BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.
You never do get it.
First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the point of marriage is more kids, then letting gays marry would result in more kids. A child who exists because two men could get married is the same as a child who exists because a man and a woman could get married.[/quote]
I need to spell everything out… The point is incentivizing unions that tend to create more kids through the natural course of things. Heterosexual couples generally need to engage in the relatively minor inconvenience of birth control to avoid producing kids. A homosexual couple would need to go out of its way and spend a large sum of money in order to create even one kid.
But there is also a second part of the equation, which you always skip: the government also wants to incentivize the type of relationship that tends to lead to children by itself to stay together. For heterosexual couples, the initial cost of creating a kid is relatively low, and can be done without much thought. However, long term costs are large. The cost to society of failed marriages that have produced kids can be relatively high - thus the incentive to stay together.
For homosexual couples who do choose to create a kid with the help of a third party, the initial legal and monetary expenses are high, which actually would tend to both 1) discourage the practice generally and 2) for those that do go through with it, make it less likely that the couple would want to discount those sunk costs in the future (because we have a tendency as people to engage in the economic fallacy of valuing sunk costs).
So, together, the government gets relatively much less value from giving the incentive to a homosexual couple. And that’s just on the pure value of the incentive - that doesn’t count any separate possible effects the availability of a functionally indistinguishable marriage for homosexuals - or what would definitely be a worse option, a “marriage light” created that heterosexuals could access. But that gets into the costs of marriage, and why government might need to incent individuals to give up certain individual freedoms and make economic sacrifices to enter into it (and hopefully produce children).
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Second, the formation of homosexual unions would not lead to more kids without scientific intervention, and at least one third party. Kids who are adopted are already created the traditional way.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And it matters, why, if scientific intervention (or a third party) is involved?[/quote]
See above.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the governments sole[/quote]NB: Not the sole aim[quote] aim in giving benefits to married couples is to encourage procreation, and giving marriage benefits to homosexuals would encourage procreation, it has no reason not to, and every reason to.[/quote]
See above.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Though I suppose you’ll try to bring up the morality of scientific or third party involvement in reproduction? How the government should only want children that result from heterosexual (and are raised by heterosexual) unions? [/quote]
No, that simply goes into the initial costs of action, which makes it both less effective for production of kids and less needed for stability. But keep trying to force your little paradigms on everyone whose arguments you don’t understand.
BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.
You never do get it.
First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the point of marriage is more kids, then letting gays marry would result in more kids. A child who exists because two men could get married is the same as a child who exists because a man and a woman could get married.
I need to spell everything out… The point is incentivizing unions that tend to create more kids through the natural course of things.
[/quote]
In other words, you need to keep changing the story so it fits in a way to exclude gays. First its “Marriage is for procreation!” now its “Marriage is for natural procreation!”
Yes, homosexual couples may have to spend a large sum of money, or find a third party willing to involve themselves. Which is, in fact, more reason to icentivize procreation among them, not less.
A few posts ago it was simply “The government wants to incentivize the type of relationship that tends to lead to children.” Once the point was made that homosexual relationships can tend to lead to children, now you’ve erratated to “…tends to lead to children by itself.”
You still have yet to produce a single reason why scientific intervention or third party involvment is any reason to exclude homosexuals when incentivising for procreation.
And, for homosexual couples, the initial cost of creating a kid can be relatively high, and the long term costs are just as large (believe it or not, gay parents pay the same for diapers as straight parents do – no, really!).
You’re making points against yourself: being as having children is much harder for gay couples, doesn’t that make them more likely to stay together (as opposed to heterosexual couples for whom it “can be done without much thought”)?
…all the more reason to incentivise it…
How do you mean, exactly?
Thats funny, because when I asked about elderly or infertile heterosexual couples, you made the point that the government can afford to give them the benefit even though they cannot produce children. Now you’re aruging that the government shouldnt offer the benefit to homosexual couples because, while they can add to the population, they might not add enough to be worth it.
Double standard much?
Expound a little on these “separate possible effects” a little. Really, I’m eager to hear.
Yeah, you never actually adressed why it would be a problem. You pointed out the obvious (that it would cost more for a gay couple than a straight one to produce children), and drew the backwards conclusion that, therefore, gays should get less incentive to have kids, and not more.
Ah, arguing with the casually anti-gay crowd: give a roundabout nonanswer that doesnt actually say anything, then keep repeating that you already answered the question and say I’m beating a dead horse. Right?
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Though I suppose you’ll try to bring up the morality of scientific or third party involvement in reproduction? How the government should only want children that result from heterosexual (and are raised by heterosexual) unions?
No, that simply goes into the initial costs of action, which makes it both less effective for production of kids and less needed for stability. But keep trying to force your little paradigms on everyone whose arguments you don’t understand.[/quote]
hahaha I’m sorry that I took apart your strongest defense for a bigoted system where straight people get perks that gays can’t have – now, like lucasa, you have to start the bullshit of “You’re trying to force ____!!”
