-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why would anyone be against gay marriage?
Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BeauJangles
Lifer
As you admitted, gay folks are denied rights extended to straight people based on the institution of marriage. Equal protection says that isn't constitutional. Why don't you direct me to the part of the constitution that allows you to deny rights to people just because you don't like them?
dainthomas
Lifer
This I can agree with.
It's just like the guy in the gym who had "white pride" tattooed on his calves. He can hold all the bigoted ignorant views he wants and I couldn't care less. But if he starts hassling minorities, I would definitely ask someone as huge as him to intevene.
Seriously, Spidey said that if we are poor we should go die because we contribute nothing, and if you are gay you don't deserve to be married.
Go read spidey.txt
Phokus, whether you agree with his approach or not, is just pointing out some talking points their representatives use.
Not that many Dems are better, but a few are.
In fact if I look at how much both parties representatives get from health care lobbyists, it sickens me.
tynopik, there are also tax breaks and subsidies for blind people, those who are over 65, and widowed spouses. Are you saying the government is encouraging people to be blind, age, and kill their spouse?
Your logic is that the tax benefits are used to "subsidize" certain behaviors. How does being blind or over 65 lead to a higher birth rate? How is it a trait or behavior the government wishes to see more of?
There are tax benefits if you had a casualty or loss. Is the government encouraging people to burn down their homes and steal from others?
Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that tax law is justification for denying equal rights to a subset of the population. Last time I checked, a snake-handling church can gain non-profit status just as easily as any other religious institution. Someone's tax or filing status is not a justification of a person's existence, rights, beliefs, or behavior.
The restriction of certain classes from marrying is not based on economic reasons. Neither was denying civil rights to minorities. On the contrary, using your own logic, (that a higher population and more children is better) the government would have constantly been SEEKING to bring minority populations into the fold.
Finally, how do you rectify your incredibly illogical beliefs in relation to abortion? Why is abortion legal if all the government wants to do is increase the population? Why don't they ban abortion, hand out viagra and wine, and allow porn in the town square? It'd be a lot easier to increase the population rate that way than relying on an archaic and complex tax system (which does NOT always reward someone for being married or having children) to have a trickle-down effect. Instead of giving out 3000 for a dependent exemption, spend 3k on beer, pills, and porn. Oh, by the way, if the purpose of marriage and the tax code is to create babies in stable homes then why are most tax credits and advantages phased out for people with higher AGIs?
you're confusing the moral argument with the legal argument
the moral argument is that they should get it for spousal immunity and immigration
the legal argument is quite clear. Marriage is not discrimination because it is based on behavior and not identity. Gays are perfectly free to perform the steps necessary to enter into a marriage and reap the benefits pertaining thereto
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Taxation is based on law. If we use your arguments then preventing gay marriage absolutely is a violation of the equal protection clause. It states rather simply that everyone is due equal protection under the law. Furthermore, no State can make or enforce a law (taxation is based on law) that abridges a privilege (marriage).
Finally, the State cannot deprive someone of liberty.
It doesn't even matter. Your argument was destroyed a long time ago in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. The fourteenth amendment clearly applies to homosexuals. It is a matter of time before tax and marriage law is found to violate that amendment. Homosexuals can already claim the child tax credit.
It is just a matter of time. Every generation is more tolerant. Who knows if its actually an advancement of our society, or simply a lack of care or remembrance of our past values.
The mass migration by the gay community to states which have already legalized gay marriage might help to expedite the process. A loss of tax revenue by those states standing in the way might help to make this less of an issue in politics.
The mass migration by the gay community to states which have already legalized gay marriage might help to expedite the process. A loss of tax revenue by those states standing in the way might help to make this less of an issue in politics.
there are different subsidies for different purposes
the purpose of the marriage subsidy is to encourage the making of babies and providing them a stable home
the purpose of subsidies to the blind is so they can live independently and be less of a burden on society
the purpose of subsidies to widowed spouses is to be another inducement to marriage . . . and because we're compassionate people and don't like to see little old people thrown out on the street
there are subsidies for marriage, but there are also subsidies for single mothers, because even though it's not the preferred situation, it's more important to give the child the best possible environment growing up
no, because there are laws against fraud
what rights are they being denied?
the right to receive a nice certificate from the government?
not at all times throughout history, but this is
the US has always had a very liberal immigration policy
because it only wants to provide positive reinforcement and doesn't want to step on anyone's rights?
you're free to have a baby or not have a baby, but here are some incentives to encourage you to get married and have a baby
i think that gets back to the 'stable home' part of the equation
alcoholism has a terrible impact on families
and porn encourages more masturbation than intercourse
because the size of the benefit is too small to have an impact on them, it would just be wasted
$1000 means a lot more to a family making $45k than one making $140k
and if you increased the size of the subsidy to have a proportionate impact, it would get too expensive and would quickly hit the point of negative ROI
Phokus
Lifer
Nate Silver built a model which predicts which when states would vote against a gay marriage ban.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...hold-gay-marriage.html
Considering he's one of the best statisticians out there (and one of the most accurate during this past election cycle), he holds a little more clout than your retarded ass.
false
and they do have equal protection
they don't
anyone is free to enter into marriage
you may not like what marriage is (man+woman), but you are nevertheless free to enter into it just as anyone else
that means put in jail
try again
yes, because that subsidy is based on a behavior, namely raising a child, that anyone can do
likewise, marriage is subsidy based on a behavior that anyone, even gays, can do
they are perfectly equal under the law and thus there is no violation of equal protection
here's an example that might help some of you understand this better
the government decides it wants to promote healthy eating, so it announces that it will give $1/day to every person that eats an apple that day
now i hate apples, it was in my genetics to hate apples so i can't help it plus i chose to hate apples of my own free will
are my equal protection rights being violated? no!
even though i hate apples, i could eat them if i wanted to
now there are certain places where this analogy breaks down like people who are allergic to apples (good luck proving you're allergic to the opposite sex 😉 ) or people in comas, but i hope it helps you to see that just because the government subsidizes a certain behavior that you don't care to engage in does NOT mean that it's unconstitutional
i could argue that eating oranges is just as healthy as eating apples, but in the end the government can subsidize whatever behavior it wants
the government decides it wants to promote healthy eating, so it announces that it will give $1/day to every person that eats an apple that day
now i hate apples, it was in my genetics to hate apples so i can't help it plus i chose to hate apples of my own free will
are my equal protection rights being violated? no!
even though i hate apples, i could eat them if i wanted to
now there are certain places where this analogy breaks down like people who are allergic to apples (good luck proving you're allergic to the opposite sex 😉 ) or people in comas, but i hope it helps you to see that just because the government subsidizes a certain behavior that you don't care to engage in does NOT mean that it's unconstitutional
i could argue that eating oranges is just as healthy as eating apples, but in the end the government can subsidize whatever behavior it wants
Which does nothing to prove your point about the intention of each one.
So why does the IRS allow divorced couples to transfer the dependent exemption from the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent? That doesn't make any sense.
What subsidy? A higher standard deduction? That doesn't allow them to live independently. If the focus was independence there wouldn't be a way for someone to claim them as a dependent and benefit. Is this "subsidy" as you call it encouraging people to age or go blind? You didn't answer. That's your logic.
No one is going to be thrown out on the street with the difference between HOH and QWF. Furthermore, that exemption applies for all of two years. Hardly "subsidizing" the behavior you claim it does. I've noticed you cannot answer any of the questions I've asked and you dodge the logical fallacies that I've pointed out in your posts.
Which is why if that single mother has a dispute with the baby's father over who gets to claim the child(and the baby spends equal time with each) the government gives it to the person with MORE income. How does your logic even begin to answer that? So the way to give the child the best environment is give the exemption to the rich father? WTF? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Which has nothing to do with if a subsidy encourages a behavior or not. There are laws against murder but a guy walking down the street is more likely to shoot someone if I pay him 10,000 dollars than if I ask him to do it for free.
