Prop 8?

@hawkeye10,

Essentially, you did.

@Diest TKO,

Interesting if you state that gays are a sub-group in this society somehow you are insulting gays or implying they are in some form of a lower class or whatever.

And the only reason I am under the impression that you might be part of the sub-group that is gay is the highly illogical manner you are reacting to such statements.

And for you informatiom we are all part of many many sub-groups of one kind or another.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Interesting if you state that gays are a sub-group in this society somehow you are insulting gays or implying they are in some form of a lower class or whatever.

You imply. Not I. And so we are clear, you are making the exact argument that they are a lower class. Otherwise all the BS "windfall-unearned-transfer-of-wealth" crap wouldn't be what you are firing. You specifically put the effort in to defame homosexuals as being less deserving and contributing less to society.

You can't win a debate with me, when I know your argument better than you.

BillRM wrote:

And the only reason I am under the impression that you might be part of the sub-group that is gay is the highly illogical manner you are reacting to such statements.

Which is derogatory in itself. You think that gays are inherently illogical, therefore all illogical thoughts are from gays. Even if you could prove my point were illogical, you'd be not a step closer to proving I was gay.

I hope you're not taking this class for credit...

BillRM wrote:

And for you informatiom we are all part of many many sub-groups of one kind or another.

Dicing words. The point of this convo is that you don't what the gay "sub-group" to have equal footing as yours. You are posing as if you were superior in some way.

T
K
O

1 Reply

Well we already knew that BRM is part of a sub-group. He's so submerged in his own BS.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Let deal with your silliness as it is so far out it is amusing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You specifically put the effort in to defame homosexuals as being less deserving and contributing less to society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the raising of the ten of millions of childens in every generation they indeed to not contribute in anywhere near the degrees that heterosexuals.

If stating a fact is defaming a group I am sorry about it.<NOT>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You think that gays are inherently illogical, therefore all illogical thoughts are from gays. Even if you could prove my point were illogical, you'd be not a step closer to proving I was gay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that anyone who have a very emotional connection with any issue for whatever reason tend to be less logical then others who have less of an emotional involvement.

That as you are highly illogical/emotional on this subjectthe likelihood that this emotions are cause by the fact that you are a member of this community is fairly high. Perhaps however you have a family member in this community or there are other unknown causes for your emotions.

I never state nor can anyone with any logic or reason come to the conclusion that I was stating that gays as a group are any more illogical then any other group who have strong emotional component concerning an issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You are posing as if you were superior in some way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I see little indication that the bell curve of abilities or IQ is any difference from the society as a whole concerning our homosexual citizens.

My whole point was that due to their sexual disorder they are not bearing the burden of raising the next generation to anywhere near the degree as heterosexuals are and therefore to transfer wealth as if they was doing so is unfair to the rest of us.

Only someone that are highly emotional and or dishonest could come up with my feeling superior.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

Essentially, you did.

no i did not, I made a statement of historical fact, and then you turn it around and attached it to me personally. Ye who speaks the truth is not responsible for the truth, it has nothing to do with me. I am on record repeatedly stating that I have not made up my mind about what rights gays should be afforded, so you are in effect calling me a lier, saying that I don't believe what I say I believe.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye in my opinion both of these gentlemen have a great future as writers of fiction.

How they can come up with the way out theories of what we in fact mean is truly amazing.

Tko out did himself when he wrote that because I said he was highly emotional on the issue and therefore I am assuming he might be part of the community in question, that I am saying that all gays as a group are more highly emotional then straights!

His mind work in highly interesting ways indeed and any books he might come up with would make Alice in Wonder land look like a government report.

0 Replies

Like I said Billy, You can't win in a debate where I know your argument better than you.

Your notion that gays can't get married because it would be unfair to those who raise children is a flawed argument.
1) Many straight people who can't/won't/don't have children get married.
2) If there is a transfer of wealth it is from those citizens paying in to a system for privileges not afforded to them.

Your argument stems directly from the idea that gays are inferior because in your mind they contribute less. You demand that they earn something that you didn't have to earn and for that matter, you want it to be harder for them to earn than it would be for you had you ever been asked to prove it. Hypocrisy!

You think that I'm gay because I have some perceived emotional attachment to this topic. If any emotions exist on my behalf they are compassion for my fellow men and women who have for too long been marginalized by bigots like you. What drives my passion however is not a emotional obligation but an ethical and moral one. How can I enjoy the freedoms of having a loving open relationship while my gay neighbor can't? I have the same moral/ethical obligation when I eat or drink because I know I can't be wasteful; there are far too many people without either in the world.

Your argument has failed from every angle and you've declined from answering to the facts presented to you. You silence on such matter will suffice as an answer, and as I said before, I accept your concession.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
- Isaac Asimov

0 Replies

BTW, BRM, thanks for the compliment:

Truth is more of a stranger than fiction.
- Mark Twain

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Let do a simple example TKO we have three side by side communities of a hundreds homes each and with two adults in each of the homes.