Now you’ve gone from “Gays cant produce kids!” to “Gays might not produce enough kids!” Keep changing your story everytime your point is defeated, though, its what the anti-gay crowd is quite notorious for.
BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.
You never do get it.
First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the point of marriage is more kids, then letting gays marry would result in more kids. A child who exists because two men could get married is the same as a child who exists because a man and a woman could get married.
I need to spell everything out… The point is incentivizing unions that tend to create more kids through the natural course of things.
In other words, you need to keep changing the story so it fits in a way to exclude gays. First its “Marriage is for procreation!” now its “Marriage is for natural procreation!”
Heterosexual couples generally need to engage in the relatively minor inconvenience of birth control to avoid producing kids. A homosexual couple would need to go out of its way and spend a large sum of money in order to create even one kid.
Yes, homosexual couples may have to spend a large sum of money, or find a third party willing to involve themselves. Which is, in fact, more reason to icentivize procreation among them, not less.
But there is also a second part of the equation, which you always skip: the government also wants to incentivize the type of relationship that tends to lead to children by itself to stay together.
A few posts ago it was simply “The government wants to incentivize the type of relationship that tends to lead to children.” Once the point was made that homosexual relationships can tend to lead to children, now you’ve erratated to “…tends to lead to children by itself.”
You still have yet to produce a single reason why scientific intervention or third party involvment is any reason to exclude homosexuals when incentivising for procreation.
For heterosexual couples, the initial cost of creating a kid is relatively low, and can be done without much thought. However, long term costs are large. The cost to society of failed marriages that have produced kids can be relatively high - thus the incentive to stay together.
And, for homosexual couples, the initial cost of creating a kid can be relatively high, and the long term costs are just as large (believe it or not, gay parents pay the same for diapers as straight parents do – no, really!).
You’re making points against yourself: being as having children is much harder for gay couples, doesn’t that make them more likely to stay together (as opposed to heterosexual couples for whom it “can be done without much thought”)?
For homosexual couples who do choose to create a kid with the help of a third party, the initial legal and monetary expenses are high, which actually would tend to both 1) discourage the practice generally
…all the more reason to incentivise it…
and 2) for those that do go through with it, make it less likely that the couple would want to discount those sunk costs in the future (because we have a tendency as people to engage in the economic fallacy of valuing sunk costs).
How do you mean, exactly?
So, together, the government gets relatively much less value from giving the incentive to a homosexual couple.
Thats funny, because when I asked about elderly or infertile heterosexual couples, you made the point that the government can afford to give them the benefit even though they cannot produce children. Now you’re aruging that the government shouldnt offer the benefit to homosexual couples because, while they can add to the population, they might not add enough to be worth it.
Double standard much?
And that’s just on the pure value of the incentive - that doesn’t count any separate possible effects the availability of a functionally indistinguishable marriage for homosexuals - or what would definitely be a worse option, a “marriage light” created that heterosexuals could access. But that gets into the costs of marriage, and why government might need to incent individuals to give up certain individual freedoms and make economic sacrifices to enter into it (and hopefully produce children).
Expound a little on these “separate possible effects” a little. Really, I’m eager to hear.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Second, the formation of homosexual unions would not lead to more kids without scientific intervention, and at least one third party. Kids who are adopted are already created the traditional way.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And it matters, why, if scientific intervention (or a third party) is involved?
See above.
Yeah, you never actually adressed why it would be a problem. You pointed out the obvious (that it would cost more for a gay couple than a straight one to produce children), and drew the backwards conclusion that, therefore, gays should get less incentive to have kids, and not more.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the governments soleNB: Not the sole aim aim in giving benefits to married couples is to encourage procreation, and giving marriage benefits to homosexuals would encourage procreation, it has no reason not to, and every reason to.
See above.
Ah, arguing with the casually anti-gay crowd: give a roundabout nonanswer that doesnt actually say anything, then keep repeating that you already answered the question and say I’m beating a dead horse. Right?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Though I suppose you’ll try to bring up the morality of scientific or third party involvement in reproduction? How the government should only want children that result from heterosexual (and are raised by heterosexual) unions?
No, that simply goes into the initial costs of action, which makes it both less effective for production of kids and less needed for stability. But keep trying to force your little paradigms on everyone whose arguments you don’t understand.
hahaha I’m sorry that I took apart your strongest defense for a bigoted system where straight people get perks that gays can’t have – now, like lucasa, you have to start the bullshit of “You’re trying to force ____!!”
Now you’ve gone from “Gays cant produce kids!” to “Gays might not produce enough kids!” Keep changing your story everytime your point is defeated, though, its what the anti-gay crowd is quite notorious for.
[/quote]
Should heterosexual males be able to marry each other? I’m sure there are a good many life long bachelor types, already living with roommates, who wouldn’t mind some of the “incentives.”
BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.
BostonBarrister wrote:
You never do get it.
First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the point of marriage is more kids, then letting gays marry would result in more kids. A child who exists because two men could get married is the same as a child who exists because a man and a woman could get married.
BostonBarrister wrote:
I need to spell everything out… The point is incentivizing unions that tend to create more kids through the natural course of things.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
In other words, you need to keep changing the story so it fits in a way to exclude gays. First its “Marriage is for procreation!” now its “Marriage is for natural procreation!”[/quote]
Those would be the other words you’d use if you wanted to be wrong and appear unintelligent, which it’s obvious you do…
First: It’s never been “marriage is for only procreation” - you don’t do well with complex arguments.
Second: Let’s see what it really is - One of the main functions of the tax break assigned to marriage is to encourage the formation and survival of that particular type of union that, by itself and considered in the aggregate, tends to lead to procreation.
Do you see more than one qualification there? Let’s hope so.
Let’s unpack that for you so you don’t strain yourself.
One of the goals is to incentivize procreation. Forming homosexual unions wouldn’t tend to do that, because for homosexual couples there are extra steps and costs involved - to put it another way, if you put a bunch of men together on an island, you wouldn’t get any procreation. Obviously, that wouldn’t be an efficient investment.
Now let’s look at the survival aspect. The goal of encouraging the survival of that type of union actually arises from the first characteristic, and becomes relatively co-depending on the procreative characteristic inherent to heterosexual couplings - men and women tend to procreate, and society is better off in general when the kids produced have stable two-parent families in which to grow up.
If your society is going to encourage procreation (which, again, it does), then it’s doubly important that it take steps to encourage the stability of the parental unit. There may be other reasons to encourage adult couplings, but this one is inherent to the fact that heterosexual couples inherently tend to produce offspring.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Heterosexual couples generally need to engage in the relatively minor inconvenience of birth control to avoid producing kids. A homosexual couple would need to go out of its way and spend a large sum of money in order to create even one kid.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yes, homosexual couples may have to spend a large sum of money, or find a third party willing to involve themselves. Which is, in fact, more reason to icentivize procreation among them, not less.[/quote]
No - it makes it an inefficient investment, because the procreation isn’t inherent to the coupling - it’s a separate decision. It only works this way for heterosexual couples because the effect (kids) tends to happen by itself if you can get the two people together. That’s why incentivizing the formation of heterosexual marriages de facto incentivizes the production of children. And because it does de facto incentivize the production of children, that’s why it becomes further necessary to incentivize the survival of those marriages (because at the end of the day, marriages and kids have a lot of costs associated with them (see my other post above for how this further differentiates the two) - which is also why no-fault divorce was a bad idea from a “marriage is good” perspective).
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
But there is also a second part of the equation, which you always skip: the government also wants to incentivize the type of relationship that tends to lead to children by itself to stay together.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A few posts ago it was simply “The government wants to incentivize the type of relationship that tends to lead to children.” Once the point was made that homosexual relationships can tend to lead to children, now you’ve erratated to “…tends to lead to children by itself.” [/quote]
Homosexual relationships don’t tend to lead to children. They can lead to children. And that is the huge difference that you seemingly cannot grasp.
[quote]
CappendAndPlanIt wrote:
You still have yet to produce a single reason why scientific intervention or third party involvment is any reason to exclude homosexuals when incentivising for procreation. [/quote]
Because their relationships don’t actually tend to lead to children. See above.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
For heterosexual couples, the initial cost of creating a kid is relatively low, and can be done without much thought. However, long term costs are large. The cost to society of failed marriages that have produced kids can be relatively high - thus the incentive to stay together.
CappendAndPlanIt wrote:
And, for homosexual couples, the initial cost of creating a kid can be relatively high, and the long term costs are just as large (believe it or not, gay parents pay the same for diapers as straight parents do – no, really!).
You’re making points against yourself: being as having children is much harder for gay couples, doesn’t that make them more likely to stay together (as opposed to heterosexual couples for whom it “can be done without much thought”)? [/quote]
You could only think that was a point against my argument if you didn’t understand my argument.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
For homosexual couples who do choose to create a kid with the help of a third party, the initial legal and monetary expenses are high, which actually would tend to both 1) discourage the practice generally
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…all the more reason to incentivise it…[/quote]
No. All the more reason why it’s not a good investment… and why homosexual unions don’t tend to lead to children.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
and 2) for those that do go through with it, make it less likely that the couple would want to discount those sunk costs in the future (because we have a tendency as people to engage in the economic fallacy of valuing sunk costs).
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How do you mean, exactly?
BostonBarrister wrote:
So, together, the government gets relatively much less value from giving the incentive to a homosexual couple.[/quote]
I mean if you pay a lot for a pair of concert tickets that you wanted to see, and then something else comes up that you want to do much more and actually makes it so you won’t enjoy the concert or severely impedes your enjoyment of the concert, you’re likely to still go to the concert; whereas if you get a pair of free movie tickets for a movie you want to see, and then something else comes up that you want to do much more, you’ll ditch the free movie tickets and go do the new thing.
To apply that to the point, it’s actually less likely that the homosexual couple would let something small - or a new romantic opportunity - screw up their situation and all those sunk costs - so less need to incentivize them to stay together…
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thats funny, because when I asked about elderly or infertile heterosexual couples, you made the point that the government can afford to give them the benefit even though they cannot produce children. Now you’re aruging that the government shouldnt offer the benefit to homosexual couples because, while they can add to the population, they might not add enough to be worth it.
