Conquer Club

daddy1gringo wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.

What a joke. I clearly took up your challenge, made the substitution as you requested, showing clearly how the substitution didn't work. It's not my fault that you continued to hold your hand over your eyes and declare exactly the opposite of what was clearly there. The statements, with the substitution, made absolutely no sense. Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

I haven't followed any of your discussion with BBS. However, being a "bigot" does not at all necessarily relate to race. One can be a bigot against any type of group.

(Note: I am NOT calling you a bigot, just disagreeing with what appears to be your use of the term.)

daddy1gringo wrote:Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

You need to insert the phrase "for legal purposes" after the term "marriage" in this sentence. That is the ultimate problem with ostensible small government conservatives making an argument against gay marriage. As I've stated close to 50 times in this forum, the debate over gay marriage is one of government recognition, not of the definition of marriage for religious or cultural purposes.

thegreekdog wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

You need to insert the phrase "for legal purposes" after the term "marriage" in this sentence. That is the ultimate problem with ostensible small government conservatives making an argument against gay marriage. As I've stated close to 50 times in this forum, the debate over gay marriage is one of government recognition, not of the definition of marriage for religious or cultural purposes.

To be fair, you should tell him that you're against recognizing Christian marriage too.

overall, you need to insert the phrase "for monetary benefit purposes" cuz that's what this is all about.

It's not about rights: that's impossible
It's not about love: love is more than a peace of paper

It's about not getting monetary benefits

Phatscotty wrote:overall, you need to insert the phrase "for monetary benefit purposes" cuz that's what this is all about.

It's not about rights: that's impossible
It's not about love: love is more than a peace of paper

It's about not getting monetary benefits

It's about being recognized as equal.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

You need to insert the phrase "for legal purposes" after the term "marriage" in this sentence. That is the ultimate problem with ostensible small government conservatives making an argument against gay marriage. As I've stated close to 50 times in this forum, the debate over gay marriage is one of government recognition, not of the definition of marriage for religious or cultural purposes.

To be fair, you should tell him that you're against recognizing Christian marriage too.

Okay.

daddy1gringo - I'm also against state recognition of Christian marriages (as well as all other religously-themed or non-religiously themed marriages).

Phatscotty wrote:overall, you need to insert the phrase "for monetary benefit purposes" cuz that's what this is all about.

It's not about rights: that's impossible
It's not about love: love is more than a peace of paper

It's about not getting monetary benefits

It's about equal application of the law; but let's assume it was about "for monetary benefit." So what?

I mean you (and I and a whole bunch of other people) go on and on about money and what the government should and shouldn't do with money... so why is gay marriage (if it was for money) different?

Phatscotty wrote:overall, you need to insert the phrase "for monetary benefit purposes" cuz that's what this is all about.

It's not about rights: that's impossible
It's not about love: love is more than a peace of paper

It's about not getting monetary benefits

Lol... Didn't know you were a mind reader PS.

Something to think about; we in NZ already had a civil union process which gave non-traditional (same sex, etc) civil unions equal protection under the law.

We just recently gave full marriage equality to everyone regardless of sexuality. The second bill has been far more celebrated than the first.

To me that implies that its about recognition (as Sym points out), not money.

I don't have a problem with it on a state level. If that's what a state wants to do, that's the way it will be.

The fiscal concern I have can be summed up with a question. Is now really the time to increase the roles of monetary benefits from the gov't (for whatever reason)? I understand the premise is "all other married people are getting those monetary benefits", but, perhaps that is a major reason (more and more and more gov't benefits) why we can't live within our means and must go into debt in the first place?

The institution of marriage is getting pimped for dollars. Yes, it has already been getting pimped in the past, but the overall question here is, if you ask me, "should we gorilla pimp marriage"

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:overall, you need to insert the phrase "for monetary benefit purposes" cuz that's what this is all about.

It's not about rights: that's impossible
It's not about love: love is more than a peace of paper

It's about not getting monetary benefits

Lol... Didn't know you were a mind reader PS.

Something to think about; we in NZ already had a civil union process which gave non-traditional (same sex, etc) civil unions equal protection under the law.

