has no legal protection."

Even with carefully laid-out legal plans, Clark said same-sex couples still have cause for concern: "We've had horrible situations where someone winds up in the emergency room in critical condition or even dying, and the person's partner is not allowed access to them, regardless of the documents."And there are other rights that come with marriage that same-sex couples have no way of accessing. They miss out on all manner of federal tax benefits, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- makes it impossible for a surviving partner to receive any of their deceased partner's monthly Social Security payout. That money simply goes back to the federal government.
[...]
"You can never create -- using private contracts -- all the same benefits and protections people have by being married," said Ray Koenig III, a Chicago attorney. "You can try hard, and you can spend a lot of money. But you'll never get there."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144gbaji, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 3:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Lol... Can we get past the bumper sticker politics please?
#145 Jan 18 2010 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
So we should remove government benefits from heterosexual couples that are infertile?

By the by, love your draconian view of marriage. How romantic.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#146gbaji, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 3:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No more or less than any other random relationship Joph.
#147 Jan 18 2010 at 3:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Although I've neither the means nor interest to quantify them, saying that there is no cost to "us" as a result of catastrophic events in a non-married homosexual household is false.


No more or less than any other random relationship Joph.


It's only when the relationship consists of a male and a female that there is a significant potential "cost" to society based on the outcome of that relationship. It kinda makes sense to focus on efforts on that group, doesn't it?

I mean. We could spend millions of dollars each year ensuring that the lobster harvest in Lincoln Nebraska isn't harmed, but we'd all instantly recognize that this would be a waste of money. I see providing gay couples with those benefits the exact same way...
Except homosexuals aren't crustaceans. As it turns out, they're tax-paying citizens.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#148 Jan 18 2010 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No more or less than any other random relationship Joph.

So you agree that there's a cost. Excellent. You're making progress.

Quote:
It's only when the relationship consists of a male and a female that there is a significant potential "cost" to society based on the outcome of that relationship. It kinda makes sense to focus on efforts on that group, doesn't it?

No, but that's because your entire argument about the purpose of the benefits of marriage is build upon a false premise. You've never provided a shred of real evidence supporting it (protip: "It's obvious!!!" isn't evidence) and it'd be ridiculous of me to argue it on your terms when you can't support them.

Now, based upon the history of marriage rights over time and the motivations involved, I'd say it makes perfect sense to focus efforts on those couples who are deprived of the same benefits that the activists were fighting for years, decades or centuries ago.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149gbaji, Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 3:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're missing the point. I don't associate the state benefits to married couples with "marriage" in the traditional sense at all. People got married for thousands of years before governments started giving them tax breaks and mandating insurance inclusions, and pension sharing, and whatnot. Oddly, no one thought their marriages were missing anything back then...
#150 Jan 18 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. Now tell me how we can determine this for everyone as quickly and cheaply as just checking the sex of the two partners.

I'd be willing to bet that, on the overwhelming average, the cost to check fertility of a couple will be far, far less than the cost of Social Security payouts over time and other government benefits. You can't possibly argue that cost is the primary factor in not requiring proof of fertility before marriage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Jan 18 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No more or less than any other random relationship Joph.

So you agree that there's a cost. Excellent. You're making progress.


It's not a cost delta though. Every single person represents a potential cost. That person could become a bank robber, or a drug dealer. Or he could be a model citizen. The issue is how much money the government should invest in trying to affect the outcomes.

Gay couples represent no increased likelihood of "cost" to society than any other single person or group of people does.


Do you agree that when two people form into a sexually active heterosexual relationship, that the potential cost increases dramatically more than any other pair of people in society? Everything else being equal that is?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 149 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (149)