Double standard much? [/quote]
Understand the concept of “in the aggregate” well? No need to answer that - it’s obvious you don’t.
Aside from that, my point was that it would actually be expensive and burdensome for the government to do testing and verification to cull out infertile couples.
And aside from that further, when I’m discussing the incentives here, I’m not arguing about what the government should or shouldn’t do - I’m arguing about what they are or aren’t doing, and what they are or aren’t required to do.
As in, they are incentivizing general activity, and they aren’t required to extend an economic incentive to people who want that incentive solely if the terms are changed.
Are you always this confused?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And that’s just on the pure value of the incentive - that doesn’t count any separate possible effects the availability of a functionally indistinguishable marriage for homosexuals - or what would definitely be a worse option, a “marriage light” created that heterosexuals could access. But that gets into the costs of marriage, and why government might need to incent individuals to give up certain individual freedoms and make economic sacrifices to enter into it (and hopefully produce children).
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Expound a little on these “separate possible effects” a little. Really, I’m eager to hear.[/quote]
If the government is concerned that extending marriage to homosexuals would undermine the goal of incentivizing heterosexual couples to form and stay together, that’s a big problem from its perspective.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Second, the formation of homosexual unions would not lead to more kids without scientific intervention, and at least one third party. Kids who are adopted are already created the traditional way.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And it matters, why, if scientific intervention (or a third party) is involved?
BostonBarrister wrote:
See above.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yeah, you never actually adressed why it would be a problem. You pointed out the obvious (that it would cost more for a gay couple than a straight one to produce children), and drew the backwards conclusion that, therefore, gays should get less incentive to have kids, and not more. [/quote]
That’s OK - I’ve really spoon fed it to you this time… So see above.
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the governments sole
BostonBarrister wrote: NB: Not the sole aim
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
aim in giving benefits to married couples is to encourage procreation, and giving marriage benefits to homosexuals would encourage procreation, it has no reason not to, and every reason to.
BostonBarrister wrote:
See above.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ah, arguing with the casually anti-gay crowd: give a roundabout nonanswer that doesnt actually say anything, then keep repeating that you already answered the question and say I’m beating a dead horse. Right? :)[/quote]
Ah, arguing with the noncomprehending: Explain a concept at a high level, and keep re-explaining until they grasp it. Much tougher when they keep wanting to make your argument fit their little paradigm though…
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Though I suppose you’ll try to bring up the morality of scientific or third party involvement in reproduction? How the government should only want children that result from heterosexual (and are raised by heterosexual) unions?
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, that simply goes into the initial costs of action, which makes it both less effective for production of kids and less needed for stability. But keep trying to force your little paradigms on everyone whose arguments you don’t understand.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
hahaha I’m sorry that I took apart your strongest defense for a bigoted system where straight people get perks that gays can’t have – now, like lucasa, you have to start the bullshit of “You’re trying to force ____!!”[/quote]
No, that’s just my exasperated response when you try to build something additive by putting together your own ignorance of the point with your further wrong assumptions. Amusing that you think it’s clever though…
Maybe one of these days you’ll actually comprehend the argument… or at least that “defeating” your own miscomprehension isn’t so much an intellectual achievement as an inadvertently comedic one.
BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.
BostonBarrister wrote:
You never do get it.
First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the point of marriage is more kids, then letting gays marry would result in more kids. A child who exists because two men could get married is the same as a child who exists because a man and a woman could get married.
BostonBarrister wrote:
I need to spell everything out… The point is incentivizing unions that tend to create more kids through the natural course of things.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
In other words, you need to keep changing the story so it fits in a way to exclude gays. First its “Marriage is for procreation!” now its “Marriage is for natural procreation!”
Those would be the other words you’d use if you wanted to be wrong and appear unintelligent, which it’s obvious you do…
First: It’s never been “marriage is for only procreation” - you don’t do well with complex arguments.
[/quote]
Where either of my above quotes does the term “only” come in? Read it again, squint real hard, maybe you’ll find it. But I doubt it.
The point being, the procreation issue is your main defense as to why heterosexuals should be allowed to marry, but not homosexuals. Now you’ve changed it from simply “procreation” (which homosexuals can be a part of) to “natural procreation”.
But what if they were on an island with several other million people (men and women), and some of the men could find women willing (and were willing to engage in sex with a woman) to have a child, or could contact a fertility clinic, or other intervention would allow at least one (or, possibly, both) of them to be the biological father of the child? Why, gee, I suppose that COULD lead to procreation, couldnt it?
Now, which scenerio sounds like the actual world we live in, BB? Your “only men on an island” one, or mine?
Sounds like you’re just trudging up the classic “If everybody in the world were gay, humanity would die out, therefore being gay is wrong!” argument. Which, I shouldnt have to go through the motion of defeating for you.
Because we have underpopulation problems and we’re struggling to survive? Does reality not affect your positions at all?