We just recently gave full marriage equality to everyone regardless of sexuality. The second bill has been far more celebrated than the first.

To me that implies that its about recognition (as Sym points out), not money.

None of the other arguments hold water

Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

Phatscotty wrote:as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

Huh?

Phatscotty wrote:overall, you need to insert the phrase "for monetary benefit purposes" cuz that's what this is all about.

It's not about rights: that's impossible
It's not about love: love is more than a peace of paper

It's about not getting monetary benefits

So, in economics, there's this concept called "symmetrical behavior" (IIRC, coined by James Buchanan).

When we analyze people in the market, we assume that they behave basically the same as those in the government (i.e. on the general level, they profit-maximize; they're well-intended; they're self-interested; they respond to incentives; both groups face scarcity, uncertainty, incomplete information, etc.).

So, if we apply this concept to gay marriage,
and if we took your stance,
then we must say, "both straight couples and gay couples pursue marriage because they both want to get the monetary benefits."

(which is wrong of course, but just sayin').

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:overall, you need to insert the phrase "for monetary benefit purposes" cuz that's what this is all about.

It's not about rights: that's impossible
It's not about love: love is more than a peace of paper

It's about not getting monetary benefits

Lol... Didn't know you were a mind reader PS.

Something to think about; we in NZ already had a civil union process which gave non-traditional (same sex, etc) civil unions equal protection under the law.

We just recently gave full marriage equality to everyone regardless of sexuality. The second bill has been far more celebrated than the first.

To me that implies that its about recognition (as Sym points out), not money.

Oh, don't be so culturally specific! The US Culture is totes different than the Kiwi Kultur, and human beings are in no way so similar. Fascist!

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

Fine a picture tells a thousand words:

Phatscotty wrote:The fiscal concern I have can be summed up with a question. Is now really the time to increase the roles of monetary benefits from the gov't (for whatever reason)?

This sounds a lot like "I got mine, so f*ck them".

Phatscotty wrote:The institution of marriage is getting pimped for dollars. Yes, it has already been getting pimped in the past, but the overall question here is, if you ask me, "should we gorilla pimp marriage"

This sounds a lot like "I got mine, so f*ck them".

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

I see some things haven't changed at all.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

I see some things haven't changed at all.

I am quite proud of myself for my reply to that post.

Phatscotty wrote:The fiscal concern I have can be summed up with a question. Is now really the time to increase the roles of monetary benefits from the gov't (for whatever reason)? I understand the premise is "all other married people are getting those monetary benefits", but, perhaps that is a major reason (more and more and more gov't benefits) why we can't live within our means and must go into debt in the first place?

Getting married can decrease the tax obligation an individual has to his or her government. You don't support people getting to pay less in taxes? You'd rather people can't get married, so that the government gets more money?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The fiscal concern I have can be summed up with a question. Is now really the time to increase the roles of monetary benefits from the gov't (for whatever reason)? I understand the premise is "all other married people are getting those monetary benefits", but, perhaps that is a major reason (more and more and more gov't benefits) why we can't live within our means and must go into debt in the first place?

Getting married can decrease the tax obligation an individual has to his or her government. You don't support people getting to pay less in taxes? You'd rather people can't get married, so that the government gets more money?

Some pay less, some pay more, some stay the same. So I can't answer your question that runs with the incorrect premise that all marriage = less taxes. Not to mention there are 1,100 other areas in law and tax code that are on the plate here

I think the government would pay out a lot more money, so I can't answer your second question either.



But I'm trying to let these guys have their own thread.

Lootifer wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

I see some things haven't changed at all.

I am quite proud of myself for my reply to that post.

Really? what was the point of the pride?? That what others hold dear to their heart trumps what all other hold dear to their hearts and we should change definitions? And I'm not sure you are qualified to speak for what everyone else "thinks". I just noted that your post is all about what I think or what I feel, and I don't see what that has to do with anything.

so, was that your point? or did I miss something?

u missed something

Lootifer wrote:u missed something

I asked wut

MY SECRET! /freedom