Bachmann's hubby might be taking Medicare for "gay therapy"Follow

So you're either stupid or think you're ingeniously side stepping. That would be my observation on the facts provided.

Then ask away. Test me. Ask me about any position on any political issue.


Proofs in the pudding, right?

Or maybe misunderstanding your assertion as maybe I have, because it seems to me that Gbaji is correct in his criticism. If Gbaji is consistently in line with other right wing "cranks" then it proves nothing other than consistency. Either they're all independently and soundly arriving at the same opinion, which is plausible, or they're all parroting each other, which is also plausible.

Interesting note, in auto-correcting my post I learned Briticism is a word.

Edited, Jul 8th 2011 6:20pm by Allegory

And I like how he's completely ignored the point about failing to offer primary sources for his ideas. It's hard to make a case when you don't have one, I suppose.

I wish I had that talent. It would be so easy to get research grants for browsing the internet.

Because all of your "evidence" consists of liberal posters making accusations. That's kinda circular, isn't it?



Unless pro-conservative positions are based on facts and research and liberal positions are based on the opposite. Have you considered that possibility? I mean, the sheer degree to which conservatives are accurately able to predict the negative outcomes of liberal policies should start to give you a hint that maybe they know something and we should pay attention to them?

Certainly considered it, but then had to ultimately dismiss it because it's just more proof of what I'm saying about statistic impossibility.

You HONESTLY don't see the problem in an argument that fails to provide any primary sources in its defense, especially when asked for the specifically?

And what your account of marriage UTTERLY FAILS TO CONSIDER is the relative power of women throughout history. You assume that benefits were attached to marriage so as to entice people to marry and have children. What you fail to consider is that, before the twentieth century, women had little choice BUT to marry. They simply have the economic stability to live outside of a heterosexual union. And this trend continued until into the 50s, when the feminist movement began to gain influence and managed to get pro-woman legislation passed that gave women, for the first time, the ability to reliably divorce a husband fairly.

Oh, and sources:

-Elizabeth Kennedy and Madeline Davis, “‘I could hardly wait to get back to that bar’: Lesbian Bar Culture in the 1930s and 1940s"
-Katie Gilmartin, "We weren't bar people."
-Amy Branzdel, "“Queering Citizenship?: Same-Sex Marriage and the State"
-Jefferey Escoffier, "The Political Economy of the Closet"
-Donna Penn, "The Sexualized Woman"

Edited, Jul 8th 2011 9:14pm by idiggory

Hey look, a less partisan source did an undercover investigation. (It's still biased, but instead of a Democrat bias it's a LGBT bias.)



Edited, Jul 9th 2011 3:00pm by catwho

Only a small one, but a difference nonetheless.

But then you'd have to admit you're wrong, since Joph has provided proof for why these benefits were granted multiple times.

There are primary sources. You know, like speeches given in the house fighting for or against the legislation? Or public reactions and newspaper articles about it? Or the report written by the justice system after ruling in favor of those rules after they were challenged?

They just don't support what you say.

That would be your problem.

No, he hasn't. What he has done is provide arguments for why married people wanted those benefits. As I have repeatedly explained, there's a clear difference between why someone wants something, and why someone else might give it to them. He has never even attempted to provide any explanation as to the latter.

Also, what he's provided isn't "proof" anymore than what I've provided is. Links to 3rd parties stating why they think something happened is similarly strong, yet it's amazing how that's labeled as proof by you when it supports what you already believe, and it's ignored as biased opinion when it's not. Try to not lead your horse with your cart and assess things logically instead.


My logic on that issue specifically has always been to ask "why would the rest of society do this?". The answer I give is consistent with all the other cases in which we as society choose to fund something. There is *always* some broader socio-economic reason for taking such an action. If it were just about giving people what they want, then why does Obama argue the case for his stimulus bill based on the "number of jobs created or saved"? Why is that even a criteria? Why not just say "We gave money to people who needed it!" and be done with it?


There's abundant evidence in the political dialog going on right now to see that politicians have to sell things based on the broader benefit to the whole, and *not* just on the idea that "this group of people want this benefit". What's funny is that you guys make the same arguments, but I doubt you ever think about why. What do you suppose you're doing when you argue in favor of socialized medicine on the grounds that it'll save us money because we're already having to pay for those people when they go to the emergency room anyway? If the alternative argument Joph is making actually worked in the US, the only argument the left would need would be one about how much better off people would be if they didn't have to pay for their own health care.


But that's not a strong enough argument in the US, is it? Just as spending money for pretty much any social program isn't able to stand just on the good the program would do, or the benefits that the recipients would enjoy. In the US we pretty much always sell spending on the concept that in the long run, we'll save ourselves some larger cost elsewhere. It's not always the truth, but it should be telling just that we do this.

How this relates to marriage is that it shows a pattern which supports my argument. The "people" of the US will only grant those benefits to married couples if by doing so there is some larger socio-economic benefit to be reaped which justifies the cost. That's the "state interest" in having the government step in and meddle. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to look for that larger benefit, and it's not unreasonable to make the arguments I have about what it is. Now, if someone wants to argue some other rationale, they can. But no one has. Not one person has ever come up with any alternative reason why the rest of us would pay for those benefits for married couples.


The pattern of US politics shows pretty clearly that it's not just because we want to be nice, or that they'll benefit from it. So it has to be something else, right? My logic flows from that. What's the alternative? Does anyone have one? And if not, how can you criticize my argument when you don't even have one of your own?