Secondly, I’ll agree that stable multiple-parent-figure families are generally better for raising children in. So, which couple do you think is going to fully understand the implications of raising a child before the final decision is made: the gay couple who has to spend months going through the process, or the heterosexual couple who could easily rush into the decision (or even have it happen accidently)?
And homosexual couples can produce offspring. Hence, there is no reason to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples in determining who is allowed to marry.
And the problem with it being a separate decision is what, exactly? That it’s less likely to happen? I imagine there are plenty of homosexuals who would be interested in having kids, were they given the benefits of marriage.
Besides, what “investment” is it to the government if they do decide to have kids, since the money would be coming from the couple, not the government?
If the homophobia in our society didn’t exist, if the myth that homosexuals are inherently pedophiles (and therefore should not be trusted with children), if the myth that the only “right” way for a child to be raised is by a man and a woman didn’t exist, if avenues for homosexuals to create children were better funded and made more easily available, and homosexuals had the option of the benefits of marriage to incentivize them…perhaps homosexual relationships would more often lead to children then currently do. Yes?
And since you’re so staunchly defending the governments role of encouraging procreation, this would be a good thing, right? And, other than the mentioned funding (which would not be forced from the government), it wouldn’t be of any price to anyone, would it?
Perhaps there are reasons more homosexuals dont raise children, other than biological.
see above.
Seriously? I expect better from you than “You just dont get it!”
Guess you’re running out of rope.
So, your solution is, instead of making it easier for homosexual unions to lead to children, make it harder.
So your solution is to make it harder for the people who are more likely to stay together?? Since gays that do have children will try harder, it makes sense to you to make sure they cant get any benefits to make it easier on them?
I’m not even reading the rest of your trash. I see your game: You want to stop homosexuals from getting married so that its harder for them to raise kids, so less will raise kids, and you can continue to use that as an excuse to forbid homosexuals to marry.
Well, guess I lied about reading more of your garbage:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Understand the concept of “in the aggregate” well? No need to answer that - it’s obvious you don’t.
[/quote]
In the aggregate means “considered as a whole”, correct?
So, your argument rests on the statement that “Heterosexual unions, considered as a whole, tend to lead to procreation.” There is no reason this logic cannot be expanded to “Adult unions, considered as a whole, tend to lead to procreation.” Other than bigotry, of course.
Now, lets look at elderly couples as a who… I mean “in the aggregate”. Elderly couples, in the aggregate, do not produce children. Why, then, should they be included when considering heterosexual couples that can procreate?
It would cost the government almost nothing to check the age(s) of people wishing to marry. Furthermore, marriage tax benefits could expire once one or both partners reach a certain age where the chance of procreation is nil.
Yet the government keeps making this “poor investment” by allowing senior citizens to get or remain married well after they can reproduce or are in a position to support children (or they children they would have would need support).
So, tell me again why elderly heterosexual couples should get benefits that incentivize having and raising children, and are grouped as a whole with procreative heterosexual couples, while homosexual couples, who may have or raise children, are not considered within that same group?
Checking ages would be pretty easy.
Ok. What do you think the government should do?
And spare me the conditional imperatives, just make it simple (since I have such a hard time understanding complexity). How about just a yes or no - Do you think the government should allow homosexuals to legally marry?
Adult unions tend to lead to children. True or false?
I think I read over them. It kind of made me think about how the government probably had to consider that a lot of white people wouldnt like it if they ended slavery. A lot of white people wouldnt like it if they desegregated schools. A lot of men wouldnt like it if they allowed women to run for government offices.
When the government decides its course based on the fear of backlash from bigots, there is a serious problem. There is no reason, other than bigotry against homosexuals and/or homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would affect marriage among heterosexuals.
If it were to happen, point the finger of blame at those who act out of bigotry, not equality. At least, thats what a man would do.
Yeah, you made it clear: it makes more sense to you to punish those who are likely to try harder. I certainly hope you arent in the position to decide the wages of a staff-- you’d clearly pay the most to those who you expect to be more likely to do a worse job, while shafting those you have reason to expect quality work from.
If by high you mean bigoted, then sure, its at a high level.
Again, true or false: Adult unions tend to lead to procreation.
I’m not ignorant of your point, I’ve understood it clearly all this time: your point is to find justification that homosexuals cannot marry while heterosexuals can.
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Now you’ve gone from “Gays cant produce kids!” to “Gays might not produce enough kids!” Keep changing your story everytime your point is defeated, though, its what the anti-gay crowd is quite notorious for.
Maybe one of these days you’ll actually comprehend the argument… or at least that “defeating” your own miscomprehension isn’t so much an intellectual achievement as an inadvertently comedic one.[/quote]
The simple fact that you capitalized COULD is just further proof you don’t understand the argument.
It wasn’t supposed to be an illustration of the world; it was an illustration of the point, which you still apparently cannot grasp. The point isn’t what an individual couple can do - the point isn’t what a large group of such couples can do. The point is what a large group of the particular type of couples tends to do. As in, what actually happens in the majority of cases when you put them together, not what has the potential to happen.
