- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Americans flee Democrat rule
Americans flee Democrat ruleFollow
No, I'm being totally sincere. I think it's great that you managed to look up and learn something this morning all by yourself.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
How about you just shut up and take a seat in the back.
Of the car, the bus, or the car-bus?
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
I'm being totally sincere
Totally for sure.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
If conservatives are against laws that benefit one group over another, and the original marriage law had nothing against gay marraige, shouldn't conservatives be fighting to get the law changed back so straights aren't benefited more than gays?
Jimpadan wrote:
If conservatives are against laws that benefit one group over another, and the original marriage law had nothing against gay marraige, shouldn't conservatives be fighting to get the law changed back so straights aren't benefited more than gays?
If you'll allow me to split hairs, conservatives are all for "gay marriage." It's the Republicans who oppose it.
The distinction is key.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
varusword75 wrote:
Demea,
Of course most Republicans are conservatives and most liberals are not. The distinction is key.
Quote:
If you'll allow me to split hairs, conservatives are all for "gay marriage." It's the Republicans who oppose it.
The distinction is key.
The distinction is key.
Of course most Republicans are conservatives and most liberals are not. The distinction is key.
There's such a thing as a conservative liberal?
I thought that Joe Lieberman was the only one.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Jimpadan wrote:
If conservatives are against laws that benefit one group over another, and the original marriage law had nothing against gay marraige, shouldn't conservatives be fighting to get the law changed back so straights aren't benefited more than gays?
Sure. We'll get right on that the moment that we eliminate all of the other laws in our country which may create a disincentive to marriage for straight couples who find themselves pregnant. Like a welfare system which rewards single mothers more than those who marry the guy who knocked them up. The Earned Income Tax Credit which directly penalizes a couple who marry over one that doesn't.
Let's also bring back the social pressures which were used to force young heterosexual couples to marry. Let's bring back shotgun weddings, arranged marriages, and all of that other stuff! Then we'll eliminate all of the government benefits granted to married couples which currently benefit straight people, but not gay. That way, we'll be right back where we used to be. Wont that be great!
Except that if we did shift our laws completely back, gay couples wouldn't want to marry. Because legal marriage was a burden, not a benefit. It was a government mandating sets of contractual obligations which men had to keep in return for potentially knocking up someone's daughter. In return, the man got to claim sole sexual use of his bride and have the children they produce bear his name and all that other manly stuff.
Why the hell would gay couples get within 100 miles of that? They'd do what most heterosexual couples did as well. They'd just shack up, call themselves married, and be done with it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It was a government mandating sets of contractual obligations which men had to keep in return for potentially knocking up someone's daughter
lol
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Except that if we did shift our laws completely back, gay couples wouldn't want to marry. Because legal marriage was a burden, not a benefit. It was a government mandating sets of contractual obligations which men had to keep in return for potentially knocking up someone's daughter. In return, the man got to claim sole sexual use of his bride and have the children they produce bear his name and all that other manly stuff.
Why the hell would gay couples get within 100 miles of that? They'd do what most heterosexual couples did as well. They'd just shack up, call themselves married, and be done with it.
Why the hell would gay couples get within 100 miles of that? They'd do what most heterosexual couples did as well. They'd just shack up, call themselves married, and be done with it.
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that if we did shift our laws completely back, gay couples wouldn't want to marry. Because legal marriage was a burden, not a benefit. It was a government mandating sets of contractual obligations which men had to keep in return for potentially knocking up someone's daughter. In return, the man got to claim sole sexual use of his bride and have the children they produce bear his name and all that other manly stuff.
Why the hell would gay couples get within 100 miles of that? They'd do what most heterosexual couples did as well. They'd just shack up, call themselves married, and be done with it.
Why the hell would gay couples get within 100 miles of that? They'd do what most heterosexual couples did as well. They'd just shack up, call themselves married, and be done with it.
You apparently missed the word "legal". The government's role in marriage has nothing to do with making couples happy, or expressing their love for each other, or even to enable them to enter into contractual/property based arrangements. It has to do with ensuring that said arrangements/contracts meet some minimum legal requirements and with enforcing those requirements to the greatest degree possible.
Governments got involved with marriage specifically because people were just shacking up and definitions of what a "marriage" was varied wildly. And ultimately, this usually manifested in the form of some guy abandoning his wife and children because there was no legally binding requirement for him to stick around. The combination of increased mobility by a larger percentage of the population, lessening of traditional social pressures (related to the above since one could just move away from the town where everyone knows you're supposed to be supporting the local farmer's daughter you married two summers ago after getting caught banging her during the midsummer festival), and a growing middle class required a pretty significant expansion of government involvement in marriage over the last 2-3 centuries, but the same reasons have existed to varying degrees for marriage laws for most of human history.
It's a concept that always seems to meet with the greatest amount of mental block, but that does not make it any less true. Government's don't typically get involved in social issues to make people's lives better, but to attempt to address an existing problem. Government's didn't create marriage. They did, however, step in to regulate it after the fact. Which is why I've always found it so incredibly funny that the prime focus of the "gay marriage" movement seems to ignore the good things about the institution of marriage and insist instead on getting the regulation. As if somehow, if the government isn't stepping into your life to control and place mandates on your relationships, those relationships aren't "real".
Funny!
Edited, Nov 19th 2010 5:38pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that if we did shift our laws completely back, gay couples wouldn't want to marry. Because legal marriage was a burden, not a benefit. It was a government mandating sets of contractual obligations which men had to keep in return for potentially knocking up someone's daughter. In return, the man got to claim sole sexual use of his bride and have the children they produce bear his name and all that other manly stuff.
Why the hell would gay couples get within 100 miles of that? They'd do what most heterosexual couples did as well. They'd just shack up, call themselves married, and be done with it.
