Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If it were configured such that anyone could "marry" in terms of entering into a state issued civil contract of marriage, but only those who could possibly biologically produce children would qualify for government benefits as a result of that marriage, but if they don't produce children within say 5 years that said benefits end?
So to be clear, gays could marry to, but would receive zero benefits, exactly the same as barren (or by choice childless) heterosexual couples. That still meets your criteria.
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.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. I think that would get nearly 100% support by conservatives. Why would you think otherwise?
Because I happen to know a great number of conservatives whose primary disagreement with homosexual marriage is base don religious morality.
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.
Quote:
Still, if you believe it's such a unanimous opinion, then it should be easy to provide evidence of this yes?
/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.
Quote:
It's not delusional to think that groups Democrats please will vote for Democrats. It's delusional to think that Democrats solely or even primarily try to please these groups simply to get votes.
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.
Quote:
Do you think conservative politicians support tax cuts because they just want to get people who like tax cuts to vote for them? Or do they also believe those tax cuts will benefit the economy as well? The same is true for liberal politicians.
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.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
You're confusing "liberals" as in people who vote/support an agenda, and "liberals" as in the much smaller group who benefit from that voting and supporting.
I'm confusing liberals with liberals. Glorious.
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.
Quote:
Liberal politicians aren't whoring themselves out by supporting gay marriage anymore than conservative politicians are whoring themselves out by opposing it. Both groups of politicians believe in the policies they are supporting, both groups benefit from the votes of those who support their efforts.
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.
Quote:
Imagine me playing the same card with any conservative policy and how would you react?
Do it and find out.
Quote:
1. This isn't the same thing. Your argument is that marriage benefits are there to encourage couples to produce children, so the wording should be "But, we changed all of our laws nationwide so that all benefits from the government which today require someone being "married" or "a married couple" instead would read something like 'A married couple capable of producing, and having produced, a child'." Your previous restriction still allowed childless/barren heterosexual couples to benefit, but not childless homosexual couples.
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.
Quote:
2. idiggory pretty much said exactly that with "I also think that all tax benefits should be removed from marriage. I see absolutely no reason why a married couple and unmarried couple shouldn't receive the same treatment from the gov't. If you want to make an argument that children mean a couple deserve tax breaks, then fine. I think it's a good idea, because it would hopefully lead to a better childhood for the kids. So give people tax breaks based on the number of children they have. I see no reason why that would need to be at linked to marriage."
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.