The right to equal protection under the law.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You don't have a scintilla of evidence for your argument and it is not logically sound.
Which is why visa applications from Mexico and the Philippines have not even reached the 1990's yet. You don't even know what you are talking about. I work with legal immigrants everyday. My wife is a legal permanent resident from another country. The U.S.'s immigration policy is anything but liberal. Bewildering? Confusing? Illogical? Discriminatory? Absolutely. If our immigration law is liberal then why are there caps on the number of many different visas?
Abortion being "legal" is a recent phenomenon and certainly does not predate the ability to file MFJ or adopt a child.
If you are actually stupid enough to think that people have children for tax breaks then you must be about 12 years old. Do you have any idea how much it costs to raise a child? Do you actually think that a 3k exemption or a 1500 dollar credit makes up for the amount of money a parent must spend? BTW, you keep making the claim that being married is some type of incentive. For many people, getting married does not improve their economic status. In fact, in many cases, it hinders it. A little increaes in the standard deduction doesn't make up having a second mouth to feed if your wife stays at home (mine does not) or bills going up. If you are well-off and single, why take the risk of having your assets divided?
Using viagra or drinking wine has nothing to do with a stable home. Can you prove that a couple that drinks wine once a month or a man with ED provides a less stable home? I didn't think so.
Again, I must assume you are 12. Since when did having a few glasses of wine equate to alcoholism?
Yep, you are 12 -- and a virgin to boot. If you don't think couples (especially married ones) watch or use pornography then you are both naive and stupid.
So why can non-custodial parents claim a child as a dependent over the custodial parent? Why when there is a dispute does the parent with the higher income get to claim the exemption? You can't explain it because it doesn't fit your absurd logic. You've yet to make a salient point or even come close to providing evidence for your claims. If the government wants to encourage child birth then why do they only offer a few thousand dollars to pay for something that costs HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. Have you ever even worked a day in your life or taken care of a child?
Taxation is based on the law. As Lawrence v. Texas showed, you cannot selectively enforce a law based on sexual orientation. If you consider my premise to be false then prove it. I already provided evidence to my claim (Lawrence v. Texas, 14th Amendment, etc).
No, they don't as they are not allowed to marry.
Not a marriage recognized by the state.
Several states differ with you and recognize that marriage can be between people of the same sex. The USSC has considered discrimination based on sexual orientation to be unconstitutional several times (Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, etc)
BTW, I'm not free to enter into marriage. I'm married. I'd have to get a divorce first.
Uh, it does but it also means a lot of other things:
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
You might want to read something by Hobbes or Mill as well as our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution and then get back to me. Liberty encompasses quite a bit more than not being incarcerated.
When you dismiss a valid argument without one of your own you are conceding the point. I don't have to try again -- I have a valid argument that you provided zero rebuttal for.
Again, your argument is not logical. 5 year olds cannot marry. Married people cannot legally marry another Spouse. Homosexuals (with a few exceptions) are prohibited from marrying it many places. A person in a coma cannot marry unless consent was given prior to their current state.
Either you are a troll, incredibly moronic, or bored. How can you keep saying homosexuals are free to marry when they very clearly lack that privilege or right in most States? Are you just a dumbfuck that went to Liberty U and sucked Falwell's dick after digging up his bloated corpse?
I've shredded all your arguments and you've yet to provide any type of even remotely tangential rebuttal. At this point you've conceded all your points. You can keep posting and writing the same thing over and over, but anyone can do that. When you are ready to actually engage someone in debate let the forum know. At this point you've been utterly devoured and ridiculed. You are probably obstinate enough to consider that a victory -- I'm sure that's what you've been taught.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
Nobody argues with Mill. He usually wins. :laugh:
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
This. I've never seen so many people act so hateful, and bigoted, while crying about other people being hateful, and bigoted.