Why the hell would gay couples get within 100 miles of that? They'd do what most heterosexual couples did as well. They'd just shack up, call themselves married, and be done with it.
You apparently missed the word "legal".
Quote:
The government's role in marriage has nothing to do with making couples happy, or expressing their love for each other, or even to enable them to enter into contractual/property based arrangements. It has to do with ensuring that said arrangements/contracts meet some minimum legal requirements and with enforcing those requirements to the greatest degree possible.
Yes, in an ideal world the government doesn't have to get involved in trying to ensure stable families. But this isn't an ideal world, and won't be no matter how hard you wish it were. (Insert side rant about economics here that really doesn't have any place in this thread.) I'll leave it at that for now, because I'm just frustrating myself trying to word how I want the rest of this post to go. :-D
Yeah, I'd be all happy and stuff if it weren't for that piece of paper my husband and I had to sign that gives us those benefits and stuff...
wait...
wait...
Nadenu wrote:
Yeah, I'd be all happy and stuff if it weren't for that piece of paper my husband and I had to sign that gives us those benefits and stuff...
wait...
wait...
For example, me and my wife, as well as Nadenu and her husband.
Edited, Nov 19th 2010 7:11pm by MDenham
Wait! So you guys are arguing that there were no marriages, much less "happily married couples" until the government decided to provide tax breaks for spouses medical insurance, and created social security and extended benefits to spouses, and extended union pensions to spouses, and military benefits, and FHA loans?
So in your world, no one got married much less happily until the last century or so? Interestingly short world view you have there.
So in your world, no one got married much less happily until the last century or so? Interestingly short world view you have there.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Wait! So you guys are arguing that there were no marriages, much less "happily married couples" until the government decided to provide tax breaks for spouses medical insurance, and created social security and extended benefits to spouses, and extended union pensions to spouses, and military benefits, and FHA loans?
So in your world, no one got married much less happily until the last century or so? Interestingly short world view you have there.
So in your world, no one got married much less happily until the last century or so? Interestingly short world view you have there.
gbaji wrote:
Wait! So you guys are arguing that there were no marriages, much less "happily married couples" until the government decided to provide tax breaks for spouses medical insurance, and created social security and extended benefits to spouses, and extended union pensions to spouses, and military benefits, and FHA loans?
The argument I'm making is that even if the government basically decided to offer everyone who got married a gigantic "fuck you", people would still get married.
Since your argument in the past has been "people won't get married unless the government offers shinies, they'll just boink each other and claim they're married even though they aren't", I guess you'd call it the exact opposite of your argument.
LeWoVoc wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wait! So you guys are arguing that there were no marriages, much less "happily married couples" until the government decided to provide tax breaks for spouses medical insurance, and created social security and extended benefits to spouses, and extended union pensions to spouses, and military benefits, and FHA loans?
So in your world, no one got married much less happily until the last century or so? Interestingly short world view you have there.
So in your world, no one got married much less happily until the last century or so? Interestingly short world view you have there.
Care to elaborate? My entire point is that you don't need government benefits in order for you to be "married", or even "happily married". Yet when I pointed this out, at least two different posters responded with somewhat bizarre statements, which I'm not even sure what exactly they were trying to say.
I'm just asking for some clarification here. I'm talking about how government involvement in social institutions tends to change the why/how of people's choices in those regards. In a broader context, my argument was that conservatives tended to prefer to avoid such government intervention precisely because it then puts the government in control of determining the legitimacy of the social institution.
Can we agree that if the government didn't provide any benefits or requirements at all on "marriage", that there would be no cause for gay couples to fight for? So didn't we create a rift between two groups of people because of our government intervention? Does this not support my earlier statement about the problem of government intervention and why I believe that the conservative approach is better? You know, if we want to be somewhat relevant to the issue...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
MDenham wrote:
The argument I'm making is that even if the government basically decided to offer everyone who got married a gigantic "fuck you", people would still get married.
Yes. But then no one would care if that couple was same sex or not, right?
That is my point, which so many of you keep missing completely. The entire issue was created because we got the government involved in providing marriage benefits.
Quote:
Since your argument in the past has been "people won't get married unless the government offers shinies, they'll just boink each other and claim they're married even though they aren't", I guess you'd call it the exact opposite of your argument.
That has never been my argument. Ever. In fact, I have argued over and over that people got married for thousands of years before government did, so there should be no reason to require said shinies in order for someone to be married. The whole "claim they're married even though they aren't" is absurd. Do you know what a "common law marriage" is?
You're confusing two different concepts of marriage here. One social, and one legal. Hence, my comment earlier about how the word "legal" got missed in my earlier statement. A "legal" marriage is one which the government recognizes and applies a specific set of statutory requirements upon. A "marriage" is just two people choosing to share their lives together. Those are *not* the same thing and it always amazes me how much people continue to mix them around when it serves their purposes.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
MDenham wrote:
The argument I'm making is that even if the government basically decided to offer everyone who got married a gigantic "fuck you", people would still get married.
Yes. But then no one would care if that couple was same sex or not, right?
Dude, if you believe that, you really, really aren't paying attention.
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wait! So you guys are arguing that there were no marriages, much less "happily married couples" until the government decided to provide tax breaks for spouses medical insurance, and created social security and extended benefits to spouses, and extended union pensions to spouses, and military benefits, and FHA loans?
The argument I'm making is that even if the government basically decided to offer everyone who got married a gigantic "fuck you", people would still get married.
This. I've been saying it over and over again - the only incentive for me to get married was the man I got married to. No taxes, no government, no kids, nothing.
All of Gbaji's arguments can be responded to with "lol".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
All of Gbaji's arguments can be responded to with "lol".
lol
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Recent Visitors: 266
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Americans flee Democrat rule
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC