Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Then your beef is with marriage, not with gay marriage.

I've pointed out to him that if he alleges that children would endangered by homosexual marriage, they would be far more endangered by heterosexual marriage, as child molesters are overwhelmingly heterosexual. Therefore, logically, he should be opposed to marriage (and reproduction) altogether.

It'll never sink in with him, he's a fanatic.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

-- Winston Churchill

2 Replies

@Shadow X,

Quote:

The problem with your argument is that heterosexuals represent approximately 95% of the population. So your 47% number is FAR underrepresented as far as heterosexuals are concerned

You can't compare apples and oranges and reach a conclusion about bananas which is what you just did.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well, he certainly doesn't cotton to all that gay buttsex, that's for sure.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, he certainly doesn't cotton to all that gay buttsex, that's for sure.

And hetero buttsex sits quite well with him?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Well . . . i guess i see eye-to-eye with him on that. I hate it when gay dudes come to door about once a week and try to force me to have gay buttsex . . .

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

No, really: where's your evidence for that assertion.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/12/03/how-much-do-americans-pay-in-income-taxes/
The top 10% pay 70.6%. So 90% of the country pays 30% of the taxes.
The total income taxes paid in 2010 were $949B*.3=$284.7B/121M returns=$2,352.89/year on average for the bottom 90% of the tax payers. $2,352.89/12=$196.07 per month paid on average per return for the bottom 90%. The reason it appears so low is because ~20% of all tax payers actually have a negative income tax rate because they pay no taxes. I'll even be nice here and instead of using the $196 figure, I'll say that on average 90% of americans pay $300 per month in taxes.

Now using that number... I'll even be even more nice here and say that 100% of your taxes actually goes towards paying for nothing but marriage benefits. So all $300/mo actually goes towards benefits.

Now lets look at just one benefit of marriage. If you have a couple and one of them works for the government, if the couple is married, the tax payer has to pay insurance for both partners. If they are not married, the tax payer is only paying insurance for one of the partners. That's a huge savings for the tax payer.
http://budgeting.thenest.com/average-cost-insurance-married-couple-21095.html
If they were married, their insurance would cost around $15,000 for the taxpayer, whereas if they are single it will only cost $5,000. That's a $10,000 per year difference. $10,000/12=$833.33 per month difference. That's far more than the $300 per month that the couple is paying into the system for taxes.

And that's just one benefit. We could also calculate the fact that if a couple is married and one of them gets disability and then dies, we then have to pay for the other spouse who will then get disability until the day they die. If they wre not married, we would not have to pay for it. The same is true for SS and Medicare. None of this even includes the rest of the benefits that come from marriage.

The cost of the benefits FAR outweighs the amount of taxes paid into the system for the average american. When you consider that only a small percentage of their taxes actually goes towards paying for those marriage benefits, it's not even close.

Quote:

I said that married people vastly outnumbered single people throughout history. The trend toward a balance between married and unmarried people is a recent phenomenon. On the other hand, this massive tax giveaway to married people presumably is not. According to your reasoning, therefore, the US should have gone bankrupt decades ago.

Stop being dishonest. The USA has only been providing marriage benefits for ~100 years. They've only been providing excessive amounts of benefits for ~60 years. The amount of single people to married people hasn't been vastly disproportionate for 60 years.

Quote:

Again, I feel I need to emphasize the fact that reproduction is not contingent on marriage. But if you're worried about poor folks, a simple waiver system could be instituted for their benefit. There. Problem solved.

I'm well aware that you don't have to be married to have children. However, the marriage benefits are provided to create an environment that is more conducive to procreation. For instance if you have a couple and they're discussing having children. It's much easier to say yes to having 1 or 2 or 3 children when you know if your spouse gets disabled and dies, you still are able to receive those disability benefits to support that third child. It's much easier to know that if we have 3 or 4 children that we can have them and myself covered under our family policy so that I can stay at home and take care of the children and my spouse can go to work. That's why we're providing the benefits in the first place.

And are you freaking kidding me? Now not only do I need to pay poor people for getting married, but you want me to pay those poor people so they can get qualified for me to pay them MORE to get married? Have you lost your freaking mind? Why in Gods' name would I do that? Why not just allow them to get married and provide the benefits to those who have the potential to procreate? Your idea is retarded... literally it's regressive.

