California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Most countries are "more advanced" than the US, but what else is new? LOL

We have too many homophobes and christians who believe they are the followers of the teaching of god in the US.

I believe the US now has 17 states that provides for equality of gay and lesbian marriages. Makes you wonder where the other 33 states are on equality for "all" citizens.

For all the people crying about equal rights and protections under the constitution... What do you think about an incestuous couple that wants to get married and receive taxpayer funded benefits? A dad and his consensual 22 year old daughter. Or two 25 year old siblings want to get married? They are consentual adults. Do you TRULY believe in this "equality" concept as you are defining it or are you simply using it when it's convenient for your argument?

ci. ,Shadow, uses his own definitions, which are crafted for no other purpose than to be convenient to his argument, on all occasions.

He will think your examples are irrelevant because such behaviour is illegal whilst conveniently forgetting that homosexual "marriage" is illegal in most places.

And he will think he has you beat.

Are you Psychic spendius? When did you discover this talent?

Shocking you didn't actually address the argument. You simply made a bunch of unfounded assumptions and attacked my character which isn't surprising considering the indefensible position you are attempting to take.

How about you actually attempt to address the point made instead of slinging ad hominems.

I would not say that about spendius but rather what he did was post a reply that could have been a little more coherent than what he did, then you would have known that he was attacking CI rather than you.

I'm sorry Shadow. I now realise that the way I began that post might be ambiguous. I meant ci. uses the method I mentioned. I have read a lot of his posts but hardly any of yours and certainly not enough for me to come to that conclusion about you.

The point you suggest I address I have made myself on this thread along with many others. Being able to marry one's dog for example.

I don't think being able to marry one's mother has been raised though.

I guess you could be the first but I will say that you may find that some people will think you are weird. I do not care if you want to marry a lizard I think you should be able to but if we see that you are causing harm to animals we may intervene just as we would if you were not married to them.

What is marriage going to do for you and your mom that you two will not be doing behind closed doors in secret right now?

Is it all about the tax credit or is there something more that the theists think they are preventing?

What sort of harm have you in mind?

Yes--there is something more involved.

Imagine a brothel calling itself The Sisters of Mercy and applying for tax exemption to the IRS department that has caused all this fuss recently.

Well if the cow shows signs of displeasure from you stump knocking it to often we may need to remove the cow from your pasture or force you to increase the size of your heard.




Then why haven't you made a coherent case for the mater that is irrefutable?

Coherence, rl, is a function of the understanding and the attention.

Surly you are not claiming that you lack the function of understanding and the attention to logically string words together to form coherent sentences "are you?

Do you mean like there is something more in a marriage than just ******* and a husband and a wife? if so I would agree and if you would like to increase your depth of understanding on this subject, I think you should listen to this young lady who is more informed than me or you because she has actually thought about it more than me or you and she uses logical reasoning to explain herself.

See the issue is you cannot argue for equality for all I you don't actually believe in equality for all.

As far as what they are receiving, married couples receive MANY benefits other than the tax credit, the vast majority of which are paid for either directly or indirectly by the tax payer. An example of indirect burden on the rest of the taxpayers is healthcare. If someone is allowed to marry the insurance company that WAS getting two insurance policy payments is now only receiving payments for ONE discounted policy that covers two people. Do you think the insurers are just going to suck up that loss of income because they have big hearts? Of course not, they're going to raise the rates on the rest of the populace to make up for what they lost.

There are dozens of those types of costs to the taxpayer in regards to marriage benefits.

Well sure that may be true but it would also be true that those who would support gay marriage even though they are not gay themselves would be empathic people who have ethical radius's that extended not only past their own family but to strangers that they do not even know.

It really cant be that hard for theist can it? Even theists extend rights to other theists that they have never met. Is it because you do not consider gays as a part of your tribe?

First of all i haven't said anything about theology or religion. I don't need to. There are plenty of reasons for why homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

I think I should clarify. This is not about denying them marriage. This issue is about denying them the subsidies that derive from that marriage. We do not give subsidies because we like giving away our money. We provide those benefits because they produce a behavior that is beneficial to society. That behavior is child creation (in economic terms they are revenue streams). This is a behavior that a homosexual couple in and of themselves are incapable of producing. Therefore they do not qualify for benefits.

As I pointed out in another thread this issue of homosexual marriage inherently forces you to answer the question of polygamy. Some bi guy or girl will state she wants to marry both of her partners and how dare we try to deny their love for one another. And if u allow her then jedidiah is going to want to legally marry his 20 wives.

OK I see where you are coming from. Do you think that we should make heterosexual couples who are sterile pay back the benefits that they received?



There are many children who need adopting and I can only guess that gay couples could bring these children up to be productive citizens.

What about heterosexual couples who raised sociopaths that are not productive to society, should they also be required to pay back the benefits that they received?

Well a couple of things. First of all, i do not believe in any subsidies. I dont think we should be paying married couples anything. The gov should not appropriate money feom one group to support another group. If you are going to do so however you better have a damn good reason for doing so. So why are we giving money to married couples? We do so because it provides an environment that is conducive to the creation of children or revenue streams for society.

Now I'd like to point out why Heteros get those benefits that homosexuals should not. Lets take two couples. We will call them Hetero Couple and Homo Couple. BOTH couples will take more out of the system in the form of marriage benefits than they put into the system to help pay for those benefits. To make the numbers easy to understand... Lets say BOTH couples take out $200,000 in marriage benefits and they both put in $100,000 in taxes. That means BOTH Hetero and Homo couple are net negative $100,000. The difference is that Homo couple is incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. So when they die their revenue stream ends as being net negative. Now Hetero couple is net neg $100,000 as well however they produced 4 children. Two of those children got married and two did not. The two that did not get married pay $50,000 into the system making up for the $100,000 that their parents were in the whole. The other two children get married and have more children and so on and so forth. That revenue stream that was created by the heterosexuals could theoretically be worth trillions of dollars to society and last for thousands of years. THAT is why we provide benefits.

Now you asked a couple reasonable questions. First gay couples can adopt. Of course they can. But we are not paying for the RAISING of the revenue stream, we are paying for the CREATION of those revenue streams. Anyone can raise a child, straight or gay or single parent or a grandparent... Hell even wolves and monkeys have shown they are capable of raising a child to adulthood. But the ONLY relationship that is capable of CREATING human children is the heterosexual relationship. Another thing, history has shown unequivocally that once the child or revenue stream is created that over time (even if one is a sociopath) the revenue stream will be overall beneficial to the economy.

Now why do we provide benefits to sterile couples or to really old people who get married? We do so because it is costly, inefficient sand ultimately ineffective to test every couple to see if they're sterile or have become sterile every year or if they're just choosing not to have children. It is not economically feasible to test. So we choose to provide the entire group (heterosexual married couples) for the POTENTIAL of child creation. A potential that homosexuals in and of themselves do not provide. Therefore they do not qualify.

If you feel as though sterile or old couples or anyone else who receives benefits should not have them, that is fine and perfectly understandable. However, with that being said, you ONLY have a legitimate argument as to why certain heterosexual groups should not receive those benefits but you absolutely no legitimate argument WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals SHOULD receive those benefits.

I'm sure I forgot something. But I'll have to respond in a bit cause I'm on the phone.

Given that the world doesn't need as many humans as it already has your entire argument is assbackwards.

Particularly Americans. Americans use WAAAAY too many of the world's resources. The globe needs fewer Americans, not more.

Produce kids and pay more taxes, not get more benefits. That's the answer.

Benefits only to American seniors, sterile and homosexual couples.

That's what make sense.

(if you actually wanted an argument that makes economic sense)