Corporate insurance drone?
Oh joy.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Corporate insurance drone?
Oh joy.
Oh joy.
Ambrya wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'd be a lot happier if I didn't think it was a coldly and deliberately calculated stunt intended to make people think there's a "softer" side to McCain as a politician. He's kinda having his cake and eating it too, here, posturing for the religious right by opposing gay marriage while letting his wife play up to the "social moderate" Republicans by supporting it.
Even if you're right, more people speaking up in opposition to Prop 8 can't hurt. And the fact that they are established Republicans is a plus. I don't care what their agenda behind it is. This is still a good sign, in my opinion.
publiusvarus wrote:
Bard,
Don't be jealous. I'm sure with 20yrs of hard work you can get to where i'm at now.
Quote:
People normally don't count the numbers right of the decimal.
Don't be jealous. I'm sure with 20yrs of hard work you can get to where i'm at now.
You mean middle aged, alone, and desperate enough for attention to troll a video game forum?
Boy, that'd be swell.
Bardalicious wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Bard,
Don't be jealous. I'm sure with 20yrs of hard work you can get to where i'm at now.
Quote:
People normally don't count the numbers right of the decimal.
Don't be jealous. I'm sure with 20yrs of hard work you can get to where i'm at now.
You mean middle aged, alone, and desperate enough for attention to troll a video game forum?
Boy, that'd be swell.
Belkira, your avatar is ADORABLE.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
publiusvarus wrote:
Troll? So how many years do I have to post to not be considered a troll...20?
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
idiggory wrote:
Belkira, your avatar is ADORABLE.
Aw, thanks.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Belkira, your avatar is ADORABLE.
Aw, thanks.
idiggory wrote:
I think eliminating ALL benefits for both is a crappy idea. But I prefer it to unequal treatment.
Actually, I would personally prefer marriage was completely equal (in that gays and straights could do it), and that it didn't offer any special benefits that can be considered a personal boost.
For example, I don't think that married couples should get tax breaks.
I DO think married couples should be allowed to see each other in the hospital, or be able to take a medical leave to care for the other.
Because those aren't incentives to enter into a loveless marriage. They are things you'd want if in a committed relationship, but would have no effect on you if you weren't. A tax break or similar WOULD be a boon to the single person, and I don't think it is fair that they have to pay for married couples because they made the choice to marry.
Actually, I would personally prefer marriage was completely equal (in that gays and straights could do it), and that it didn't offer any special benefits that can be considered a personal boost.
For example, I don't think that married couples should get tax breaks.
I DO think married couples should be allowed to see each other in the hospital, or be able to take a medical leave to care for the other.
Because those aren't incentives to enter into a loveless marriage. They are things you'd want if in a committed relationship, but would have no effect on you if you weren't. A tax break or similar WOULD be a boon to the single person, and I don't think it is fair that they have to pay for married couples because they made the choice to marry.
BTW, this is more or less the endpoint of the slippery slope I spoke of earlier. At some point, as we add more and more groups into the qualifying criteria, we all throw up our hands and just eliminate all state issued benefits for marriage just as you have advocated.
Um... that does eliminate the incentive effect of those benefits, doesn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
There's a reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2010 4:17pm by Sweetums
Edited, Jan 22nd 2010 4:17pm by Sweetums
gbaji wrote:
BTW, this is more or less the endpoint of the slippery slope I spoke of earlier. At some point, as we add more and more groups into the qualifying criteria, we all throw up our hands and just eliminate all state issued benefits for marriage just as you have advocated.
Um... that does eliminate the incentive effect of those benefits, doesn't it?
Um... that does eliminate the incentive effect of those benefits, doesn't it?
I didn't get married for the tax benefits. Nor does anyone else that doesn't have a piece of living coal in the slight-left cavity of their chest.
Sweetums wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Belkira, your avatar is ADORABLE.
Aw, thanks.
This old kids book that I loved when I was a kid.
Klagoth wrote:
I am probably more conservative than liberal, but I could never be a true conservative because I am not a member of the religious right.
Being a "true conservative" has nothing at all to do with how religious you are.
Quote:
I feel the only reason christian conservatives are against gay marriage, is because in their 2000 year old book of fables, mostly stolen from other religions, it states that being gay is bad.
And the blue fairy told me that if I stick my hand in a fire, demons will come out and tear me asunder. So, since we all know that is absurd, it should be perfectly safe to stick our hands in fire, right?
Quote:
I think this is very selfish, and I just can not buy into it. Religion has no place in politics.
And yet you just brought it in?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sweetums wrote:
There's a reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
No. There are cases in which the slippery slope is a fallacy. Specifically, a case where the end point cannot be said to be a reasonably likely result of the action being proposed.