Quote:

Then your beef is with marriage, not with gay marriage.

My beef is not with marriage. While I may not completely agree with providing benefits, I can at least understand the viable argument that we may need to do so to promote procreation. That argument does not exist for homosexuals so they have no right to those benefits.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You assume that females and males assault in the same percentages for each gender. A ridiculous assumption that isn't supported by anything. One could as easily assume that females only assault males. Which would require you to subtract the male victims from your total rather than using a percentage.

How about this... we'll make ALL the children victimized by women to be males. And we'll calculate the numbers again. Is that acceptable? Because when we do so the rate of homosexual child molestation will still be far higher than their rate in the total population. Would you like to try? I don't think you do.

Quote:

This makes no sense at all. There is no way you can reach a conclusion based on what you have presented. "Alone" only means the offender and the victim were alone. The 77 cases that are left were the result of a group and can in no way be "one guy." Because there were group offenses and repeat offenses, you can't make any conclusions because there is no data. Your assumption is nothing but a wild guess meant to further your agenda.

No... "Alone" is explicitly defined as being "the only victim in the incident". Stop lying to attempt to make your point. It makes your cause look bad... of course your cause looks bad on it's own merits so I guess your lying isn't going to hurt it that much.

The reason I stated that all 77 cases that are left we can say were committed by one offender is because we cannot know on average how many victims per offender in the case of multiple victims. So to help YOUR argument out, I stated that they were all committed by one guy because that makes for less child molestors for the homosexuals. I didn't figure anyone on your side would be stupid enough to say I shouldn't do that.

Quote:

40% of the child molestations were by other children. While those children were most likely male to claim there were homosexual encounters is ridiculous. I wouldn't classify children fondling other children as a homosexual activity.

If those exact same acts (forcible fondling, rape, forcible penetration with an object, etc etc) were committed by a male adult against another male adult it would be considered to be homosexual in nature. Just because you don't like what the statistics say doesn't mean you get to change their meaning because they don't jive with your world view. And to be quite honest, I don't give a fat baby's behind what you want to classify it as. A male raping another male is homosexual in nature and the age of the offender is irrelevant to that fact.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I'm not sure what part you don't understand. You would expect that there would be more heterosexual child molestors because heterosexuals represent the vast majority of the population. But heterosexuals are actually UNDERrepresented. Whereas those who engage in homosexual behavior are OVERrepresented.

That means if you have two couples standing in front of you, a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, the homosexual couple is MUCH more likely to be child molestors than the heterosexual couple.

What part of that do you not understand?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You probably shouldn't join the military then since homosexual sexual assaults have increased exponentially since open homosexuality has been allowed int he military.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The problem with your argument is that heterosexuals represent approximately 95% of the population. So your 47% number is FAR underrepresented as far as heterosexuals are concerned

You can't compare apples and oranges and reach a conclusion about bananas which is what you just did.

Please explain.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Well . . . i guess i see eye-to-eye with him on that. I hate it when gay dudes come to door about once a week and try to force me to have gay buttsex . . .

I hate when shadows do the same thing.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Quote:
No, really: where's your evidence for that assertion.

Blah blah blah

No, really: where's your evidence?

Shadow X wrote:

And that's just one benefit.

Yep, that's just one benefit. And a pretty insignificant one at that. Still, that doesn't establish that married people get more from the government in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Shadow X wrote:

The cost of the benefits FAR outweighs the amount of taxes paid into the system for the average american.

You simply don't know that.

Shadow X wrote:

Stop being dishonest.

Remind me: when did I start calling you a liar in this thread? Because you certainly have been calling me a liar on a regular basis, and I'm getting tired of it. If you want to sling insults, be assured that I can do it with the best of them. On the other hand, if you want me to treat you with any kind of respect, you'll learn to behave yourself.

Shadow X wrote:

The USA has only been providing marriage benefits for ~100 years. They've only been providing excessive amounts of benefits for ~60 years. The amount of single people to married people hasn't been vastly disproportionate for 60 years.

Well, you're right: the rate of marriage hasn't changed drastically in the past 60 years. The vast majority of Americans (around 90% or more) get married at some point in their lives, and that has been true for a long time.