The adults all earn the same amount of income every year.

Now in the married heterosexual community let said we have say 60 to 70 percent of the couples raising one or more child at any given moment.

In the second community we have roommates with no emotional connections just sharing the overhead cost of the homes. There are some children belonging to one or the other roommate but no where near the number of children in the heterosexual community let pick a number of 20 percent out of the air.

Third community is the homosexuals couples and they are in loving and sexual relationships and they have roughly the same number of children in their households as the roommates community.

Now the current way it work is that both the roommate community and the homosexual community paid more in taxes and get less in benefits then the heterosexual community in other word there is a transfer of wealth to the married heterosexuals couples.

You wish to change this so the only ones having to pay more is the roommates community even those they are raising at least the same number of children as the homosexual community and in all other way all three communities are the same.

Why would you wish to do this? What benefits does the roommates community get from your transferring wealth from them to the gay community?

A emotional bond is nice and sex is wonderful but why oh why is the poor roommates who are not enjoying the benefits of having a live in lover also need to paid more in taxes to the gay community who have these benefits and are not doing any more then they are in rasing the next generation?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Possibly, but I think the more important matter is the what is the collective investing in. We invest in Heterosexual unions because we want to encourage the individuals to birth and raise the next generation, I am not sure that we get the same bang for our buck investing in homosexual unions, because I am not sure that we want them to raise kids. The genetics are much more convoluted, in most cases the expense to allow babymaking (in vitro, rent a womb) are more expensive in dollars and emotional destruction, raising kids in homosexual homes might harm or potentially harm the effort to create high functioning adult individuals...we don't really know.

I am not sold on this investment.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye no matter what the homosexual community is not going to have the same number of children as heterosexuals normally need to take all kind of precautions not to have a child and most of them do not need to spend a dime to have a child or go through tons of paperwork either.

I remember to this day when I once call my then girlfriend from my out of town parents home to wish her a merry Christmas and she informed me that I might have a late Christmas gift coming to me in eight months or so. The fearful I am late statement or at least fearful when you are dealing with a causal girlfriend and not a wife.

That just does not happen to gay couples.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Hawkeye no matter what the homosexual community is not going to have the same number of children as heterosexuals

I don't think that we know this. If they are successful in getting the collective to pay for their expensive baby making practices (covered on health insurance say) they likely will have as many or more than hetrosexuals.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Sorry Hawkeye but that is nonsense in my opinion.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Let do a simple example TKO we have three side by side communities of a hundreds homes each and with two adults in each of the homes.

The adults all earn the same amount of income every year.

Now in the married heterosexual community let said we have say 60 to 70 percent of the couples raising one or more child at any given moment.

In the second community we have roommates with no emotional connections just sharing the overhead cost of the homes. There are some children belonging to one or the other roommate but no where near the number of children in the heterosexual community let pick a number of 20 percent out of the air.

Third community is the homosexuals couples and they are in loving and sexual relationships and they have roughly the same number of children in their households as the roommates community.

Now the current way it work is that both the roommate community and the homosexual community paid more in taxes and get less in benefits then the heterosexual community in other word there is a transfer of wealth to the married heterosexuals couples.

You wish to change this so the only ones having to pay more is the roommates community even those they are raising at least the same number of children as the homosexual community and in all other way all three communities are the same.

Why would you wish to do this? What benefits does the roommates community get from your transferring wealth from them to the gay community?

A emotional bond is nice and sex is wonderful but why oh why is the poor roommates who are not enjoying the benefits of having a live in lover also need to paid more in taxes to the gay community who have these benefits and are not doing any more then they are in rasing the next generation?

What about the 30-40% of married straight couples that don't have kids in your examples? They still enjoy the benefits of marriage, and don't have to raise any children at all. If you are claiming it's wrong that gays should be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage because they don't raise children, then you must additionally advocate that straight couples that don't/can't/won't should not be able to enjoy those benefits, and further, those gays that are raising children should have access to those privileges.

You get a tax break when married, but you don't get a child credit until you have a kid (gay or strait). If a straight couple gets their tax break by filing together independent of having 16 or zero children, I can see zero reason why it should be different for a gay couple. The "poor roommates" experience what they experience only because they are filing their taxes independently. They may be single, but they could be gay or straight. The difference here is that currently those singles that are straight have more options given the situation they meet someone they do want to be with. The straight gays, get a tough cookie.

Again, you are welcome to shut me up. It's simple, just post the law that prohibits infertile people from marrying, or the law that revokes a marriage that doesn't produce children. Until that point however, you still fail to address that 800 lb gorilla in the room.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I would never never wish to shut you up as you are far too amusing.

