Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[Stickfight]

If you really want to get down to it, I could probably assemble a lot of evidence demonstrating that gay marriage is not beneficial to society and should not be subsidized by the government.

Please do.

The very premise of evolution operates under the assumption that nature selected that relationship as superior.

I think it is funny to find xtians leaning on science that they were once so hostile toward, but also please show how it it that evolution has not selected out homosexuality over the course of human existence. Also note, using science, the length of that existence.

Thanks!

 

[Lowe0]

I'm not talking only about monetary subsidies, although spousal receipt of social security comes to mind. There are also various other things the gays are whining about. Government control of hospital visitation, health insurance, family and estate law, etc. etc. None of this should have been taken beyond basic contract law by the government, but they've turned it into an industry and now it's a big mess.



Yep. I think this type of force is immoral.



First of all, nobody is saying that anything should be banned. They are saying that these relationships should not be subsidized in the same way that heterosexual, child-producing marriages are subsidized. I think you need to take a moment and consider that distinction.

Now once we've established that this isn't a ban of these relationships, we can understand that the argument against the government subsidy of interracial marriage was based on racism while the argument against the government subsidy of gay marriage is not necessarily based on any such evil prejudice. Gay marriage simply doesn't provide any of the social benefits that were used to justify these marriage subsidies in the first place - and the people of Kentucky decided they didn't want to subsidize it.

Let's be honest about the Time article. It was a dog whistle, as the liberals like to call it. Pretending to study history, but the real purpose was to equate Christians to racists. I recognize and reject their propaganda.

But heterosexual child-bearing couples are given the exact same marriage license as heterosexual non-child-bearing couples. So if procreation doesn't affect marital status, then what's the difference between a straight child free couple wanting to marry and a gay child free couple wanting to marry?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Man burns the Rainbow........gets 5 yearsamericasfreedomfighters ^

 

[Arthur Dent]

But heterosexual child-bearing couples are given the exact same marriage license as heterosexual non-child-bearing couples. So if procreation doesn't affect marital status, then what's the difference between a straight child free couple wanting to marry and a gay child free couple wanting to marry?

There is absolutely no difference. As far as procreation goes, where do all these homosexuals keep coming from?

The question people should be asking themselves on this is "how does this affect me?" Is your pay still the same? Have your job duties changed? Is water still wet? Is the sun still shining? etc. If the only way you're affected is your "Ew!" meter is pegged, then the problem isn't with homosexual marriage. The problem is with the people who take issue with it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Man burns the Rainbow........gets 5 yearsamericasfreedomfighters ^

Betting there's a lot more to this story to justify the sentence. A rainbow flag has no meaning, and setting it ablaze means nothing.

Now... what did he really do?

Edit: Alright, trudged through it. Key word was "faces" 5 years, which is just a maximum on 3rd degree arson.

 

[steveh_131]

Please do.

No. The point is that it could be done without involving any type of inherent hatred or prejudice akin to the racism that drove the opposition to interracial marriage. Even if one disagreed with the statistics used to reach that conclusion, it is still not comparable.

I think it is funny to find xtians leaning on science that they were once so hostile toward, but also please show how it it that evolution has not selected out homosexuality over the course of human existence. Also note, using science, the length of that existence.

Once again, I am not making that argument. I don't personally believe in any of this social engineering via government or statistical analysis of social behaviors. I don't think that gay marriages are necessarily more damaging to society than any other secular marriage that excludes God. What I am saying is that the argument can be made without relying on internal prejudice or hatred, as the Time article is implying.

But heterosexual child-bearing couples are given the exact same marriage license as heterosexual non-child-bearing couples. So if procreation doesn't affect marital status, then what's the difference between a straight child free couple wanting to marry and a gay child free couple wanting to marry?

From the social engineer's perspective, there is no way to predict if a heterosexual couple will choose to procreate while it is easy to predict that a gay couple will not procreate. So it is consistent.

I don't know how else to make this point clear though: I am not advocating such social engineering. I am simply pointing out that it is not equivalent to racism.

 

[indiucky]

I think it is funny to find xtians leaning on science that they were once so hostile toward,

xtians????? Is that a science fiction alien race thing??? Because surely no one trying to make a point would take the word "Christ" out of the name of a Faith as some sort of slam on that person's Faith...Would they????

That must be the case because every Christian I know loves science....I know that the founder of the genome project and a pretty smart fellow in the field of science became a Christian after studying DNA his entire life...To many open minded people science is a way to understand God and not a stick with which to fight Him....

Are there Christians, Jews, Muslims etc...hostile to Science??? Probably...Are there Scientists hostile towards religion???? Probably....Can the two coexist??? Yes...They have since the beginning.....