Shadow X wrote:

However, the marriage benefits are provided to create an environment that is more conducive to procreation.

We don't need to provide marriage benefits for that. We can just provide benefits to parents. The marital relationship is irrelevant if what we want to encourage is more births.

Shadow X wrote:

And are you freaking kidding me? Now not only do I need to pay poor people for getting married, but you want me to pay those poor people so they can get qualified for me to pay them MORE to get married? Have you lost your freaking mind? Why in Gods' name would I do that? Why not just allow them to get married and provide the benefits to those who have the potential to procreate? Your idea is retarded... literally it's regressive.

You don't get to say that a policy is unfair because it excludes the poor, and then say that a policy is unwise because it includes the poor. Either you want the poor to get married and have kids or you don't, but you can't say "there's no way to solve this dilemma" and then immediately blame homosexuals for it.

Shadow X wrote:

My beef is not with marriage. While I may not completely agree with providing benefits, I can at least understand the viable argument that we may need to do so to promote procreation. That argument does not exist for homosexuals so they have no right to those benefits.

I'll explain again: procreation is not contingent on marriage. If you want to encourage people to have kids, pay them to have kids, don't pay them to get married.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

The part i don't understand is where you come up with your idiotic, hateful premises. Once again, if you allege that people should not be allowed to marry because of the potential for children being molested, than you should oppose heterosexual marriage, too.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

You really are dense. As it happens, i have already served in the armed forces, and there were no homosexual assaults which were notorious in my experience.

However, Mr. Incredible Density, that remark was ironic humor. (Look up the word ironic.) I don't get homosexuals coming to the door at any time for any reason. However, about once a month, one or more christian creeps show up wanting to talk to me about their assh*le buddy Jesus. My standard reaction is to close and lock the door and go back to what i was doing.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

As much as I hate to deal with them I try to avoid having that reaction when Jehovah witnesses knock on my door...I do empathise most of them really believes they I are saving me...I try to dismiss them as politely as I can.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Ever since Charles Taze Russells "WatchTower" missions, the Witnesses (as his followers were called) were preaching this crap to whomever was gullible enough to believe. Whenever they come to my door I love to bait them and discuss biology and geology till all they can say is that they feel my "Beliefs" are but from some religious recreant.
GAme Set Match.
I always say that
"Weve got the fossils
we got the evidence
what'veyou got?"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

"Weve got the fossils
we got the evidence
what'veyou got?"

About 90% of the voters, all the best tunes and a delightful range in lingerie which no po-faced atheists would ever have thought up.

In fact atheists could never have thought up the mathematics of pure dynamic space so sheep farmers who don't spend their days and nights on the hillsides with their flocks are considerably Christianized.

In all but word.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You really are dense. As it happens, i have already served in the armed forces, and there were no homosexual assaults which were notorious in my experience.

Speaking of dense.

ShadowX actually mentioned a specific time that is far distant to when you were in the military, Set.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

You can never completely remove the risk from children. I mean short of locking homosexuals up away from children, they'll always have the opportunity to get access to one on the street. But you do not put children in an environment of EXCESSIVE risk. And putting a child in a home with people who are 3-10x more likely to be child molestors than their heterosexual counterparts is exposing the child to excessive risk. Exposing children to two heterosexual parents who have ~3% chance of being a child molestor is not excessive risk. Exposing a child to two homosexual parents who have somewhere between 15-40% chance of being child molestors is putting a child in UNNECESSARY excessive risk.

I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/us/pentagon-sexual-assault-report

DADT was repealed in 2011

In 2010 the rate of male on male violent sexual assaults was 5% and now it's at 14%.

In 2012 for the FIRST TIME EVER, the rate of male victims of sexual assault outpaced the rate of female sexual assault.

The number of formal reports of sexual assault jumped from 1,275 to 2,949 in just eight years. When factoring in civilians working for or around the military, the increase in that time is 98%. Women are identified as the attacker in just 2% of all assaults, meaning most men who suffer assault are targeted by other men. So we’ve got a male-on-male problem here.

The statistics show a more than 20 percent increase in reported sexual assaults on males.

Way to go letting gay guys in the military. Genius move. I'm sure the vast majority of the military members and prospects (who are straight) are just knocking down the doors to join up.

0 Replies

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know