Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

No, really: where's your evidence?

The cost for an avg gay couple in NY to get married:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Between $41,000 and $467,000

I've already established the average amount that 90% of the taxpayers pay into the system to be around $200/month.

Now you may not like those numbers but that's not my problem.

Quote:

Remind me: when did I start calling you a liar in this thread?

Fair enough.

Quote:

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.

That's completely incorrect. You'd have to create the environment thta is conducive to producing children BEFORE they produced them, otherwise it defeats the entire purpose. We want to entice them to have children, not have children to get the benefits.

Quote:

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.

I most certainly can. It just means you have a poor idea. Why pay poor people to qualify so that we can pay them more money? That's asinine.

Why not simply keep the system we have and provide the benefits to poor people to promote procreation. I'm not really sure what you're arguing anyway, even in your "system" gay people couldn't produce children, so they couldn't qualify to receive the benefits of marriage.

Quote:

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.

You're acting like this is just my idea lol. This argument was made earlier this year before the supreme court on behalf of the state. That marriage, and specifically the benefits that derive from marriage, are provided for the express purpose because the state has an interest in promoting child production.

Not to mention, you're missing the point. Of course procreation is not contingent upon marriage... however the way that we have decided to promote procreation is to provide people marriage benefits so that they're in a position to produce more children than they otherwise would have.

Do you think we provide subisides and benefits to married people cause they love each other and we like to give our money away?

1 Reply

Also Joe, I keep ignoring the fact that only a small percentage of your tax money goes towards marriage benefits and the rest goes towards roads, gov buildings, military, etc etc.

How much do you think actually goes towards paying for those marriage benefits? Do you think it's as high as 10%? I don't. But is be willing to say its 10% to benefit your side. How's that sound?

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

The cost for an avg gay couple in NY to get married:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Between $41,000 and $467,000

How is that relevant to anything?

Shadow X wrote:

I've already established the average amount that 90% of the taxpayers pay into the system to be around $200/month.

Now you may not like those numbers but that's not my problem.

You haven't established anything. You're just throwing around numbers that have no basis in reality.

Shadow X wrote:

That's completely incorrect. You'd have to create the environment thta is conducive to producing children BEFORE they produced them, otherwise it defeats the entire purpose. We want to entice them to have children, not have children to get the benefits.

Then fund free daycare, or free medical coverage for children, or liberal family leave policies for workers, or dozens of other proposals that directly help parents with children. You, in contrast, want to encourage procreation by encouraging marriage, yet you yourself acknowledge that there's no connection between the two. You're aiming at the wrong target. To paraphrase what former congressman David Bonior once said, it's like saying that the best way to feed the birds is to give more oats to the horses.

Shadow X wrote:

I'm not really sure what you're arguing anyway, even in your "system" gay people couldn't produce children, so they couldn't qualify to receive the benefits of marriage.

That's right. That's why you should support my idea of "child bonds" for married couples.

Shadow X wrote:

You're acting like this is just my idea lol. This argument was made earlier this year before the supreme court on behalf of the state. That marriage, and specifically the benefits that derive from marriage, are provided for the express purpose because the state has an interest in promoting child production.

It's a bad idea no matter whose idea it is.

Shadow X wrote:

Do you think we provide subisides and benefits to married people cause they love each other and we like to give our money away?

No, we provide benefits to married people because the vast majority of voters and legislators are married people and because people like getting benefits.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Also Joe, I keep ignoring the fact that only a small percentage of your tax money goes towards marriage benefits and the rest goes towards roads, gov buildings, military, etc etc.

How much do you think actually goes towards paying for those marriage benefits? Do you think it's as high as 10%? I don't. But is be willing to say its 10% to benefit your side. How's that sound?

I'm not asking you to make this argument easier for me. You need to make the best case for your position that you can. If the benefits for married people aren't very substantial, that's not a concession to my side, it's a serious flaw in yours.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

How is that relevant to anything?

That is a justifiable and real estimate of how much it costs for society to provide marriage benefits to the avg gay couple in NY. Now will those numbers vary from place to place and couple to couple? Absolutely, however it's impossible to determine exactly how much marriage benefits costs the taxpayer for every single couple. So the only justifiable way to produce an estimate is to do exactly what was done in that NY Times article. They determined that it would cost $41,000 best case and $467,000 worst case scenario for a gay couple.