I can’t believe I am sitting here wasting my time like this, trying to explain such an obvious thing over numerous posts. The fact that you think you’re actually refuting anything is ridiculous - it was amusing before it was wasting so much of my time, and now it’s just aggravating.
For the sake of my sanity, I’m simply going to repost the argument in its entirety and then ignore the rest of your prattle, none if which is in any way responsive.
BTW, for those of you still reading this ridiculous exchange who are wondering why I let myself engage in ad hominem in addition to arguments when dealing with CappedAndPlanIt, you need to understand a few things: 1) This is a repeat of several old conversations; 2) I get annoyed with pseudointellectuals, particularly when they repeatedly fail to process points; 3) CappedAndPlanIt’s default position is ad hominem: anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot, and he is the arbiter of everyone’s motivation; 4) He is also a preening, self-congratulatory fop who adopts a morally superior tone based additively on both his own ad hominem classification of his opponents as bigoted and his own misunderstanding of arguments. So I allow myself some ad hominem in this case.
So, here’s the argument again:
One of the main functions of the tax break assigned to marriage is to encourage the formation and survival of that particular type of union that, by itself and considered in the aggregate, tends to lead to procreation.
Subpoints: 1) Heterosexual couplings, in the aggregate, tend to produce children - this is why incentivizing heterosexual coupling is an efficient proxy for incentivizing procreation 2) Secondarily, Because such couplings tend to produce children (which the government is incentivizing by proxy), the government has a further motivation, which is to ensure the marriages survive, because that’s what’s best for those children - and by extension, everyone else; 3) There are serious concerns that extending marriage to homosexuals could undermine both the formation and survival of the heterosexual couplings - you know the point - which don’t apply to either old people or infertile people (and sub point, the government doesn’t want to engage in invasive testing of people to prove fertility).
That’s it from me on this, unless by some chance either CappedAndPlanIt finally understands the argument and posts something responsive that has more to it than calling me a bigot or someone else with something substantive to offer picks it up. I need to take my son for a walk.
BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.
BostonBarrister wrote:
You never do get it.
First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the point of marriage is more kids, then letting gays marry would result in more kids. A child who exists because two men could get married is the same as a child who exists because a man and a woman could get married.
BostonBarrister wrote:
I need to spell everything out… The point is incentivizing unions that tend to create more kids through the natural course of things.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
In other words, you need to keep changing the story so it fits in a way to exclude gays. First its “Marriage is for procreation!” now its “Marriage is for natural procreation!”
Those would be the other words you’d use if you wanted to be wrong and appear unintelligent, which it’s obvious you do…
First: It’s never been “marriage is for only procreation” - you don’t do well with complex arguments.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Where either of my above quotes does the term “only” come in? Read it again, squint real hard, maybe you’ll find it. But I doubt it.
The point being, the procreation issue is your main defense as to why heterosexuals should be allowed to marry, but not homosexuals. Now you’ve changed it from simply “procreation” (which homosexuals can be a part of) to “natural procreation”.
Oh, I’m sorry - I read logic into your statement, because the only way you could logically have been arguing that the fact homosexuals could procreate was some sort of refutation in the debate would be if the argument were only that homosexual unions did not produce children. I’ll remember that logic has absolutely no place in your thought processes, such as they are.
And I can see this is a long reply you’ve made, but here, at the very beginning, you’re still proving you don’t understand the point. “Natural procreation” loses part of the complexity of the issue - but it’s hardly surprising you’d lose it…
So, to restate at the top: homosexual unions do not tend to produce children - the fact that they can produce children is immaterial.
Recall, the reason why incentiving marriage leads to the second level effect of incentiving children is that heterosexual unions tend, on their own, to lead to children. In other words, when you put a man and a woman together, in some extremely large percentage of cases that couple will produce children with no further interventions necessary.
That is why incentivizing heterosexual coupling is an effective proxy for incentivizing procreation.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Second: Let’s see what it really is - One of the main functions of the tax break assigned to marriage is to encourage the formation and survival of that particular type of union that, by itself and considered in the aggregate, tends to lead to procreation.
Do you see more than one qualification there? Let’s hope so.
Let’s unpack that for you so you don’t strain yourself.
One of the goals is to incentivize procreation. Forming homosexual unions wouldn’t tend to do that, because for homosexual couples there are extra steps and costs involved - to put it another way, if you put a bunch of men together on an island, you wouldn’t get any procreation. Obviously, that wouldn’t be an efficient investment.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But what if they were on an island with several other million people (men and women), and some of the men could find women willing (and were willing to engage in sex with a woman) to have a child, or could contact a fertility clinic, or other intervention would allow at least one (or, possibly, both) of them to be the biological father of the child? Why, gee, I suppose that COULD lead to procreation, couldnt it?
Now, which scenerio sounds like the actual world we live in, BB? Your “only men on an island” one, or mine?
Sounds like you’re just trudging up the classic “If everybody in the world were gay, humanity would die out, therefore being gay is wrong!” argument. Which, I shouldnt have to go through the motion of defeating for you.
