Obama-Marriage Debate - Alpharetta, GA

Marriage is a contract between two people.

Gay marriage is just as good as traditional marriage...Nontraditional marriage does not mean bad.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
If I am to be consistent with my previous response concerning equality, no, it would "not be able to be denied to siblings based on genetics/lineage", as you love spouting constantly. Nor did I ever say anything which said it WOULD be denied, so again, your attacking position is a bit out of context.

Well, at least I'll grant you that you are one of the few who will admit that if you truly want marriage equality, you ahve to allow polygamy and sibling marriage.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
And I'm sorry, we're not voting on polygamy or incestual marriages, are we?

Nope. Those are already not allowed. Just as gay marriage is not in 38 states.

So we aren't voting on gay marriage either.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text> Stop presenting a "slippery slope" deformation of the actual issue that's being discussed, which is the right of homosexual partners to marry,

There is no slippery slope. If gay marriage is allowed you HAVE to allow sibling marriage and polygamy or you are denying people their rights.
Are you OK with denying people their rights?

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm tired of your argument. You're refusing to address the actual reason why you stand against homosexual marriage by presenting an argument that's completely based on extrapolation, and the only other reason you've provided is because you don't want to pay taxes to promote equality.

Paying taxes won't help. We are already deep in debt and continue running deficits. I've stated my opposition against gay marriage. If you want to be in a gay relationship, more power to you. I don't care. Just don't ask me to encourage it with taxpayer money.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
And judging by your comment record, you also seem to live in a huge amount of cities across the United States! Fascinating! You must have to move a lot to spread your bigotry on such a great level.

You are really an odd person. You think that to post a message on a message board, you have to be in the same town with other posters in the town? THIS IS THE INTERNET, MORON.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
Stay out of my town and its poll. Your views aren't wanted here.

I have no intention in visiting your town. And I will post where I like, thank you.

datruth wrote:

Gay marriage is just as good as traditional marriage...Nontraditional marriage does not mean bad.

Good to know that you also support sibling marriage and polygamy.

If you don't you are a bigot and did not mean what you posted.

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
You are really an odd person. You think that to post a message on a message board, you have to be in the same town with other posters in the town? THIS IS THE INTERNET, MORON.

If you didn't realize that the sentences surrounding "Fascinating!" were obvious sarcasm - PAINFULLY obvious sarcasm, then you're the moron. I mean, seriously. I was poking fun at the fact that you're skipping all over the country's topics just to spread your idiocy.
.
Your entire argument is based on denying gay marriage because, if it were allowed, you say that then the rights of other groups would be denied.
.
This makes no fucking sense.
.
If you have five boys, give three of them lollipop, and the fourth complains and you give him one too, you aren't doing the fifth a fucking injustice. And the fifth not having one is not a legitimate reason for not giving the fourth one.
.
You're acting righteous and calling others bigots for "supressing rights!", but aren't you the bigot in the first place for being opposed to giving them? Your entire tirade is literally just based around trying to expose supposed "hypocrisy" - because if we give the GAY people lollipops like all the STRAIGHT people, we'll just have to give lollipops to the POLYGAMISTS and the SIBLINGS as well! Fuck that! I'm not gonna pay for their government lollipops!
.
Do you have any idea how retarded your argument sounds to me?

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Good to know that you also support sibling marriage and polygamy.
If you don't you are a bigot and did not mean what you posted.

