Marriage is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

[The Rabbi]

His fingers are moving.

Plus, past performance, and the lack of supporting evidence.

I am sure you can blow his statement to smithereens by posting the correct data. Go ahead.

The claimant must support their claim.

Wimp.

 

[g5000]

Hmmm...

I guess the divorce rate was much higher before the government started gifting people for being married.

And the birth rate must have been MUCH lower before the government starting gifting people for being married and having kids.

And the illegitimate birth rate must have been much lower before the government started gifting people for having kids.


Oh, wait...

Please name a time and society when marriage was not a privileged state.

I can name an empire in which homosexuality was tolerated, and even name an emperor who had a male husband. And guess what, the empire did not collapse for several centuries!

Marriage was a privileged state there, too. So, gee, I guess you win.

Oh, wait.

The fact is, getting government all up in our marriages by handing out gifts to married people did not begin in earnest until after WWII.

And what has happened to the divorce rate since then? What has happened to the illegitimacy rate since then?

Faux conservatives love to point out the destructive results of government dependency when it suits them but just watch what happens when you go after the government gifts THEY depend on.

Watch what happens when someone else asks for the exact same gifts they have been getting all this time!

 

[The Rabbi]

Hmmm...

I guess the divorce rate was much higher before the government started gifting people for being married.

And the birth rate must have been MUCH lower before the government starting gifting people for being married and having kids.

And the illegitimate birth rate must have been much lower before the government started gifting people for having kids.


Oh, wait...

Please name a time and society when marriage was not a privileged state.

I can name an empire in which homosexuality was tolerated, and even name an emperor who had a male husband. And guess what, the empire did not collapse for several centuries!

Marriage was a privileged state there, too. So, gee, I guess you win.

Oh, wait.

The fact is, getting government all up in our marriages by handing out gifts to married people did not begin until after WWII.

And what has happened to the divorce rate since then? What has happened to the illegitimacy rate since then?

Faux conservatives love to point out the destructive results of government dependency when it suits them but just watch what happens when you go after the government gifts THEY depend on.

The Roman Empire is still around?
Who knew?
Marriage has always conferred privileges. This goes back to English common law.

 

[g5000]

I am sure you can blow his statement to smithereens by posting the correct data. Go ahead.

The claimant must support their claim.

Wimp.

That's how critical thinking works. It's a shame you don't know that.

If I said I had put a bag of chips on the moon and then demanded you prove I didn't, I guess you would be a wimp if you refused, eh?

 

[g5000]

The facts are that one in four gays in San Francisco MAY be infected with HIV. But to extrapolate that out to all of them dying in their 40s is flat out manufactured bullshit.

 

[bendog]

Hmmm...

I guess the divorce rate was much higher before the government started gifting people for being married.

And the birth rate must have been MUCH lower before the government starting gifting people for being married and having kids.

And the illegitimate birth rate must have been much lower before the government started gifting people for having kids.


Oh, wait...

Please name a time and society when marriage was not a privileged state.

I can name an empire in which homosexuality was tolerated, and even name an emperor who had a male husband. And guess what, the empire did not collapse for several centuries!

Marriage was a privileged state there, too. So, gee, I guess you win.

Oh, wait.

The fact is, getting government all up in our marriages by handing out gifts to married people did not begin in earnest until after WWII.

And what has happened to the divorce rate since then? What has happened to the illegitimacy rate since then?

Faux conservatives love to point out the destructive results of government dependency when it suits them but just watch what happens when you go after the government gifts THEY depend on.

Watch what happens when someone else asks for the exact same gifts they have been getting all this time!

There's also an issue of causation. If one wants to assert no society survived if it acknowledged gay marriage, there are two logical fallacies at work. First, as you point out, that even amongst western societies, the premise is untrue. Second, societies fail for various reasons, from climate change to industrial change to sexually transmitted disease. IF one wants to assert same sex marriage destroys a society, it is hardly incumbent upon others to prove the causation making the assertion true.

 

[g5000]

Please name a time and society when marriage was not a privileged state.

I can name an empire in which homosexuality was tolerated, and even name an emperor who had a male husband. And guess what, the empire did not collapse for several centuries!

Marriage was a privileged state there, too. So, gee, I guess you win.

Oh, wait.

The fact is, getting government all up in our marriages by handing out gifts to married people did not begin until after WWII.

And what has happened to the divorce rate since then? What has happened to the illegitimacy rate since then?

Faux conservatives love to point out the destructive results of government dependency when it suits them but just watch what happens when you go after the government gifts THEY depend on.

The Roman Empire is still around?

Reading comphrension fail. I did not say it was still around.

It lasted for many, many centuries. Despite homosexuality being accepted. Darn it!

Marriage has always conferred privileges. This goes back to English common law.

TH3 GAYZ would like to enjoy those same government gifts the rest of us do.

 

[g5000]

Please name a time and society when marriage was not a privileged state.

I can name an empire in which homosexuality was tolerated, and even name an emperor who had a male husband. And guess what, the empire did not collapse for several centuries!

Marriage was a privileged state there, too. So, gee, I guess you win.

Oh, wait.

The fact is, getting government all up in our marriages by handing out gifts to married people did not begin in earnest until after WWII.

And what has happened to the divorce rate since then? What has happened to the illegitimacy rate since then?

Faux conservatives love to point out the destructive results of government dependency when it suits them but just watch what happens when you go after the government gifts THEY depend on.

Watch what happens when someone else asks for the exact same gifts they have been getting all this time!

There's also an issue of causation. If one wants to assert no society survived if it acknowledged gay marriage, there are two logical fallacies at work. First, as you point out, that even amongst western societies, the premise is untrue. Second, societies fail for various reasons, from climate change to industrial change to sexually transmitted disease. IF one wants to assert same sex marriage destroys a society, it is hardly incumbent upon others to prove the causation making the assertion true.

Precisely. Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. The bigots often claim gays caused the fall of the Roman Empire. This is beyond laughable. And in fact there isn't even the correlation they think is there. Rome didn't have a period where they discriminated against gays and then one day accepted gays and then everything went to shit. That just did not happen. It's a bogus meme.


My bit about the correlation between the divorce rate and government gifts was a satirical parody of these kinds of arguments to demonstrate the rank hypocrisy among faux conservatives who whine about other people who get government gifts and attempt to blame all of society's ills on those other people, while at the same time fiercely protecting their own unearned government cash and prizes.

 

[dblack]

I don't necessarily agree that giving favorable tax treatment, for example, to coerce or encourage a behavior we find benefits society is never appropriate. ...

In my view, that's the most important aspect of this debate. By allowing the state to use discriminatory taxation, we've basically pissed away the notion of limited government. Anything Congress wants to order us to do (or not do) can be framed as a tax incentive.

It's frustrating to see the practice defended by "conservatives", who nominally support the idea of limited government.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We're here, we're queer, we ain't going anywheer!

Statistically speaking, if you are a Fag in San Fran, there is a 1 in 4 chance you will end up in a Hospice in your 40's dying from complications to a Virus that the Civilized World and Educated People have known how not to Contract for over 3 decades now.



peace...

Why do you continue to pull shit out of your ass? You treat your integrity like a 25 cent whore.

Why do you continue to come off as an unhinged lunatic with zero integrity?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I can name an empire in which homosexuality was tolerated, and even name an emperor who had a male husband. And guess what, the empire did not collapse for several centuries!

Marriage was a privileged state there, too. So, gee, I guess you win.

Oh, wait.

The fact is, getting government all up in our marriages by handing out gifts to married people did not begin in earnest until after WWII.

And what has happened to the divorce rate since then? What has happened to the illegitimacy rate since then?

Faux conservatives love to point out the destructive results of government dependency when it suits them but just watch what happens when you go after the government gifts THEY depend on.

Watch what happens when someone else asks for the exact same gifts they have been getting all this time!

There's also an issue of causation. If one wants to assert no society survived if it acknowledged gay marriage, there are two logical fallacies at work. First, as you point out, that even amongst western societies, the premise is untrue. Second, societies fail for various reasons, from climate change to industrial change to sexually transmitted disease. IF one wants to assert same sex marriage destroys a society, it is hardly incumbent upon others to prove the causation making the assertion true.

Precisely. Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. The bigots often claim gays caused the fall of the Roman Empire. This is beyond laughable. And in fact there isn't even the correlation they think is there. Rome didn't have a period where they discriminated against gays and then one day accepted gays and then everything went to shit. That just did not happen. It's a bogus meme.


My bit about the correlation between the divorce rate and government gifts was a satirical parody of these kinds of arguments to demonstrate the rank hypocrisy among faux conservatives who whine about other people who get government gifts and attempt to blame all of society's ills on those other people, while at the same time fiercely protecting their own unearned government cash and prizes.

And there it is.. the leftwing moonbat catch phrase.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Statistically speaking, if you are a Fag in San Fran, there is a 1 in 4 chance you will end up in a Hospice in your 40's dying from complications to a Virus that the Civilized World and Educated People have known how not to Contract for over 3 decades now.



peace...

Why do you continue to pull shit out of your ass? You treat your integrity like a 25 cent whore.

No wonder you're attracted to his posts.

How do you know he's wrong?

He's nutz... certifiable I tell you. One moment he's channeling Goldwater the next Kucinich.

 

[g5000]

There's also an issue of causation. If one wants to assert no society survived if it acknowledged gay marriage, there are two logical fallacies at work. First, as you point out, that even amongst western societies, the premise is untrue. Second, societies fail for various reasons, from climate change to industrial change to sexually transmitted disease. IF one wants to assert same sex marriage destroys a society, it is hardly incumbent upon others to prove the causation making the assertion true.

Precisely. Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. The bigots often claim gays caused the fall of the Roman Empire. This is beyond laughable. And in fact there isn't even the correlation they think is there. Rome didn't have a period where they discriminated against gays and then one day accepted gays and then everything went to shit. That just did not happen. It's a bogus meme.


My bit about the correlation between the divorce rate and government gifts was a satirical parody of these kinds of arguments to demonstrate the rank hypocrisy among faux conservatives who whine about other people who get government gifts and attempt to blame all of society's ills on those other people, while at the same time fiercely protecting their own unearned government cash and prizes.

And there it is.. the leftwing moonbat catch phrase.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Dude, that is SCIENCE!

Thanks for pointing out science is a completely alien thing to you.

Holy shit. This week has been a banner week for incredibly stupid things people say.

 

[dblack]

Why do you continue to pull shit out of your ass? You treat your integrity like a 25 cent whore.

No wonder you're attracted to his posts.

How do you know he's wrong?

He's nutz... certifiable I tell you. One moment he's channeling Goldwater the next Kucinich.

Both decent folk.

 

[g5000]

I don't necessarily agree that giving favorable tax treatment, for example, to coerce or encourage a behavior we find benefits society is never appropriate. ...

In my view, that's the most important aspect of this debate. By allowing the state to use discriminatory taxation, we've basically pissed away the notion of limited government. Anything Congress wants to order us to do (or not do) can be framed as a tax incentive.

It's frustrating to see the practice defended by "conservatives", who nominally support the idea of limited government.

Exactly. Tax expenditures are classic examples of government attempting to perform social engineering through incentivized behavior modification.

 

[bendog]

I don't necessarily agree that giving favorable tax treatment, for example, to coerce or encourage a behavior we find benefits society is never appropriate. ...

In my view, that's the most important aspect of this debate. By allowing the state to use discriminatory taxation, we've basically pissed away the notion of limited government. Anything Congress wants to order us to do (or not do) can be framed as a tax incentive.

It's frustrating to see the practice defended by "conservatives", who nominally support the idea of limited government.

I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to "original intent" to be a conservative. I find the notion of original intent to be absurd because many times its impossible to ascertain because the founders didn't want it to be ascertained, and further the founders had no possible means to foresee the 21st century. At most, we can derive some principles.

People should be frugal and save money for their elder years. I've no issue with 401k's. In fact, I rather like the Roth IRA. And hopefully my other retirement funds will prove sufficient and I will not have made the mistake in paying the tax and converting to a Roth to allow my child a tax incentive to further save for her retirement. Of course, my having a Roth IRA makes my interests different from some other people's. But, I'm not sure the differences are so broad as to be destructive to society.

Imo, home ownership is basically a good thing in that it strengthens ties to a community. It's also often cheaper than renting. But, without the govt making credit available to lower income people, they won't be able to buy into the market. But, I don't see the net positive in allowing someone a tax benefit from interest on a multi-million dollar home, either.

But, I have no interest in saying your beliefs are invalid. I just don't always agree. There is truth/merit to much of what you say.