Using words like "xtians" is nearly as bad as using "flying spaghetti monster" in a debate on the existence of our Creator and can make one look petty...It's like a laugh line tossed to the Faithful Followers of Brother Richard Dawkins and will only play to his believers and followers who come to his tent revivals at Skepticon...

No place for that in the real world of ideas, philosophy, and science I am afraid....Save those little jabs for when you are hanging with others of Dawkin's Faith (AKA the "Ancient Aliens" crowd...Although I will say that Dawkin's ancient aliens theory is a little better than the History Channel guy with the crazy hair and crazier theories...)

 

[singlesix]

Man burns the Rainbow........gets 5 yearsamericasfreedomfighters ^

Misleading, and how is this related to the gay marriage question?

 

[IndyDave1776]

This guy is giving me a headache. He believes that apples are oranges simply because that's the way he wants it to be.

The only thing wrong here is that it will only let me rep you once!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Misleading, and how is this related to the gay marriage question?

It has NOTHING to do with it.Please disregard.

 

[Stickfight]

xtians????? Is that a science fiction alien race thing??? Because surely no one trying to make a point would take the word "Christ" out of the name of a Faith as some sort of slam on that person's Faith...No place for that in the real world of ideas, philosophy, and science I am afraid.

Xtian is quite common, similar to Xmas but with some connotation of beliefs that lean to the extreme. That is gets actual xtians faking offense doesn't really diminish its suitability.

What kinds of science and/or philosophy are you the arbiter of? I do the science thing pretty much every day and have for a few years, and your claims against xtian are new to me.

 

[Stickfight]

No. The point is that it could be done without involving any type of inherent hatred or prejudice

And I'm claiming it can't, or at least you can't.

Not that I agree with the premise at all. A thing doesn't have to "benefit society" for the government to not ban it, or even license it.

 

[PaulF]

ad hominem arguments...

...insults.

These things get people banned from INGO.

Let's keep this on track, please.

 

[Lowe0]

I don't know how else to make this point clear though: I am not advocating such social engineering. I am simply pointing out that it is not equivalent to racism.

You keep emphasizing that, but the truth is, it has nothing to do with what I asked you (what's the difference?). Nothing to do with what you replied (one is opposed by scripture, one isn't). And nothing to do with anything either of us has discussed since then! It's like ending every post with "also, I like kittens. I can't possibly be a mean old bigot, because I like kittens." I couldn't possibly care less WHY you oppose same-sex marriage, unless that reason is backed by solid evidence of a specific harm, which would outweigh the loss of freedom caused by disallowing same-sex marriage. Then, I'd be happy to hear you out. Until then, what's the point?

However, there are plenty of heterosexual couples for whom it can easily be predicted that there is zero chance of procreating. I'm contemplating a vasectomy with absolutely no children. Plenty of others, men and women, are simply unable to have children. Should those couples be allowed to marry?

 

[steveh_131]

And I'm claiming it can't, or at least you can't.

I can. You may not agree with the statistics behind it. I probably wouldn't even agree with them. But the argument can be made with no prejudice or hatred. Are you having a hard time understanding the difference between acknowledging that someone has made an argument and agreeing with that argument?

For example, a few folks here on INGO have made some pretty interesting arguments in favor of a lot of wealth-redistribution schemes. Minimum wages, etc. I don't agree with their arguments, but at the same time I acknowledge that they've put research and effort into it and arrived at that conclusion in an intellectual manner. I can acknowledge that they did not arrive at that conclusion simply because they feel entitled to redistribute my money, but that they think it is genuinely in the best interest of our society.

Similarly, our nation arrived at the conclusion that heterosexual marriage is socially beneficial and, as such, should be subsidized by the government. Is it true that it is socially beneficial? I don't know. And I don't care, because even if it was, I oppose any attempts at social engineering. So you won't find me taking the time to make that argument. Nevertheless, the argument has been made in an intellectual fashion and the rejection of marriages that don't meet those qualifications as socially beneficial is not comparable to racism that is based in prejudice and hatred.

 

[steveh_131]

I couldn't possibly care less WHY you oppose same-sex marriage, unless that reason is backed by solid evidence of a specific harm, which would outweigh the loss of freedom caused by disallowing same-sex marriage.

There are several false premises contained in this statement.

1. A person who opposes a government subsidy of a gay marriage also 'opposes' that marriage and wants it to be prohibited.

This is false. I doubt that even one person here would deny two men the freedom to find someone to officiate their wedding and call themselves married. These folks simply don't want to subsidize that marriage with their tax dollars or be forced by the government to acknowledge it in their place of business. That is an entirely different animal.

