|
On August 31 2011 23:25 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 23:16 j0k3r wrote:
They dont want hand outs they want equality under the law. Besides tax breaks there are a slew of other rights married couples have, such as ability to make medical decisions when the other party is incapacitated, have next of kin rights, inheritance in lieu of a living will, etc. These things are common sense to grant to all married couples gay or straight. Government must be involved in provisioning these things to prevent corporations, hospitals, lawyers and other entities from denying benefits to gay couples. Having marriage completely religious and unrecognized or protected by government would severely discriminate against gay couples in many instances. Some like tax breaks shouldn't exist, and others like next of kin rights should be a contract between two people. Government doesn't have to be involved in this at all. There should be no benefits in the first place, so gay couples will be denied them and so should straight couples as well.
And who enforces a contract between two people that affects far more than two people? Right we need to deny all logical sensible benefits to all couples such as the long list written above. Great society if you were prez.
|
On August 31 2011 15:34 dOofuS wrote:
These kinds of arguments disturb me. You quote scripture yet don't understand its meaning other than to serve your argument. Christ is basically saying you can't buy your way into heaven. How does that have anything to do with obtaining material wealth? You can be rich, and be a good person. You don't have to be poor to get into heaven.
.
Likewise, this sort of response disturbs me. Matthew 19:16-24:
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’"
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
I don't think many modern Christian scholars would say that this rich man was condemned to Hell, but clearly the point of lines 21-24 is that Christians should give any possessions/wealth beyond what they actually need to live to the poor. A government based around biblical law (which most Republicans seem to want) wouldn't cut welfare programs in order to let the rich keep a higher percent of their income.
|
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
|
On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point?
|
On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
I also have a suspicion (purely speculative) that these incentives are one factor contributing to the rising divorce rates. If all these benefits incentivize couples that would otherwise not marry to get married, those couples are probably more likely to get a divorce later (since their relationship alone wasn't good enough to convince them to marry otherwise), when a few years in they realize that the amount if work such a relationship takes outweighs the tax status, healthcare benefits, etc.
|
On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point?
My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious.
|
On September 01 2011 00:23 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
I also have a suspicion (purely speculative) that these incentives are one factor contributing to the rising divorce rates. If all these benefits incentivize couples that would otherwise not marry to get married, those couples are probably more likely to get a divorce later (since their relationship alone wasn't good enough to convince them to marry otherwise), when a few years in they realize that the amount if work such a relationship takes outweighs the tax status, healthcare benefits, etc.
If they're only getting married for the benefits, who cares if they get a divorce? I was in the Army, and saw tons of contract marriages. Generally nobody got hurt at the end of them, which is a lot more than you can say when a "real" marriage falls apart.
The benefits were insane, though. He's not exaggerating about the extra income. For some ranks, it actually more than doubles what you get.
And what work does being married according to a piece of paper to get benefits actually entail?
I knew guys that only saw their wife about once a month. Not like you have to have a physical or emotional relationship to get a piece of paper.
|
On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point? My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious.
Some rights marriage gives you:
"right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent"
"right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will"
"right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child"
"right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health"
"right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries"
"right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her"
...yeah, let's just do away with all of that.
|
On September 01 2011 00:33 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:23 Signet wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
I also have a suspicion (purely speculative) that these incentives are one factor contributing to the rising divorce rates. If all these benefits incentivize couples that would otherwise not marry to get married, those couples are probably more likely to get a divorce later (since their relationship alone wasn't good enough to convince them to marry otherwise), when a few years in they realize that the amount if work such a relationship takes outweighs the tax status, healthcare benefits, etc. If they're only getting married for the benefits, who cares if they get a divorce? I was in the Army, and saw tons of contract marriages. Generally nobody got hurt at the end of them, which is a lot more than you can say when a "real" marriage falls apart. The benefits were insane, though. He's not exaggerating about the extra income. For some ranks, it actually more than doubles what you get. And what work does being married according to a piece of paper to get benefits actually entail? I knew guys that only saw their wife about once a month. Not like you have to have a physical or emotional relationship to get a piece of paper.