Since a poster just said that we should eliminate state granted benefits to marriage as a solution to this problem, how can it be unreasonable to state that this is a "reasonably likely result"? It can't. Therefore, it is *not* a fallacy for me to point to the potential elimination of existing state benefits as a consequence of the gay marriage agenda.
And this is hardly the first time someone has presented that solution.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Kaelesh wrote:
I didn't get married for the tax benefits. Nor does anyone else that doesn't have a piece of living coal in the slight-left cavity of their chest.
And lots of people don't buy a home because there's an FHA first time home buyer program. But the existence of such absolutely increases the number of first time home buyers. People don't give to charity because there is a tax break for doing so. But the existence of the tax break absolutely increases the total amount of charitable giving society-wide.
Shall I go on?
People don't go to college because there's a college tuition assistance program. But the existence of said program will increase the number of people who go to college.
All of these make the decision more doable financially. Thus, something you might like to do becomes something you are more likely to do as a result of the programs existence.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Ya know, gbaji, you've always said that you have no problem with homosexuality. Yet this:
And the blue fairy told me that if I stick my hand in a fire, demons will come out and tear me asunder. So, since we all know that is absurd, it should be perfectly safe to stick our hands in fire, right?
Makes me think perhaps you were lying. It seems like you just said that you agree with the bible that homosexuality is "bad."
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
I feel the only reason christian conservatives are against gay marriage, is because in their 2000 year old book of fables, mostly stolen from other religions, it states that being gay is bad.
And the blue fairy told me that if I stick my hand in a fire, demons will come out and tear me asunder. So, since we all know that is absurd, it should be perfectly safe to stick our hands in fire, right?
Makes me think perhaps you were lying. It seems like you just said that you agree with the bible that homosexuality is "bad."
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
There's a reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
No. There are cases in which the slippery slope is a fallacy. Specifically, a case where the end point cannot be said to be a reasonably likely result of the action being proposed.
Since a poster just said that we should eliminate state granted benefits to marriage as a solution to this problem, how can it be unreasonable to state that this is a "reasonably likely result"? It can't. Therefore, it is *not* a fallacy for me to point to the potential elimination of existing state benefits as a consequence of the gay marriage agenda.
And this is hardly the first time someone has presented that solution.
gbaji wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
I didn't get married for the tax benefits. Nor does anyone else that doesn't have a piece of living coal in the slight-left cavity of their chest.
And lots of people don't buy a home because there's an FHA first time home buyer program. But the existence of such absolutely increases the number of first time home buyers. People don't give to charity because there is a tax break for doing so. But the existence of the tax break absolutely increases the total amount of charitable giving society-wide.
Shall I go on?
People don't go to college because there's a college tuition assistance program. But the existence of said program will increase the number of people who go to college.
All of these make the decision more doable financially. Thus, something you might like to do becomes something you are more likely to do as a result of the programs existence.
Your analogies might make sense if there actually were tax breaks for married couples. Most people see little to no benefit when they file their taxes just because they are married.
Having a kid, now, that's a different story.
Another problem with your analogies is that some people actually do say, "Hey, there's a first time homebuyers tax credit! I think I'll buy my first home now instead of waiting!" People actually do say, "I'll give this money to charity as a tax deduction." People actually do say, "I will be able to go to college because of the college tuition assistance program."
No one says, "I'm going to get married for the sweet tax breaks!" No one says, "I'm having a kid so I can get money back on my taxes!"
Edited, Jan 22nd 2010 4:36pm by Belkira
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
There's a reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
No. There are cases in which the slippery slope is a fallacy. Specifically, a case where the end point cannot be said to be a reasonably likely result of the action being proposed.
Since a poster just said that we should eliminate state granted benefits to marriage as a solution to this problem, how can it be unreasonable to state that this is a "reasonably likely result"? It can't. Therefore, it is *not* a fallacy for me to point to the potential elimination of existing state benefits as a consequence of the gay marriage agenda.
And this is hardly the first time someone has presented that solution.
What are you talking about, Sweetums?? A POSTER suggested it. A poster. Now, that right there proves it might happen!
gbaji wrote:
And lots of people don't buy a home because there's an FHA first time home buyer program. But the existence of such absolutely increases the number of first time home buyers. People don't give to charity because there is a tax break for doing so. But the existence of the tax break absolutely increases the total amount of charitable giving society-wide.
Shall I go on?
Shall I go on?
Blah blah blah. I can't believe that even you would equate marriage (making a commitment to someone you love) to financial aid. You belch black smoke don't you?
Edited, Jan 22nd 2010 4:36pm by Kaelesh
At this point, I think we should just write a list of things that are more useful and likely to be successful than arguing with gbaji around same sex marriage. I'll start:
Teaching my cat to speak Spanish
Edited, Jan 22nd 2010 5:38pm by Annabella
Teaching my cat to speak Spanish
Edited, Jan 22nd 2010 5:38pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Recent Visitors: 394
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (394)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC