Constitutional Ammendment on Gay Marriage - Will We Embarass Ourselves?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is difficult for you to understand only because you cannot put a label on me. My beliefs are exceptionally diverse and do not conform to any political party nor any major political "group."

Welfare brood mares are just that. If you doubt they exist, do a little research.

The religious wrong is just that when it comes to issues like stem cell research, anti-gay laws, and their hypocritically murderous attitude towards abortion. Furthermore, any political force that calls itself the "religious right" is so egomaniacally arrogant they deserve to be called the religious wrong.

I am not sorry that your labels won't stick to me and therefore you have trouble understanding me. It is a shame that you had to resort to another labelling attempt by saying I "insult everyone I disagree with." If that were the case, there would be a whole lot of folks here in need of some asbestos underwear.

I think for myself instead of regurgitating someone else's talking points or political pamphlet conclusions. I certainly won't feel any shame for that.

---

You're not that hard to peg politically. You're more or less a self described libertarian. I was referring specifically to your habit of using off color remarks at times that make you seem to mean one thing, only to turn around and say you actually meant another.

There are, for example, other ways to refer to young women who have children out of wedlock and are on welfare than "welfare brood mares". And, while we are speaking of labelling, not all young women who do such are ammoral lazy people who do it on purpose. So, lumping every woman who is on welfare and has what you might consider to be too many children with too many different men together and labelling them "welfare brood mares" seems to go against your previously expressed concerns about not labelling people.

So there we go again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Thus we have the completel breakdown if family in the inner city, whose combined poverty and leftover effects of discrimination and slavery, coupled with the disintigration of values, has decimated an entire generation. But don't let me get in the way of your blissfull lack of concern for the effects of your cavalier attitude towards responsibility and values.

---

It's time for another edition of Do the Math!
:bigparty
Your argument: There is a breakdown of the family in the inner cities.
Obvious fact: Such a breakdown is not systemic throughout the whole of American society.
The Math: If the problem were the institution of marriage, it would be failing for all of us. The failure of the family in the inner cities has its sources in the overall failure of society on many levels in the inner cities. If one were just to look at the inner cities, every single cultural and public institution in America would probably look like a failure. Do the math!

Quote:

---

Yeah, leave it to you to suddenly forget that part of the power of this country has to do with taking advantage of our economic and military power to suck resources, including human resources in the form of virtual slave labor, from 3rd world countries.

---

Nice try. You completely failed to address the question. How are we in a position to flex our muscle around the world and consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, if we lack in conscience, self-discipline and responsibility? And who exactly are you talking about? As I already mentioned, in my life, I seem to largely be surrounded by moral, responsible people. Where is this systemic lack of values that you suggest exists?

Quote:

---

How could you? As far as I know, you don't even believe in a "better".

---

That's odd. Because in just about every thread I was ever involved in concerning American foreign policy (and there have been quite a few over the years), my arguments were predicated on this notion that there are better ways for us to interact with the rest of the world. Even my arguments for giving equal legal recognition to same-sex marriages ultimately have their source in the belief that this will make us a better nation. I don't suppose it is even worth pointing out to you that, particularly since the advent of modern democracy and the concept of the liberties of man, that nations have been quite adept at developing one set of political and social ideals for the home front and one often rather divergent set for the colonies.

Quote:

---

Congratulations though on the progress you and yours have made so far in guiding us in that general direction using silly rhetorical tricks like this to obscure issues and deflate concern about important problems we all face.

---

Again, nice try. But you completely fail to address what is actually a straight-up question. In fact, as usual, you've chosen to dodge the whole point entirely. If the institution of marriage is such a failure, why do Americans, even those who get divorced, largely manage to function as responsible family members and raise children who become productive members of society? Where is this big failure you are talking about? Furthermore, even given the unquestionable fact that marriage is not a perfect institution, what real justification is there for not allowing people to participate in this imperfect institution with same-sex partners?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Eorick, Spouses get to inherit becase they are family, not because they are in love or having sex. Spouses get consideration in insurance because they are family. Married people can file taxes either together or seperately, depending on which seems it will work out.

---

Um... duh? But their being considered family has nothing to do with whether or not they have children. My wife and I were still legalize recognized as a family before we had a child. Married friends of mine who have no children and no plans to have children are still legally recognized as members of families. Why shouldn't same-sex couples receive the same legal recognition, whether they intend to have children or not? Or, conversely, I suppose we could argue, why are hetero couples entitled to such recognition before they've demonstrated a willingness or ability to have children? I think you would find that the vast majority of married couples, no matter what their political stripe, would be opposed to losing all their current benefits they receive as members of childless families. In fact, most would probably be really surprised at any suggestion that their decision not to have children indicated that they were in some way not making a family together.

Quote:

---

You're right, I am single and never married, but I have to assume there is SOME reason why most married people file jointly.

---

Some file singly as well, depending on what their tax situation is. Every year that I have filed income taxes, I have figured them out returns for both joint and single filings, and trust me, the savings on joint returns aren't exactly the sort of thing you'd write home about (and, in fact, the first several years that we were married, my wife and I paid more in taxes than we would have if we weren't married). Most couples will save far more money simply by virtue of the reduced costs of sharing a single home. Again, no one is going to look at tax returns and say, "Hey! I'm getting ripped off as a single, I better find someone and get married quick!"

Quote:

---

If you are offended that married people who do not yet have children get these benefits, that's one thing, but to pretend the benefits exist solely for religious purposes or that they have nothing to do with child rearing or family is just wrong.

---

I have never said that. Learn to read for comprehension. I get tired of responding to responses to arguments that I don't actually make. I said that marriage is no longer just about child rearing. Come on, it's not like that is some sort of really subtle distinction or anything.