Personally, I care very little what the divorce rate is. However, people out there who are concerned about the "sanctity of marriage" might want to consider whether these policies lead to couples whose marriage is unlikely to last jumping into a marriage for legal reasons without really thinking it through.
My post was more about people in a relationship who might be "on the fence" about marriage being incentivized by the benefits, not about the people in a relationship-in-name-only who use marriage purely as a profitable enterprise.
|
On September 01 2011 00:39 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point? My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious. Some rights marriage gives you: "right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent" "right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will" "right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child" "right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health" "right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries" "right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her" ...yeah, let's just do away with all of that.
"An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable.
These tactics are purposefully designed to seduce those who are not well informed on a given topic. A clever writer or speaker may use the either/or fallacy to make his idea look better when compared to an even worse one. This type of selective contrast is also a form of stacking the deck. This type of argument violates the principles of civil discourse: arguments should enlighten people, making them more knowledgeable and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. "
|
On September 01 2011 00:33 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:23 Signet wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
I also have a suspicion (purely speculative) that these incentives are one factor contributing to the rising divorce rates. If all these benefits incentivize couples that would otherwise not marry to get married, those couples are probably more likely to get a divorce later (since their relationship alone wasn't good enough to convince them to marry otherwise), when a few years in they realize that the amount if work such a relationship takes outweighs the tax status, healthcare benefits, etc. If they're only getting married for the benefits, who cares if they get a divorce? I was in the Army, and saw tons of contract marriages. Generally nobody got hurt at the end of them, which is a lot more than you can say when a "real" marriage falls apart. The benefits were insane, though. He's not exaggerating about the extra income. For some ranks, it actually more than doubles what you get. And what work does being married according to a piece of paper to get benefits actually entail? I knew guys that only saw their wife about once a month. Not like you have to have a physical or emotional relationship to get a piece of paper.
These are arguments against that particular type of incentives for marriage for sure. However it doesn't necessarily mean marriage shouldn't have some incentive. Marriage onlong strictly religious grounds certainly should not be supported by the government, however a good deal of research would have to be done before we could suggest the current model we have for marriage is actually bad for society.
|
On September 01 2011 00:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:39 Grumbels wrote:On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point? My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious. Some rights marriage gives you: "right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent" "right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will" "right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child" "right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health" "right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries" "right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her" ...yeah, let's just do away with all of that. "An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable. These tactics are purposefully designed to seduce those who are not well informed on a given topic. A clever writer or speaker may use the either/or fallacy to make his idea look better when compared to an even worse one. This type of selective contrast is also a form of stacking the deck. This type of argument violates the principles of civil discourse: arguments should enlighten people, making them more knowledgeable and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. "
Defining what benefits marriage currently provides in a thread about marriage still provides some enlightenment. I'd hardly think you can discredit his entire post with a statement about how his execution is poor. It is not a stretch to interpret his post as one that says "Here are some benefits to marriage, do you honestly think this is so bad?"
Remember you are on an internet forum and most people are not trained debaters. Some interpretation is required if you wish to understand the real point of a persons statement without creating a circular argument with your replies.
Which is not to say his post is good, but it is an opinion on no less of a level than those advocating against marriage.
|
On September 01 2011 01:06 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:39 Grumbels wrote:On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point? My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious. Some rights marriage gives you: "right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent" "right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will" "right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child" "right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health" "right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries" "right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her" ...yeah, let's just do away with all of that. "An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable. These tactics are purposefully designed to seduce those who are not well informed on a given topic. A clever writer or speaker may use the either/or fallacy to make his idea look better when compared to an even worse one. This type of selective contrast is also a form of stacking the deck. This type of argument violates the principles of civil discourse: arguments should enlighten people, making them more knowledgeable and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. " Defining what benefits marriage currently provides in a thread about marriage still provides some enlightenment. I'd hardly think you can discredit his entire post with a statement about how his execution is poor. It is not a stretch to interpret his post as one that says "Here are some benefits to marriage, do you honestly think this is so bad?" Remember you are on an internet forum and most people are not trained debaters. Some interpretation is required if you wish to understand the real point of a persons statement without creating a circular argument with your replies. Which is not to say his post is good, but it is an opinion on no less of a level than those advocating against marriage.