The argument for all married heterosexual couples with or without children to enjoy these benefits would off hand be that as a class 99.9 percent of children are born as a result of heterosexual relationships and it is in the interest of all of society including gays to have as many of these heterosexuals as possible lock into long term stable relationships that are able to raise children in the very likely event they are call on to do so. Second that there is in fact no practical way of dividing this class into couples that will or will not have children all we know is that this is where the children will be born into.

Now fair or not for childless straight couples to get these benefits how is it going to help or aid the roommate community to add many millions of gay couples hands into the roommates pockets?

Now you tell me why a single person should pay one cent more then a gay couple in taxes or get one cent less in benefits? It is a simple question that you love to dance around!

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I would never never wish to shut you up as you are far too amusing.

How flattering, but since you can't provide the necessary material to prove me wrong, it's not like you really have a choice.

BillRM wrote:

The argument for all married heterosexual couples with or without children to enjoy these benefits would off hand be that as a class 99.9 percent of children are born as a result of heterosexual relationships and it is in the interest of all of society including gays to have as many of these heterosexuals as possible lock into long term stable relationships that are able to raise children in the very likely event they are call on to do so.

So the argument that childless straight couples should enjoy the privileges of marriage is not based on their actions but a simple matter of their status as being able to breed? That makes zero sense. In what "very likely event" are couples that don't/won't/can't have children going to be "[called] on to do?"

That's rubbish. A state can't demand a couple to breed.

Further, If it's in the interest of ALL (both gay and straight) for the children of straight couples to be raised in a married household, how is it any less in the interest for the children of a gay parent(s) to be raised in a married household? If a state gives a child credit to a single straight gay person who is raising a child, is it unfair to the single straight person raising the child? No.

You make the argument about child raising, but you can't defend the huge holes in it. What you provided above doesn't address the ethical deficit in your conclusion.

BillRM wrote:

Second that there is in fact no practical way of dividing this class into couples that will or will not have children all we know is that this is where the children will be born into.

No practical way or you just don't want to deal with the collateral of your own argument? Seems simple to me.

A) Straight couples - with child(ren)
B) Straight singles - with child(ren)
C) Gay couples - without child
D) Gay singles - without child

It's not about speculating who WILL or WONT, if practicality is your hurdle it's about who DOES and DOESN'T.

Not that this matters to me. I'm only pointing out the side of YOUR argument you don't want to acknowledge. Based on what you have said the following straight people should not be allowed to marry...

1) Unfertile people (sterile, post-menopause, crippled)
2) People who won't have children (elected or indifferent)

Meanwhile, those gays who'd be more than willing to help raise adopted children or raise their own, you would not allow to marry? Your conclusion is wrong because your premises is wrong. You aren't employing any sort of logic, and to compound that, you aren't basing it on real and sound foundations.

It doesn't matter if 99.9% of babies come out of straight people. The 0.01% still requires the same access to government funds. Right now, if you are gay or straight that is true if you are single. Why somehow that changes for gay or straight couples doesn't make sense.

BillRM wrote:

Now fair or not for childless straight couples to get these benefits how is it going to help or aid the roommate community to add many millions of gay couples hands into the roommates pockets?

If it's fair to reach into their pockets for straight couples when they get married, it's fair to reach in for a gay couple. If anyone gay or straight has a child, it's fair to reach in again. Period. It's not one pocket, it's all pockets.

BillRM wrote:

Now you tell me why a single person should pay one cent more then a gay couple in taxes or get one cent less in benefits? It is a simple question that you love to dance around!

I've directly answered this multiple times. There is zero difference in terms of money between a gay couple and a straight couple with zero children. It's perfectly legal to file together as a straight couple and be married and have no kids, so it should be perfectly legal for a gay couple to do the same OR MORE. If the governments gives tax breaks to jointly filed people, what does it matter if they are gay or straight?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You just refused to address a simple question why should a gay couple pay less in taxes then two single people? What moral claim do they have on the society to get this benefit!!!!

You might not like the answer of why all heterosexual married couples enjoy this benefit with or without children but there are stated reasons why this is the case.

There is no reason or common sense or fairness to license and grant benefits to private relationships that have no inpact at all to the society as a whole. Most heterosexual long term relationships effect not only the society but the future of the human race. This is simpely not the case with gay relationships and will never be so.

Going with the odds being 99.99 percent you was not likely raised in a gay relationship any more then I was. For the fun of it all these supporters of gay married here would any of you like to claim that you was raised in a gay couple relationship?

The fairness issue here is why you would wish to ripped of single people to benefit gay couples.

I can see why you are not address ths issue TKO, as you know you can not come up with one reason to rewards gays for signing a paper and living together.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

If you can't come up with the reason a childless straight couple impacts society as a whole (that a gay couple does not), what does it matter?

A combined household is not meant for the benefit of everyone, it's meant for the benefit of the couple/family. Gays shouldn't have to prove/earn something that others aren't asked to prove/earn.

Since you have yet to provide a law that proves me wrong on this matter, I'll accept your concession here as well.

T
K
O

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know