Now when you consider that same couple would not have even remotely put that much into the system in the form of taxes then clearly they're not paying for their benefits. They are taking MORE out of the system than they are putting into the system. That is true for the VAST majority of couples out there.

Quote:

You haven't established anything. You're just throwing around numbers that have no basis in reality.

They have no basis in reality? I already provided a link that shows how many returns 90% of the population had and how much 90% of the population paid in taxes. How is that "throwing around numbers that have no basis in reality"? If anyone is not basing their ideas on reality it's you. You're completely ignoring the fact that when averaged out, the vast majority of tax payers are not paying even close to $300 per month in taxes.

When you consider that the cost of marriage benefits costs less than 10% of their taxes, then you're looking at BEST $20 per month in taxes that go towards marriage benefits. That's FAR under the cost what they're receiving in the form of benefits.

I'm not sure what part of that you're not understanding.

Quote:

Then fund free daycare, or free medical coverage for children, or liberal family leave policies for workers, or dozens of other proposals that directly help parents with children. You, in contrast, want to encourage procreation by encouraging marriage, yet you yourself acknowledge that there's no connection between the two. You're aiming at the wrong target. To paraphrase what former congressman David Bonior once said, it's like saying that the best way to feed the birds is to give more oats to the horses.

WTF are you even arguing for here? I told you, I don't think anyone should receive subsidies... for any reason whatsoever. However, at least the heterosexuals have a legitimate argument for why they should be provided benefits. That is the promotion of child creation. Homosexuals have no legitimate argument whatsoever as to why they should receive those benefits.

Do I think heterosexuals should receive marriage benefits? Of course not, but that doesnt mean I'm going to sit around and let another group (homosexuals), who have absolutley no justification WHATSOEVER, steal money out of my pocket in the form of benefits as well.

Quote:

No, we provide benefits to married people because the vast majority of voters and legislators are married people and because people like getting benefits.

That is just insanity. A society does NOT provide benefits or subsidies, just for the hell of it. A society provides those subsidies becasue what society is receiving is worth more than what society pays out for those subsidies. In this case, society is receiving more in the form of child creation than society is paying out in the form of marriage benefits. Homosexuals do not qualify for those subsidies because they are incapable of producing the benefit which society is paying for. It's really quite simple

However, to suggest society just gives moneyt o maried people because we enjoy giving away money for free benefits is patently absurd.

As I originally stated. At BEST you may have an argument as to why some or all heterosexuals should NOT receive benefits. But you have no argument WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals should receive them. Period.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

If the benefits for married people aren't very substantial, that's not a concession to my side, it's a serious flaw in yours.

The benefits for married couples is absolutely substantial. Just like the NYTimes article I quoted, the cost for society to provide those benefits to that married couple would be between $41,000 and $400,000. That's quite substantial and FAR more than what most people pay in taxes that goes towards paying for those marriage benefits.

What are you even talking about.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Quote:
How is that relevant to anything?

That is a justifiable and real estimate of how much it costs for society to provide marriage benefits to the avg gay couple in NY.

No, it's a very crude estimate of the financial advantages of getting married. That doesn't mean that every financial advantage is provided by the state. For instance, the ability of a non-working spouse to be covered by a working spouse's private-sector employer-provided health insurance is a benefit of marriage, but not a dime of that advantage is paid by the government. Likewise, married couples pay less for tax prep fees, but that's not something that the government is reimbursing them. I agree that, in many cases, married people can consolidate expenses more efficiently than single people living together, but that's not a government handout and that's not what you're talking about.

Shadow X wrote:

They have no basis in reality? I already provided a link that shows how many returns 90% of the population had and how much 90% of the population paid in taxes. How is that "throwing around numbers that have no basis in reality"?

You picked a gross number, then lopped off the top ten percent because ... well, because you just didn't like it, I suppose, then averaged the remaining 90% to come up with ... I don't know what, then compared that to ... well, nothing, really. $300/month in taxes might be high, it might be low, it might be just right, but you have no idea how much married and single people receive in benefits from the government. According to you, it's either a lot or not much or somewhere in between. Yeah, that has a solid basis in reality.

Shadow X wrote:

When you consider that the cost of marriage benefits costs less than 10% of their taxes, then you're looking at BEST $20 per month in taxes that go towards marriage benefits. That's FAR under the cost what they're receiving in the form of benefits.

