UN Passes Gay Rights Protection ResolutionFollow

So you just don't know how to quote correctly?

I can see that.

No, I totally can.

I'll be back every five pages to deride you morons for going through this....again.

Sorry. >.< I should have thought ahead.

Yes. Couples who are clearly unable to biologically produce children together (so gay couples, elderly, confirmed medically sterilized I suppose) would not receive any financial benefits at all from day one. Everyone else, would receive them for a period of years, but those benefits would cut off (specifics can vary) at some point if they fail to produce any children.



Conservatives are largely able to distinguish between what they personally like/dislike, and what they think should be legal/illegal. I'll point out that they *also* distinguish between things that are illegal, legal, and subsidized. So being opposed to subsidizing something they dislike does not invalidate the first part of this paragraph at all.

Liberals tend to view the world in only two ranges: Things they like should be subsidized and things they dislike should be illegal. They also tend to project their own viewpoint on Conservatives.



/shrug

The fact that a domestic partnership law passed in California with pretty much zero opposition, but prop8 created a huge stink kinda speaks volumes in support of my assumption.

Doesn't it? If it was really just about "hating the gays!", shouldn't they have fought against Domestic Partnerships? Prop8's only effect is to limit only heterosexual couples to obtaining a legal status, which is distinguished from Domestic Partnership only in that it also grants Federal level benefits. Um... Except that DOMA already restricts those federal benefits to heterosexual couples anyway. So really prop8 wasn't about anything other than the principle of whether or not gays married in California should qualify for federally funded benefits which might have to be paid for by people who are not living in California and who didn't vote for inclusion of that group. Assuming, of course, that some day DOMA were to be lifted, that is.


So no. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume that most conservatives would be perfectly ok with pretty much exactly what you proposed.




I think that is quite often the case. Don't you? I'm sure that the occasional politician actually does honestly care about the issues they take up. But most things, especially party platform things, are adopted because that's where the party's bread and butter is.



Sadly I do think that many Conservative politicians are just as bad when it comes to this as the Dems. It's one of the things many conservatives get pissed off at our own representatives over. They compromise on things they shouldn't compromise on. They sometimes say or do things which show that they clearly don't actually understand the conservative principles they are championing on our behalf. And we get pissed at them for it and demand more. What do you think the whole Tea Party thing is about?

The difference is that Liberals don't seem to notice or care if/when their politicians do this. I've seen enough liberal posters on this forum, once backed into a corner on something like this, just kinda shrug and say something like "It doesn't matter because as long as a Democrat wins, I know that they'll do the kinds of things I want to have happen". Conservatives expect more than that.





Are you being deliberately obtuse? You don't understand the difference between voters and politicians, or between those who march and protest for something, and those who head the organizations that get those people to march and protest for? You don't get that the latter groups benefit from having large numbers of people support their agenda/cause?

You're blind if you can't see this.



Sure. But if, for example, the primary objective were really about ensuring that gay couples could have visitation rights in hospitals, share finances, make decisions for eachother, and all the other really important stuff that gay people consistently say are what they care about the most, shouldn't they have just created a legal contract/status which does that first? What they've done instead of insist on a "change marriage everywhere or bust!". That's a great approach if your purpose is to build as much political an monetary support over the issue as possible (largely because you're doing it in a way which unnecessarily ticks off conservatives), but actually prevents gay couples from getting what they really want.


Gay couples could have had all those thing they want 20+ years ago if they'd approached the issue differently. The reason why they don't have them today isn't because of Conservatives. It's because the Democrats (and the gay rights leaders) chose to deliberately follow a path that didn't just give gay couples what they wanted, but also gave them stuff they didn't want or care about, but which they knew would **** off Conservative and create a bigger issue than this should have been in the first place. As a result, they make it appear like gay couples are being denied their rights, and they are their champions. But what's really happening is that they are using gay people for their own ends.



Do it and find out.





Yeah. I'm aware of that. That's the hypothetical I've proposed in the past, which certainly grants gay couples everything they claim they want. It just doesn't deny benefits to heterosexual couples who either choose or cannot have children for some reason. My normal argument against that is that it's hard to know for absolutely sure if a couple can have a child. Despite that, no liberal has responded with "that's a reasonable compromise". Shocking, isn't it?


So now, I'm amending that hypothetical. I'm adopting what you proposed and applying it the this case. So now, gay couples are still denied those benefits (because they can't procreate as a couple), but heterosexual couples who don't produce children within a set period of time *also* are denied those benefits. This closes up the very last loophole, just for those who follow the logic of "If I can't have it, no one else can".


So. Why oppose this? It gives gay couples everything they claim to want. It determines benefits solely on a couple actually producing one or more children while married, while still maintaining the incentivising effect of doing this prior to actually producing said children.


I'm betting you'll still come up with a reason to oppose it though. And I'm betting most on the left will as well. Because, as I've said repeatedly, it's not really about coming up with a fair and equitable social solution, but is purely about being "pro-gay" or "anti-gay", and continually coming up with reasons why the anti-gay side isn't doing enough.





That's the "if I can't have it, no one can" concept though, isn't it?


Let me make a prediction though. I'll go further and bet that even if every conservative in the country tomorrow said "Ok. Let's eliminate all government benefits from marriage", the left would still find a reason to attack them on the issue of gay marriage. They would argue that the right is so hateful of gays that they would penalize all married couples rather than grant gay couples the same rights. And they'd run on restoring those benefits to all (including gay couples).


You know I'm right. Because, as I've said several times, it's really not about finding a solution, but perpetuating the problem so that there's always a need for people to support a cause. It's the eternal revolution. That's what the left does. Just look at the pattern of social policy and it's right there, clear as freaking day.

That's ******* stupid. They should just get the tax cut starting the year their child is born.

Which they do already. You seem to have forgotten that couples gain an additional tax cut when they have their first child (and it increases with subsequent children). Two people filing jointly are taxed less than two people filing separately. Add a child and that just increases their tax break. So your assumption that the only reason married couples receive tax breaks isn't reflected in current US law.



Okay, I can't be blamed for bringing the thread around to this point anymore. It's totally gbaji's fault now.

Also, domestic partnerships != civil unions, fool.

It's interesting how terrified gbaji is of same-sex marriage.

No to mention the fact that there is nowhere in the nation where civil unions and marriage actually act as equal, even at the state level. Largely equal and fully equal are two different things. And that's just considering the legal states themselves, without considering the nature of "separate but 'equal'" unions.

[EDIT] CA is better than most states in this department, but there are still rights restricted to marriage. And most partners still have a ton of trouble actually acting on their rights, because they often don't get the support they are (legally) due. And this is even on the basic level, like visiting your partner in the hospital. [/EDIT]



You see, here's the problem. None of us were trying to create an incentive for people to marry. My issue is with laws created as incentives.

I'm all for tax breaks according to how many children a taxpayer has. I don't give a crap if they are married or single--they still need to pay for that kid.

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 9:42pm by idiggory

All we need is the same BS posts from varus and Alma to complete the Anti-Gay Trifectra. Then this thread will REALLY go places.

Unfortunately, the same exact places we've all seen a dozen times.

That's pretty much any thread that they post in, though.

Can we actually make this bet? I'm all in.