The way I see it, if gays were offered a civil union with all the same rights as a marriage, some would take it, but a lot would not, seems they just want to be able to call it marriage to "stick it to the man", and that reeks of agenda.
i'm not here to argue about the reasoning behind every single subsidy the government makes
i can appreciate that you're trying to cover every topic except gay marriage, but this is the gay marriage thread, in case you hadn't noticed
i will make one point about subsidies since you seem to be confused. some are designed to encourage behavior (marriage, savers credit, etc), others are designed to help people cope with devastating losses, losses that are so bad that no one except a few nutjobs would intentionally inflict on themselves just to get the subsidy
the difference is so obvious, even a tard could see it
that said, i'm truly sorry i ever engaged you on such topics, my apologies for helping to derail the thread
i will henceforth try to make amends, starting now
nope, once again, they are perfectly free to enter into marriage, nothing stopping them
they don't have the children to GET the taxbreaks, the taxbreaks allow them to get the children they already want
as you said, children are expensive, so expensive some can't afford it without help
again, of course not
but it does help to make it more affordable, which makes it more likely for couples to do it
in the vast majority of cases it helps it
a simple google search told me the answer in 2 minutes
you might try it some time
No because you have the legal ability to get food stamps if you are poor. Did you really try to make this argument earlier and I missed it? How asinine and sophomoric. Rational-basis test. It is rational and legitimate for the government to not give food stamps to rich people.
Marriage is not a benefit.
marriage is not based on sexual orientation
it does not require any sexual activity at all
thus there is no equal protection problem
yes they can marry
sure they can
true, but irrelevant to whether banning gay marriage is unconstitutional
and again marriage is not discriminatory based on sexual orientation
gays are perfectly free to enter into marriage
yup
marriage is a subsidy based on a behavior. you have to follow the rules to get the benefit
but the key is anyone can follow the rules
fine, but it doesn't include the right to get money from the government
here's my rebuttal:
gays are allowed to enter into marriage so they aren't being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference
eat it
law has always recognized that minors don't have full rights
just like you can't claim the same deduction twice
no they're not
it would be better to say they can't be forced into a marriage without their consent
because they can?
i'm sure someone here would be happy to provide a complete list of all gay republicans who are married
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
God you're dumb. Marriage used to be an exchange of property for fuck's sake. You really want to turn back the clock on feminism a thousand years? Maybe we should re-institute slavery while we're at it, after all, it's endorsed in the Bible. Or maybe you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
tynopik, do you actually think that repeating what you have already said multiple times is debate? Do you think that repeating something suddenly makes it logical, rational, and interesting?
You somehow think you have a neat and inventive argument when in reality you are simply repeating yourself at full volume.
IF and only IF you actually wish to UNDERSTAND the actual arguments here then I suggest you go somewhere where this has all been discussed at a much higher level:
http://volokh.com/posts/1251839249.shtml
I think you will see that there is more than a little disagreement on whether or not the government has a rational basis for allowing or disallowing certain classes or orientations to marry or obtain benefits. In furtherance of that point, I shall leave this thread and allow others to read my link. You did an incredibly piss-poor job of developing your argument and responding to others. I can only hope that those who have a real interest in this debate decide to ignore you.
You somehow think you have a neat and inventive argument when in reality you are simply repeating yourself at full volume.
IF and only IF you actually wish to UNDERSTAND the actual arguments here then I suggest you go somewhere where this has all been discussed at a much higher level:
http://volokh.com/posts/1251839249.shtml
I think you will see that there is more than a little disagreement on whether or not the government has a rational basis for allowing or disallowing certain classes or orientations to marry or obtain benefits. In furtherance of that point, I shall leave this thread and allow others to read my link. You did an incredibly piss-poor job of developing your argument and responding to others. I can only hope that those who have a real interest in this debate decide to ignore you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