Except if he scrolled literally a couple lines up he would see my post where I explain my position exactly. I said that many of the benefits should be eliminated, but the good ones, the ones that are actually important, can be established with a simple legal contract, or perhaps we don't need a contract at all, in the same manner that common-law marriages are used to achieve the same benefits.
Maybe he decided to completely ignore my previous post because he couldn't make such a fallacious argument against it, or maybe he simply doesn't read posts more than two lines long... I'm not sure. But applying an either/or fallacy, saying basically "Either we have to keep marriage exactly the way it is now or we have to scrap everything!" is simply a ridiculous argument.
|
On September 01 2011 00:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:39 Grumbels wrote:On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point? My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious. Some rights marriage gives you: "right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent" "right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will" "right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child" "right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health" "right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries" "right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her" ...yeah, let's just do away with all of that. "An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable. These tactics are purposefully designed to seduce those who are not well informed on a given topic. A clever writer or speaker may use the either/or fallacy to make his idea look better when compared to an even worse one. This type of selective contrast is also a form of stacking the deck. This type of argument violates the principles of civil discourse: arguments should enlighten people, making them more knowledgeable and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. "
How do you think you can get all those legal rights without some form of government law? You can't have a contract between two people that does all of that.
|
On September 01 2011 00:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point?
My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious.
Some rights marriage gives you:
"right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent"
"right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will"
"right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child"
"right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health"
"right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries"
"right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her"
...yeah, let's just do away with all of that.
"An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable. These tactics are purposefully designed to seduce those who are not well informed on a given topic. A clever writer or speaker may use the either/or fallacy to make his idea look better when compared to an even worse one. This type of selective contrast is also a form of stacking the deck. This type of argument violates the principles of civil discourse: arguments should enlighten people, making them more knowledgeable and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. "
QFFT. 99% of political discussions result in someone making an outrageous claim that there are only 2 possible outcomes/solutions for a problem.
Combine this with the people who think that REP or DEM next to someone's name can tell you ANYTHING about how well they would actually run a country. I get so sick of the Team Red versus Team Blue crap that stirs up in this country every 4 years. I'd wish we'd stop living in the dark ages when it comes to political choices. Turd sandwich or a giant douche?
I'd be curious to see which candidate on either side people would choose based on policies/experience alone and not some meaningless label that someone slapped on them.
Imagine a voting booth that just asked your opinion on social/economic issues instead of what talking head puppet nut-job you've heard the least crazy stories about.
|
On September 01 2011 01:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 01:06 Tor wrote:On September 01 2011 00:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:39 Grumbels wrote:On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point? My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious. Some rights marriage gives you: "right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent" "right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will" "right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child" "right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health" "right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries" "right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her" ...yeah, let's just do away with all of that. "An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable. These tactics are purposefully designed to seduce those who are not well informed on a given topic. A clever writer or speaker may use the either/or fallacy to make his idea look better when compared to an even worse one. This type of selective contrast is also a form of stacking the deck. This type of argument violates the principles of civil discourse: arguments should enlighten people, making them more knowledgeable and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. " Defining what benefits marriage currently provides in a thread about marriage still provides some enlightenment. I'd hardly think you can discredit his entire post with a statement about how his execution is poor. It is not a stretch to interpret his post as one that says "Here are some benefits to marriage, do you honestly think this is so bad?" Remember you are on an internet forum and most people are not trained debaters. Some interpretation is required if you wish to understand the real point of a persons statement without creating a circular argument with your replies. Which is not to say his post is good, but it is an opinion on no less of a level than those advocating against marriage. Except if he scrolled literally a couple lines up he would see my post where I explain my position exactly. I said that many of the benefits should be eliminated, but the good ones, the ones that are actually important, can be established with a simple legal contract, or perhaps we don't need a contract at all, in the same manner that common-law marriages are used to achieve the same benefits. Maybe he decided to completely ignore my previous post because he couldn't make such a fallacious argument against it, or maybe he simply doesn't read posts more than two lines long... I'm not sure. But applying an either/or fallacy, saying basically "Either we have to keep marriage exactly the way it is now or we have to scrap everything!" is simply a ridiculous argument.