2. The denial of that government subsidy is a 'loss of freedom'.

This is also false. Government subsidies are denied all the time. Is it a 'loss of freedom' that I don't qualify for food stamps? Of course not. I never had any natural right to food stamps, and the denial of them is not a loss of freedom.


Freedom: noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

I see nothing in there about government certificates or subsidies.

My point has been twisted beyond recognition, so I am going to repeat it. The purpose of the Time article was to subtly compare Christians to racists. The rejection of interracial marriage relied on racism. To expect history to 'repeat itself' certainly implies that the rejection of gay marriage is founded upon similar prejudice or hatred.

Since the liberals love this term lately, I'm using it again. It's a Dog Whistle, bringing all the hounds to pounce on the so-called 'bigots' for their hatred. But it is a lie, and I see it and reject it as propaganda.

 

[Lowe0]

There are several false premises contained in this statement.

1. A person who opposes a government subsidy of a gay marriage also 'opposes' that marriage and wants it to be prohibited.

This is false. I doubt that even one person here would deny two men the freedom to find someone to officiate their wedding and call themselves married. These folks simply don't want to subsidize that marriage with their tax dollars or be forced by the government to acknowledge it in their place of business. That is an entirely different animal.

What subsidy? The only thing I've seen mentioned that comes close is the survivor's Social Security benefit - is the government giving back your own tax money now a "subsidy"? The tax rate argument is utterly absurd, as I've already spoken to from experience - if anything, two-income-no-kids households are the ones subsidizing the tax breaks for those of you who choose to have dependents!

2. The denial of that government subsidy is a 'loss of freedom'.

This is also false. Government subsidies are denied all the time. Is it a 'loss of freedom' that I don't qualify for food stamps? Of course not. I never had any natural right to food stamps, and the denial of them is not a loss of freedom.


Freedom: noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

I see nothing in there about government certificates or subsidies.

Yes, you've already established that you don't think marriage should be a legal status, and I've already agreed with that. However, we're not talking about the ideal system; we're talking about the one we have.

My point has been twisted beyond recognition, so I am going to repeat it. The purpose of the Time article was to subtly compare Christians to racists. The rejection of interracial marriage relied on racism. To expect history to 'repeat itself' certainly implies that the rejection of gay marriage is founded upon similar prejudice or hatred.

Yep, it's "I like kittens" again. Still not relevant.

Since the liberals love this term lately, I'm using it again. It's a Dog Whistle, bringing all the hounds to pounce on the so-called 'bigots' for their hatred. But it is a lie, and I see it and reject it as propaganda.

Oh, woe is you. Look, if refusing to recognize same-sex marriage was sound social policy, I wouldn't care if people supported it because they were bigots. But so far, I haven't seen any concrete evidence that it is - just like there wasn't any concrete evidence that refusing to recognize interracial marriage was good social policy. That's the similarity between the two, not some imagined accusation of bigotry.

 

[Stickfight]

Are you having a hard time understanding the difference between acknowledging that someone has made an argument and agreeing with that argument?

You haven't made the argument.

 

[steveh_131]

You haven't made the argument.

No, and I'm not going to. Others have, and I acknowledge that it has nothing to do with prejudice or hatred.

What subsidy? The only thing I've seen mentioned that comes close is the survivor's Social Security benefit - is the government giving back your own tax money now a "subsidy"? The tax rate argument is utterly absurd, as I've already spoken to from experience - if anything, two-income-no-kids households are the ones subsidizing the tax breaks for those of you who choose to have dependents!

Forcing insurance companies to provide benefits to a spouse. Social security. SSI. Pre-made laws to handle family matters in place of privately handled contracts. I don't know, I'm not gay and I don't care.

Let me turn the question on you: If there is no benefit, why does anyone care? Why the gigantic legal battles, propaganda, etc? If there is no benefit, how is anyone being 'discriminated' against?

Yes, you've already established that you don't think marriage should be a legal status

I noticed that you ignored the part where I also established that there is no loss of freedom in this, by definition. Any comment?

Oh, woe is you. Look, if refusing to recognize same-sex marriage was sound social policy, I wouldn't care if people supported it because they were bigots. But so far, I haven't seen any concrete evidence that it is - just like there wasn't any concrete evidence that refusing to recognize interracial marriage was good social policy. That's the similarity between the two, not some imagined accusation of bigotry.

You have the burden of proof completely flipped around. If you think that gay marriage should be subsidized by tax dollars and government infrastructure, the burden lies on you to prove that it is socially beneficial.