Quote:

---

That's the ONLY reason they are there, as the fact that just living together and having sex does NOT acrue these benefits attests to, and which I pointed out earlier.

---

That's completely irrelevant. I know you hate the idea that legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples is not about equality, but it is. Hetero couples currently have the option of living together inside of a legally recognized partnership or living together without any legal recognition of that partnership. Why is it so hard to grasp that maybe there is just basic fairness and respect for liberty in the idea that people can have the same options available even if they choose a member of the same sex as a partner?

The whole "family law is a shambles" is a dodge. In a free society, we cannot pass legislation to force people to behave in some ideal manner within a marriage. It's not the law's place to "fix" marriage. About all it can really do is lay out how such an arrangement and any cessation of that arrangement effects property ownership, child custodial issues, and inheritence. And all of these have nothing to do with whether the couples involved are of the same sex or not.

maybe the straights are just afraid the gays will out last them in the marriage/divorce statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian You're not that hard to peg politically. You're more or less a self described libertarian.

---

Wrong. Thanks for attempting another label though. You really just can't handle a discussion with people you can't label, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
There are, for example, other ways to refer to young women who have children out of wedlock and are on welfare than "welfare brood mares". And, while we are speaking of labelling, not all young women who do such are ammoral lazy people who do it on purpose. So, lumping every woman who is on welfare and has what you might consider to be too many children with too many different men together and labelling them "welfare brood mares" seems to go against your previously expressed concerns about not labelling people.

---

Exactly how does use of the term "welfare brood mare" imply that ALL women on welfare are abusing the system? I never, ever said that and it is a scurrilous charge to imply that I did.

There are people who legitimately need help and there are welfare brood mares. They are different types of people. It is only your own inability to understand that both can exist that limits your capacity to understand the term.

It is your own overly simplistic thinking that precludes the ability to understand that a system can be flawed even if less than 100% of the people are abusing it. Welfare brood mares DO exist, regardless of the fact that not all welfare recipients are such beasts.

It is a fallacy that saying something in a mean way makes it erroneous. Oftentimes, the only true analysis is also a mean one. This is particularly true when talking about people who are abusing a government handout that real working people have to pay for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick
Again, nice try. But you completely fail to address what is actually a straight-up question. In fact, as usual, you've chosen to dodge the whole point entirely. If the institution of marriage is such a failure, why do Americans, even those who get divorced, largely manage to function as responsible family members and raise children who become productive members of society? Where is this big failure you are talking about? Furthermore, even given the unquestionable fact that marriage is not a perfect institution, what real justification is there for not allowing people to participate in this imperfect institution with same-sex partners?

---

As I had mentioned before, this is my life. Divorced couples do NOT carry this off well, and, well... you know what. Whatever.

You have a flippant tone and an attitude that just because you say something it is true. The idea that nothing is really wrong with anything unless you acknowledge it, when concern is everywhere over these issues. Whatever.

I -lived- this perfection you are assuming divorce and broken families have become. Your assumptions are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is a fallacy that saying something in a mean way makes it erroneous. Oftentimes, the only true analysis is also a mean one. This is particularly true when talking about people who are abusing a government handout that real working people have to pay for.

---

To repeat, saying something mean and without much context makes you hard to understand. As for the labelling problem, that's what people do. No one fits entirely in any one label, but there's that old SAT question, "which of these answers best fits". If you feel like actually talking about what you do believe or where you do fit best, go for it. It's an easy enough thing to do. "I'm generally liberal on fiscal, moderate on cultural..." you've heard people I am sure, then go through the details from there. I'm not going to get to feeling guilty because you have a tendency to spit rude epithets though.

I'm no more prone to labelling than anyone. You and Eorick both have a hard time talking about anything without throwing mud around though.

My thoughts in a nutshell on this topic are as I have expressed them, and are easily understood. I have seen the damage broken families cause first hand. I do not believe the insitution of marriage and family is disposable. Nothing is perfect, but I think things could be done to make it better. I think trying to apply it to gay couples does further damage to it through added confusion. If you don't have anything constructive to say about that, then the rest of this mess is really beside the point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick
I think marriage as a legal institution, no fault divorces and all, is doing just fine, and I don't see why we should pull out our hair just because some people are complete fuckups and would remain so no matter how many years back in time we were to go for our model of the ideal marriage.

---

Because people who completely fuck this up, fuck up other people's lives as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
As I had mentioned before, this is my life. Divorced couples do NOT carry this off well, and, well... you know what. Whatever.

You have a flippant tone and an attitude that just because you say something it is true. The idea that nothing is really wrong with anything unless you acknowledge it, when concern is everywhere over these issues. Whatever.

I -lived- this perfection you are assuming divorce and broken families have become. Your assumptions are wrong.

---

Have you realized yet that YOU are the one with contempt towards relationships?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Because people who completely fuck this up, fuck up other people's lives as well.

---

Duh. Tell me something I don't know. People, if given enough opportunities, fuck just about everything up from time to time. Once again, your modus operandi in this thread has to stop actually trying to make a case your position and instead just keep repeating what you have already said. Yes, people completely fuck up marriage, my own statements have made it clear I am aware of that fact. Overall, though, marriage works. Overall it is serviceable. If it were some great shambles, our society would be considerably less functional than it is. It's not perfect, but no system probably ever will be. The only real solution, in a free society, to keep people from fucking up making a family, is for them to voluntarily refrain from becoming a part of one.

But how is any of this relevant to the discussion of legalizing or prohibiting same sex marriage?