LOOK AT THE LIST HE POSTED. Most of those rights can only be the result of a law, NOT of a contract between two people.
|
Looks like Obama wants to lay out his jobs plan at a joint session of congress during the republican debate next Wednesday. What an asshole. He could have picked any other day.
|
On September 01 2011 01:13 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 00:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:39 Grumbels wrote:On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 01 2011 00:22 MozzarellaL wrote:On September 01 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This reminds me, when I was in the Army.... They would give you huge benefits, essentially DOUBLE your income for lower enlisted soldiers, if you were to get married. I knew gay guys who were marrying gay women, I knew straight guys who were marrying strippers and splitting the benefits, there were all kinds of ridiculous abuse because there were such strong incentives for people to get married.
If you remove those benefits and incentives, then the need for getting married to reach legal "equality" becomes non-existent. Most of the benefits on the long list above can and should easily be eliminated. The rest of them which are actually good ideas can easily be set with a simple contract between two people, a contract that has nothing at all to do with a persons religion or sexuality or anything else for that matter.
If you want true equality under the law, you have to make a clear distinction between legal institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way to do it.
Marriage is a legal institution today. What's your point? My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious. Some rights marriage gives you: "right to status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent" "right to inheritance automatically in the absence of a will" "right to bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child" "right to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health" "right to immigration and residency for partners from other countries" "right to decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her" ...yeah, let's just do away with all of that. "An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable. These tactics are purposefully designed to seduce those who are not well informed on a given topic. A clever writer or speaker may use the either/or fallacy to make his idea look better when compared to an even worse one. This type of selective contrast is also a form of stacking the deck. This type of argument violates the principles of civil discourse: arguments should enlighten people, making them more knowledgeable and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. " How do you think you can get all those legal rights without some form of government law? You can't have a contract between two people that does all of that.
Actually, in the US, you can grant what's called a Power of Attorney, giving someone specific or general power to use your name. It's kind of a pain in the ass, but it's doable.
|
On September 01 2011 02:04 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Obama wants to lay out his jobs plan at a joint session of congress during the republican debate next Wednesday. What an asshole. He could have picked any other day.
I think the GOP debate is after the POTUS speech. Although that is somewhat splitting hairs; the timing is obviously an attempt to steal GOP candidates' thunder which I suppose is an assholish thing to do if you believe that candidates shouldn't use media tactics but instead rely solely on honest portrayal of relevant issues. (the funny thing is, I think this will end up causing more people to watch the debate than otherwise would. Although given how hard right the candidates have to run to win the primary, especially on social issues, that could be the administration's strategy)
Weighing Obama using the pulpit for campaign tactics versus Republicans in congress refusing to pass a budget until minutes after the shutdown deadline and refusing to raise the debt ceiling until just before default - tactically doing things to hurt the president that also introduce uncertainty into the economy - along with the birther nonsense, "death panels" scare tactics, and fear mongering about American Muslims that some of these very candidates have engaged in - there are two wholly different levels of assholishness on display here.
|
On September 01 2011 02:04 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Obama wants to lay out his jobs plan at a joint session of congress during the republican debate next Wednesday. What an asshole. He could have picked any other day.
No surprise, he's a shrewd politician.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