If it's so little then why do you care?

Shadow X wrote:

I told you, I don't think anyone should receive subsidies... for any reason whatsoever.

Then stop arguing against gay marriage and start arguing against all marriage. You're still aiming at the wrong target.

Shadow X wrote:

However, at least the heterosexuals have a legitimate argument for why they should be provided benefits. That is the promotion of child creation.

People created children long before there were any government benefits. What was their motivation then?

Shadow X wrote:

Do I think heterosexuals should receive marriage benefits? Of course not, but that doesnt mean I'm going to sit around and let another group (homosexuals), who have absolutley no justification WHATSOEVER, steal money out of my pocket in the form of benefits as well.

I see. So while somebody is stealing money from your left pocket, your inclination is to shoot the guy who might be tempted to steal money from your right pocket.

Shadow X wrote:

As I originally stated. At BEST you may have an argument as to why some or all heterosexuals should NOT receive benefits. But you have no argument WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals should receive them. Period.

There's a very good reason why gay married couples should receive the same benefits as straight married couples. It's called the fourteenth amendment.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Every financial advantage does not need to be provided by the state to be a burden on the rest of the populace. You used the perfect example with health insurance. As of right now if two people are not married they would have to get two separate policies. If they are covered under the others insurance because of marriage that would cause a loss to the insurance companies. The insurance companies are not simply going to take that loss. Either they will intentionally pass that cost down to the rest of the customers or they will be forced to raise rates because of a loss of revenue. Either way it's going to cost the rest of the populous to make up for what the homosexuals are taking out of the system.

So you're right. The amount society has to pay for those homosexuals benefits includes much more than simply what they put into taxes.

By the way you can call those numbers crude if you would like to but if you have another estimate I would love to see it. Or if you have another method of determining an estimate that would be more accurate than this one then by all means provide it. Until then arguing from the position of ignorance and that we don't know simply is no longer an excuse.

It is not a random number it is the exact amount that Americans paid in taxes. I cut off the top 10% because the top 10% pay a disproportionate amount of taxes As is evidenced by the link I previously gave. If you want to include the top 10% that is perfectly fine with me you will still lose the argument. Not to mention we have yet to acknowledge that the bottom 20% Do not pay taxes but they actually receive a refund. You know you do not want to do this calculation just like you knew that you did not want to do the other calculation either.

I care because it is money that I could spend all my children or my family rather than two guys Feel as though they have the right to steal money out of my pocket For the sole purpose of supporting their deviant behavior.

I am arguing against gay marriage because gay marriage is now claiming that they should receive those benefits as well which is absurd.

No it is not that they might take money out of my pocket. The issue is that they are advocating they should have the right to steal money out of my pocket Without providing anything whatsoever for doing so.

And the 14th amendment... Would you mind showing me where in the 14th amendment states that Your sexual preference is a protected class? Under the way you were describing it incestuous couple should also receive marriage benefits. Polygamist couples should also receive marriage benefits. Right? Don't start pining about equal rights if you don't actually believe in them.

Not to mention they do have the same rights. A homosexual male can go out and Get married to a woman anytime he so chooses. Just like a straight guy is prohibited from marrying another male. So technically they do have equal protection under the law anyway.

2 Replies

@Shadow X,

A happy gay couple is far more productive then an excluded one should suffice to shatter to pieces your ever so linear account of facts...its appalling to see how you reason...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

but so representive of his ilk, that is what is disturbing

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

I care because it is money that I could spend all my children or my family rather than two guys Feel as though they have the right to steal money out of my pocket For the sole purpose of supporting their deviant behavior.

They're not stealing money. You're stealing money. You said so yourself - married people take from single people. So it wouldn't even be your money they'd be stealing - they'd be stealing somebody else's money.

Shadow X wrote:

And the 14th amendment... Would you mind showing me where in the 14th amendment states that Your sexual preference is a protected class?

It doesn't, but then it doesn't have to. The important question is whether they have the same right as heterosexuals to enter into affective relationships.

Shadow X wrote:

Under the way you were describing it incestuous couple should also receive marriage benefits. Polygamist couples should also receive marriage benefits. Right? Don't start pining about equal rights if you don't actually believe in them.

As I've noted before, I'm not going to muddy this debate by bringing up incest. There are other grounds for deciding that incestuous couples should not be married.