 

[g5000]

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint).

Correlation does not imply causation

 

[g5000]

I don't necessarily agree that giving favorable tax treatment, for example, to coerce or encourage a behavior we find benefits society is never appropriate. ...

In my view, that's the most important aspect of this debate. By allowing the state to use discriminatory taxation, we've basically pissed away the notion of limited government. Anything Congress wants to order us to do (or not do) can be framed as a tax incentive.

It's frustrating to see the practice defended by "conservatives", who nominally support the idea of limited government.

I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to "original intent" to be a conservative. I find the notion of original intent to be absurd because many times its impossible to ascertain because the founders didn't want it to be ascertained, and further the founders had no possible means to foresee the 21st century. At most, we can derive some principles.

People should be frugal and save money for their elder years. I've no issue with 401k's. In fact, I rather like the Roth IRA. And hopefully my other retirement funds will prove sufficient and I will not have made the mistake in paying the tax and converting to a Roth to allow my child a tax incentive to further save for her retirement. Of course, my having a Roth IRA makes my interests different from some other people's. But, I'm not sure the differences are so broad as to be destructive to society.

Imo, home ownership is basically a good thing in that it strengthens ties to a community. It's also often cheaper than renting. But, without the govt making credit available to lower income people, they won't be able to buy into the market. But, I don't see the net positive in allowing someone a tax benefit from interest on a multi-million dollar home, either.

But, I have no interest in saying your beliefs are invalid. I just don't always agree. There is truth/merit to much of what you say.

The rubes frequently argue that government gifts are needed for married people to keep society going.

This means they actually believe that if government does not pay them to procreate or marry, they will stop doing so.

Have you ever heard anything so hilarious IN YOUR LIFE?

 

[dblack]

I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to "original intent" to be a conservative.

I don't really care much about original intent. I'd have the same convictions (re: limited gov't) regardless. And for what it's worth, I don't consider myself "conservative".

 

[bendog]

In my view, that's the most important aspect of this debate. By allowing the state to use discriminatory taxation, we've basically pissed away the notion of limited government. Anything Congress wants to order us to do (or not do) can be framed as a tax incentive.

It's frustrating to see the practice defended by "conservatives", who nominally support the idea of limited government.

I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to "original intent" to be a conservative. I find the notion of original intent to be absurd because many times its impossible to ascertain because the founders didn't want it to be ascertained, and further the founders had no possible means to foresee the 21st century. At most, we can derive some principles.

People should be frugal and save money for their elder years. I've no issue with 401k's. In fact, I rather like the Roth IRA. And hopefully my other retirement funds will prove sufficient and I will not have made the mistake in paying the tax and converting to a Roth to allow my child a tax incentive to further save for her retirement. Of course, my having a Roth IRA makes my interests different from some other people's. But, I'm not sure the differences are so broad as to be destructive to society.

Imo, home ownership is basically a good thing in that it strengthens ties to a community. It's also often cheaper than renting. But, without the govt making credit available to lower income people, they won't be able to buy into the market. But, I don't see the net positive in allowing someone a tax benefit from interest on a multi-million dollar home, either.

But, I have no interest in saying your beliefs are invalid. I just don't always agree. There is truth/merit to much of what you say.

The rubes frequently argue that government gifts are needed for married people to keep society going.

This means they actually believe that if government does not pay them to procreate or marry, they will stop doing so.

Have you ever heard anything so hilarious IN YOUR LIFE?

I don't think that was what dblack was saying, and it certainly wasn't what I was saying. It's true that home ownership amongst lower earners increases when govt economically supports it. I think Dblack would argue this practice is contrary to limited govt. I'd say there's no harm so long as other homeowners are not forced to subsidize others without having the opportunity to vote for, or against, subsidizing. (In practice, I think any subsidizing is so minimal as to be irrelevant. And yes, that means Dr. Beck can kiss my azz on the notion that a bunch of poor people destroyed Lehman and countrywide)

I doubt tax treatment causes any marriage. I do think we want school kids to be moderately well dressed and fed, so generally the majority votes in favor of tax benefits for married people. I think Dblack would say the difference in tax treatment is a civil failure in society. I'd say sexual orientation is irrelevant, and we were a better society when there was less class distinction, even though Reagan was essentially right on high marginal tax rates.