The costs of gay marriage

[One Brow]

If a couple aged 55 or older loses government benefits when they get married do you think there might be some that try and fudge numbers and say they are younger than 55? Who monitors this?

The IRS and/or SSA, which already track ages for a variety of other purposes.

Also, who monitors a marriage so that when the couple both hit 55 they lose said benefits?

The benefits would not be claimable. There is no active taking needed.

Who monitors every marriage to see whether or not one of the participants is infertile?

I don't recall suggesting that.

What happens if a couple doesn't want kids but lie so they get benefits? And how long are they allowed to not have kids before they are deemed ineligible?

What happens if a gay couple wants kids? Do they then get all the benefits you want for straight couples?

Lastly, do you really think that changing the status of what we currently consider marriage is not going to create opportunities for government to grow?

Do go on. What part of government grows from recognizing gay marriage?

 

[One Brow]

Can you translate this?

Yes. You don't have a right to avoid being hurt, if the hurt is seeing other people get married.

 

[One Brow]

Can someone more educated than I explain why the gov't just doesn't appease both sides and get out of the whole marriage game?

Too many politicians would be worried that taking away all the benefits of marriage would lose them elections.

 

[colton]

What, I said, precisely, was that the arguments were identical in form to those used against interracial marriage. I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the importance of "in form" to that statement.

Well, I didn't, I guess, but I'll try to now.

So, which claim do you think did not appear in the same form? Certainly, people claimed that interracial marriages couldn't produce fruitful progeny...

Let's just stop with that one. Do you have evidence for that? I find myself skeptical that it's true.

Actually, even if you do have evidence that someone made that claim, I still fail to see how that is relevant. If finding a single individual who made a patently false claim is sufficient to say that "the arguments were identical in form", then you can say "the arguments were identical in form" about practically ANYTHING.

I appreciate that you recognize arguments in that form are not sound arguments against interracial marriage. I think one day, you'll realize that arguments in that form are no more sound against homosexual marriage.

How is that argument not sound against homosexual marriage? Whereas that statement is patently false for interracial marriage, it's patently true for homosexual unions.

You made two attempts at providing this, both in your first post in this thread, from what I can tell. One was factually inaccurate (many gay couple are indeed very interested in raising children)

I didn't say gay couples were not interested in raising children, although I can see how my remarks could be taken that way. I said:

My view, short take: Marriage is wrapped up in the concept of heterosexual sex and child bearing/raising. Evidence for this is vast. For example, infertility is one of the possible grounds for divorce in many states. Lack of [heterosexual] consummation is grounds for an annulment in many states. The reason I cannot marry my sister or my daughter is because of the possibility of conceiving a child. I could go on and on.

What homosexuals want is not related to any of that. They want SOME of what a marriage is, but by legal precedent and definition, not EVERYTHING of what a marriage is.

I don't have time to expound on that a lot, but basically I'm saying that a homosexual union is fundamentally different than a heterosexual one. This is so obvious, it's not even debatable. As Scat said earlier in the thread,

Without additional government resources to weed out those who are infertile, too old or simply don't want kids, it is reasonable to assume that a hetero marriage may result in a pregnancy. If your solution is to start a new program to monitor all hetero married couples to determine if they are fertile is a waste of money and resources. A gay couple is not getting pregnant. Period.

Your turn: does being bigoted mean you have to act like Archie Bunker? Can you be a bigot and still be a warm, caring person who only wishes well for people?

No, probably not. At least not by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition that I posted earlier in the thread.

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

It doesn't say "hatred or intolerance", it says "hatred and intolerance". Big difference.

What would the difference be between your position on gay marriage and the position of a bigot?

Not sure how that is at all relevant. To paraphrase Niven's 16th law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niven's_laws, no position on any matter is so noble that it can afford to be judged by its weakest member. To Godwin our discussion, if a Nazi sympathizer happens to have the same opinion on a topic as you, does that make you a Nazi sympathizer?

edit: sorry, I just noticed I mislabeled the dictionary quote as a One Brow quote.

 

[Gameface]

 

[colton]

As a utahn, I just don't understand the urgency to define marriage and stop gay marriage when we aren't even enforcing laws against polygamy. Why not enforce our existing laws before creating new ones?

I hear you. The problem with the existing polygamy laws(*), though, is they make polygamy illegal even when there is no state sanctioned marriage involved. So that's quite a different subject. That would be like if there were still laws preventing two homosexuals from living together, period. In my opinion any such laws shouldn't be enforced in that case (can't be, I think), and the current laws which prohibit that for, say a man and three women should also be not be enforced.

(*) Edit - in Utah, anyway. I don't know about other states

 

[colton]

Did you read the Spazz/Brow conversation at all?

Not really.

 

[One Brow]

You are saying it's not an insult to point out that someone's bigoted actions... but you are totally wrong on your accusations of what bigoted actions are.

You are using an argument that is occasionally valid in specific instances, but with much more frequency has been used to defend actions that are bigoted. Very few people committing bigoted action will own up to the bigotry of their actions; many are not even aware of it until it is pointed out.

This is an example of what you do:

I call you out for being a child abuser, and that you should not be offended because it is not an insult if I am pointing out the truth.
How would you feel, you would probably like to defend yourself.
Then I go on to describe how you didn't let your kid have something they really wanted, and that is abuse.

Assuming your intent in this hypothetical scenario is legitimate, I have to ask myself why you think it's abuse in the first place. I'll ask you whether that applies to this particular item or all items, etc.

Would that fit your definition of abuse, and make it so you agree with my assessment?

Even if it doesn't fit my definition of abuse, it still might be abuse. Maybe I think making my kid wear the same shoes for two years in a row is teaching the value of thriftiness, but it's really just causing his feet to be painful, which is certainly abuse from the child's point of view and that of any reasonable adult. I think of you as a reasonable adult, so it behooves me to carefully consider your words.

By the way, I'm presuming that you didn't really mean to compare the opinions of adult blacks, women, and adult homosexuals to the opinion of children who often don't understand whats good for them. There were no mean intentions on your part at all. Yet, that's the analogy you just drew. You know what? It sucks to be put in the role of the child in your analogy, even though you didn't mean any harm. One might even say that you were being hurtful unintentionally, that the comparison was racist/sexist even without any bad intent on your part. You may find this hard to believe, but the fact you were unaware of that offense didn't make it less hurtful. Of course, right now you want to defend yourself, I suppose. You may find this hard to believe, but you defending yourself also doesn't make that offense less hurtful.

You are using words incorrectly to describe somebody in a negative way, then saying they should not be offended by it because you are only describing their actions..... when you are way off and out of line.

Just acting like a child, am I?

That blog of yours is just playing with words as well. Anybody that is called something offensive, especially incorrectly would want to defend themselves and yet that blog you follow gives off the impression that anyone that is called a racist should accept it because of course their actions are racist because someone else said they are. It's a bunch of hogwash, and word games.

It's also a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents. What it asks you to do is carefully consider why someone would say a comment/position is racist, not blindly accept that. It also points out that, due to the nature of human culture, favored groups often are unable to understand why comments regarding unfavored groups carry a prejudicial animus, so in particular, those in favored groups need to listen more carefully. However, I guarantee you that Ian Cromwell (the blog's author) would never tell you to blindly accept any person's word, not even his own.

 

[One Brow]

I think most of us see that the definition of marriage will eventually be changed. With that in mind, does anyone have the scoop on what the next "evolution" will be? Us conservatives are just wondering what we're going to be called ignorant bigots for next.

Whose concerns will you be dismissing next?

It's a simple bullying tactic.

Yes, all those poor, oppressed, straight, white men. My heart bleeds for their suffering.

Seriously, did you even read the link?

 

[One Brow]

I guess that would work in theory but I prefer the government getting out of the business of marriage.

You mean, no government recognition of marriage at all?

Also are you suggesting "covenanted" from religions and "marriage" from the government?

Sure. If religious people want to separate their unions from marriages, they should come up with their own term. I don't know if this directly applies, but don't Mormons already have a term for marriages performed in a temple, something like "sealed"? Gays could be married, but not sealed?

 

[One Brow]

On a positive note, reading this blog explains a lot about One Brow. He has either: spent WAY too much time reading Crommunist's blog, or he actually is Crommunist.

I'm not Ian Cromwell, and I read plenty of other blogs on similar issues, some that disagree.

 

[colton]

Sure. If religious people want to separate their unions from marriages, they should come up with their own term. I don't know if this directly applies, but don't Mormons already have a term for marriages performed in a temple, something like "sealed"? Gays could be married, but not sealed?

Yes, "sealed" is the right word for temple marriages.