Shadow X wrote:

Not to mention they do have the same rights. A homosexual male can go out and Get married to a woman anytime he so chooses. Just like a straight guy is prohibited from marrying another male. So technically they do have equal protection under the law anyway.

Nice try, but that argument didn't work for the racists who said that a whites and blacks were equally prohibited from marrying persons of a different race, and it doesn't work now with regard to homosexuals.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

That can't be right Joe. Shad said that the extra money married couples get is a sort of fee to reward them for having children which is an extremely important requirement for the State. And the reward falls well short of the cost of the children.

In which case, which I know is true in most couples I know of, the State gets something for nothing which goes to lower the tax levied on the childless who are as dependent on 4 million children being born every year as everybody else is. So they get something for nothing.

Most childless men are not long before they are driving a nice, shiny new model motor, wearing the latest fashions and consuming more delicate substances than the average father of 2 can afford. Especially if the 2 are females.

I think that is what Shad has in mind.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

A homosexual male can go out and Get married to a woman anytime he so chooses.

I think the lady would need to be unaware of his homosexuality. In most cases at least.

0 Replies

Shadow, you've taken an appropriate name, one that sounds sinister consistent with the CRUELTY you demonstrate in searching for reasons to deprive people of the right to a loving life.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Ugh no try again. I'm not married so I'm the one paying for that so they are stealing my money. Even if I was, that doesn't change the fact that homosexuals have no right to steal money out of the pockets of the American populous because they want to have us pay for their deviant lifestyle. They provide NOTHING to society that those benefits are paying for. Nothing whatsoever.

Nobody is saying they can't enter into relationships. He m they can go get married and give each other rings and have a honeymoon and all that good stuff. What they cannot do is receive the benefits that come from the state recognizing your marriage because the homosexuals simply do not qualify because they are incapable of child production in and of themselves.

You're using a red herring. Noone is saying they can't get in relationships. We are saying they can't receive benefits from being in those relationships.

If you're not going to discuss any other possible relationships then I'm not going to allow you to advocate for equality and equal rights and civil rights be side you don't believe in them. I am sure that ANY argument u make about incest could/would be countered by an incestuous couple and they would disagree with you vehemently just like you and the homosexuals are doing to me. So why is it when YOU think something is acceptable we can allow it but when YOU consider the activity to be immoral and detrimental to society... All of a sudden equal rights don't matter anymore do they? That's hypocrisy at its finest and I'm not going to allow someone who doesn't really believe in equality or equal rights to advocate for it because its beneficial for their position. At least not without calling them out for their hypocrisy.

And unlike sexual orientation, race is a protected class. And contrary to what you claim it does have to be recognized as a protected class to receive those protections.

Don't cry about equality if you're just going to argue against it in the next breath because now we are talking about something that YOU find deplorable.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Really? Do you think it's cruel to deny a 50 year old father and his 19 yo son or daughter from being married? How about a 22 yo brother and sister? Is it cruel to deny them the right to a loving life?

Yeah I didn't think so.

2 Replies

And how about you provide that link that you gave earlier Joe, to the thread that was about incest. I'd love to hear your argument.

One of your arguments wouldn't be that it may pose a risk to children to put them in a situation with people who may want to have sex with them... Would it?

Kinda like people who are 3-10x more likely to be child molestors?

Loller

ETA: in fact I'd be willing to bet your arguments against incestuous couples receiving marriage benefits will mirror my arguments against homosexuals.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

However, at least the heterosexuals have a legitimate argument for why they should be provided benefits. That is the promotion of child creation. Homosexuals have no legitimate argument whatsoever as to why they should receive those benefits.

You're aiming at the wrong target. It's not homosexual couples, it is infertile married couples.

If propagation matters then the thing to do is what some other countries/provinces do and that is to pay a direct child benefit - to the custodial parent.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

One of your arguments wouldn't be that it may pose a risk to children to put them in a situation with people who may want to have sex with them... Would it?

Kinda like people who are 3-10x more likely to be child molestors?

heterosexual men

to be kept away from children at all costs

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I would have no problem with that whatsoever. However that still leaves homosexuals without marriage benefits.

Like I said you have an argument for why certain groups should not receive benefits but there is no argument for why homosexuals should receive those benefits.

0 Replies

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know