The simple fact that you capitalized COULD is just further proof you don’t understand the argument.
It wasn’t supposed to be an illustration of the world; it was an illustration of the point, which you still apparently cannot grasp. The point isn’t what an individual couple can do - the point isn’t what a large group of such couples can do. The point is what a large group of the particular type of couples tends to do. As in, what actually happens in the majority of cases when you put them together, not what has the potential to happen.
I can’t believe I am sitting here wasting my time like this, trying to explain such an obvious thing over numerous posts. The fact that you think you’re actually refuting anything is ridiculous - it was amusing before it was wasting so much of my time, and now it’s just aggravating.
For the sake of my sanity, I’m simply going to repost the argument in its entirety and then ignore the rest of your prattle, none if which is in any way responsive.
BTW, for those of you still reading this ridiculous exchange who are wondering why I let myself engage in ad hominem in addition to arguments when dealing with CappedAndPlanIt, you need to understand a few things: 1) This is a repeat of several old conversations; 2) I get annoyed with pseudointellectuals, particularly when they repeatedly fail to process points; 3) CappedAndPlanIt’s default position is ad hominem: anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot, and he is the arbiter of everyone’s motivation; 4) He is also a preening, self-congratulatory fop who adopts a morally superior tone based additively on both his own ad hominem classification of his opponents as bigoted and his own misunderstanding of arguments. So I allow myself some ad hominem in this case.
[/quote]
Aw. Its almost like you dont like me.
Why, aside from antihomosexual bigotry and homophobia, would point three happen?
You failed to answer my simple yes or no question: Should the government, in your opinion, allow homosexuals to legally marry each other?
Or are you still throwing your hands up in the air at the fact that I “just dont fucking get it”, when, in fact, it hasnt been hard to understand your argument from the beginning.
What you refuse to accept is that homosexuals being naturally infertile is not a legitimate reason to deny them marriage. I’ve tried time and again to explain this, by pointing out other infertile groups that do get marriage benefits (but who you defend because you structure your terms to group them with procreative couples, and to exclude homosexual couples).
You use vague terms about how allowing homosexuals to marry might and could affect heterosexual marriages… yet offer no logical reason as to why this would be true.
You ignore that homosexuals can procreate, only to later admit that their additional cost to procreating makes them MORE LIKELY to stay together, and use that as another reason to justify not giving them marriage benefits (these same benefits that incentivize couples with children to stay together).
You even dream up situations in the extreme, about nothing but men on an island, because you have to go that far out of reality to defend your point.
Sorry, Boston, perhaps if you’d actually defend your position instead of working on the fallacy that repeating a position is defending the position, our exchanges would actually go somewhere.
Ok, be honest. Who here wants marriage defined so broadly it loses all meaning? I’ve seen people support two dudes marrying, and when pressed on the issue I’ve seen them support a right to polygamy. Basically, marriage could be any arrangement of any sex, or number of people. Sort of redifining marriage out of existence.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, be honest. Who here wants marriage defined so broadly it loses all meaning? I’ve seen people support two dudes marrying, and when pressed on the issue I’ve seen them support a right to polygamy. Basically, marriage could be any arrangement of any sex, or number of people. Sort of redifining marriage out of existence.[/quote]
I think the definition of marriage should be changed to make it about 2 humans vs. a man and a women.
I do not believe that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at a time and that if you want to marry someone else you need to end the first marriage BEFORE starting the second.
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Ok, be honest. Who here wants marriage defined so broadly it loses all meaning? I’ve seen people support two dudes marrying, and when pressed on the issue I’ve seen them support a right to polygamy. Basically, marriage could be any arrangement of any sex, or number of people. Sort of redifining marriage out of existence.
905Patrick wrote:
I think the definition of marriage should be changed to make it about 2 humans vs. a man and a women.
I do not believe that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at a time and that if you want to marry someone else you need to end the first marriage BEFORE starting the second.[/quote]
The problem is if marriage is defined as an individual right, which it is not currently, then what makes a certain number any more rational than a certain gender?
You failed to answer my simple yes or no question: Should the government, in your opinion, allow homosexuals to legally marry each other?
[/quote]
This is the only part of your drivel I’m going to address, because I didn’t even read your second post before, and none of the rest of anything you’ve written comprehends my previous points - not that this does either, but it’s separate enough to warrant an answer. I’ve answered this to you, before, but I’m answering it again in case anyone else happens to be interested.
I would be in favor of a separate “domestic partnership” defined as available solely to same-sex couples that could be the substantial equivalent of marriage - or not - it could reflect what the legislature thinks is most appropriate for encouraging long-term monogamy for gay couples. If it were enacted along with something that made divorce more difficult to obtain in marriage, even better. The key is that it would not be some form of “marriage light” that is available to heterosexuals.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
I think the definition of marriage should be changed to make it about 2 humans vs. a man and a women.
[/quote]
Well, we’ll skip asking why you’d be “bigoted” towards those with bisexual and polyagmous wants. That is one thing I don’t get, people who get outraged at others for wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman, when they themselves put their foot down at keeping marriage exclusive to 2 people.
Then there’s those who want the state to recognize marriages of any number of persons, and sexual make-up, effectively ending state recognized marriage. You might as well just extend the benefits to everyone. Maybe that’s their goal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we’ll skip asking why you’d be “bigoted” towards those with bisexual and polyagmous wants. That is one thing I don’t get, people who get outraged at others for wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman, when they themselves put their foot down at keeping marriage exclusive to 2 people.
Then there’s those who want the state to recognize marriages of any number of persons, and sexual make-up, effectively ending state recognized marriage. You might as well just extend the benefits to everyone. Maybe that’s their goal.[/quote]
Heh heh. To me (and I’m not married) marriage is about commitment to one other person. It’s about forming a partnership and committing to stay in it for the rest of your life. Given that this is what I believe it is, it would seem unnecessary to marry if one was inclined to indulge their bisexual tendencies - given that they do not want to be committed to just one person for the rest of their lives.
I’m not following your logic when you say:
“That is one thing I don’t get, people who get outraged at others for wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman, when they themselves put their foot down at keeping marriage exclusive to 2 people.”
Can you explain how that is putting a foot in a mouth.
“That is one thing I don’t get, people who get outraged at others for wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman, when they themselves put their foot down at keeping marriage exclusive to 2 people.”
Can you explain how that is putting a foot in a mouth.[/quote]
Sure. How do you agrue to allow two men to marry, then tell the 2 women and 1 man triangle, they’re not allowed?
Now, if you’re pro-gay marriage and pro-polygamy, I could understand. Otherwise it funny to see someone get upset because another suggests that marriage is between a man and woman. Yet, the same person will quickly say “marriage is between two people!” I don’t know, maybe these non-homophobes are polygamophobes.
“That is one thing I don’t get, people who get outraged at others for wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman, when they themselves put their foot down at keeping marriage exclusive to 2 people.”
Can you explain how that is putting a foot in a mouth.
Sloth wrote:
Sure. How do you agrue to allow two men to marry, then tell the 2 women and 1 man triangle, they’re not allowed?
Now, if you’re pro-gay marriage and pro-polygamy, I could understand. Otherwise it funny to see someone get upset because another suggests that marriage is between a man and woman. Yet, the same person will quickly say “marriage is between two people!”[/quote]
It could work to the extent people realize that marriage isn’t some individual right, but a specific bundle of contractual rights and responsibilities, along with whatever economic incentives, that the legislature wants.
Then, if the legislature defines it as two people, it’s limited to just two people - the “definition” of marriage if you will (just like now marriage is defined as between a man and a woman).
This doesn’t mean I think it would be a good idea to have just one “marriage” that would be for any two people - but the slippery slope to polygamy is mostly problematic if the idea is somehow that there is an individual right to marriage.
However, one caveat: If somehow allowing gays to participate in marriage made people more receptive to the idea of polygamy because it made all non-traditional relationships seem less problematic, then you’d have an argument that the legislature would be more likely to allow polygamy in the future. I think this is less problematic though, because polygamy would hurt low-status men (high-status men would take more of the women, leaving fewer left over, assuming approximately 50/50 male/female population), so I don’t think the legislature would go for it…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sure. How do you agrue to allow two men to marry, then tell the 2 women and 1 man triangle, they’re not allowed? [/quote]
In my definition of marriage it is about 2 people committing to one another for the rest of their lives. If you want to commit to two people for the rest of your life (or the evening) don’t get married.
BUT the whole thing is based on arbitary definitions anyway so there is very little chance that all people will agree on it.
The last line of this is really funny - seriously!
However, one caveat: If somehow allowing gays to participate in marriage made people more receptive to the idea of polygamy because it made all non-traditional relationships seem less problematic, then you’d have an argument that the legislature would be more likely to allow polygamy in the future. I think this is less problematic though, because polygamy would hurt low-status men (high-status men would take more of the women, leaving fewer left over, assuming approximately 50/50 male/female population), so I don’t think the legislature would go for it…[/quote]
This is a very good point.
When young men don’t have the chance to find a women they tend to go a little over the deep end.
You failed to answer my simple yes or no question: Should the government, in your opinion, allow homosexuals to legally marry each other?
BostonBarrister wrote:
Waaaah! You just dont understand!!
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yep. Pretty much what I expected.[/quote]
Your restatement is very representative of your reading skills, and your expectations at least reflect that you are aware of your lack of comprehension - or that you could at least suss that out of my replies, unlike the main points, after you’ve been hit with it several times. You’re like a much less intelligent version of Andrew Sullivan, but at least he’s smart enough to ignore points he doesn’t understand or that he can’t effectively address while he classifies all his opponents as bigoted or otherwise morally deficient.
BTW, you could turn your blathering in your posts above into a decent argument - there are some disparate pieces there - but I’m disinclined to help you do so. You’re too annoying. I recall in another forum another poster with good logic made the same observation - his quote was “I hate that guy.”