Well, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
.
Listen.
.
You're arguing based on a position which you ASSUME your opposition would take - that "gay marriage is great, but other marriages are icky". You're trying to say to them that if they want to allow gay marriages, not allowing the so-called "icky" marriages is injust (as it would be), therefore proving their position wrong. But I've consistently told you, time and time again, that I don't fucking HAVE that position. Assuming I do is erroneous, and therefore, so is what you're saying against me. This is why your argument is completely illogical.
.
I have nothing against providing equality, and stated this extremely clearly. I even said that the polygamists/siblings would be, and should be, given the same rights. So what the fuck are you even arguing now? You're constantly implying that I don't want to give the lollipop to the fifth guy, when I've literally said that despite what my preferences are, giving the lollipop to the fifth guy is the only equal option.
.
Arguing with me because you think I take the position you state, even when it blatantly contradicts what I said, is MORONIC. I've already told you that, if equality were to be blind, it would allow polygamous/etc. marriages. I am not denying this. I am not afraid of this. The position you are trying to apply to me assumes that I think gay marriages are fine, but that I immediately feel that polygamous/etc. marriages are "immoral" or "wrong", and that allowing them is a bad thing. But doesn't this say more about YOUR bigotry and YOUR assumptions than it does on whatever you perceive as MINE? You projecting your own assumptions onto me, which misrepresents my argument completely, and then fighting against that misrepresentation, is called the STRAW MAN FALLACY. Look it the fuck up.
.
How can I possibly make it more clear?
.
I am not denying anyone's rights, nor am I denying other groups by wanting to give the right to a previously denied group. I just want gays to be able to get fucking married. Is that so bad?

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Good to know that you also support sibling marriage and polygamy.
If you don't you are a bigot and did not mean what you posted.

How are those two even related?

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
If you didn't realize that the sentences surrounding "Fascinating!" were obvious sarcasm - PAINFULLY obvious sarcasm, then you're the moron. I mean, seriously. I was poking fun at the fact that you're skipping all over the country's topics just to spread your idiocy.

Having read your posts, there is no reason for me to assume something stupid that you said is sarcasm.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
Your entire argument is based on denying gay marriage because, if it were allowed, you say that then the rights of other groups would be denied.
.
This makes no fucking sense.
.
If you have five boys, give three of them lollipop, and the fourth complains and you give him one too, you aren't doing the fifth a fucking injustice. And the fifth not having one is not a legitimate reason for not giving the fourth one.

Unless having a lollipop is a "right" (which is the only reason you would HAVE to give #4 a lollipop).

Unless, that is, you don't really care about equality but just want your kid (#4) to get free stuff.

BTW, using "fucking" not only makes you sound smart AND tough, it really strengthens your argument.(Yes, THAT was sarcasm)

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
You're acting righteous and calling others bigots for "supressing rights!", but aren't you the bigot in the first place for being opposed to giving them?

Nope. Because I recognize that marriage is NOT a right. IF I were to claim it was a right, then I would have to include anyone who claimed they were in some sort of marriage.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
. But I've consistently told you, time and time again, that I don't fucking HAVE that position. Assuming I do is erroneous, and therefore, so is what you're saying against me. This is why your argument is completely illogical.
.
I have nothing against providing equality, and stated this extremely clearly. I even said that the polygamists/siblings would be, and should be, given the same rights. So what the fuck are you even arguing now?

As you have pointed out, I am on several threads. Despite your inflated ego, I simply don't care enough to remember what your specific position is on the topic. I respond to posts.

If you are also in support of polygamy/incestuous marriage, at least you are consistent.

Illogical for supporting any of the three since the gov't will have to pay benefits but get nothing in return) and certainly not a long-term thinker of good steward of our gov't resources, but consistent.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
The position you are trying to apply to me assumes that I think gay marriages are fine, but that I immediately feel that polygamous/etc. marriages are "immoral" or "wrong", and that allowing them is a bad thing.

Because that is the stance most pro-gay-marriages poster take and you simply aren't important enough to remember that you are the one who just wants to more quickly bankrupt the country (Obama, is that you?)

Sean wrote:

<quoted text> I just want gays to be able to get fucking married. Is that so bad?

Except that you don't. Getting married isn't the issue at all. You don't need gov't endorsement to make that commitment and get that recognition in your community. You want them to have the FINANCIAL BENEFITS that the taxpayers provide.

datruth wrote:

<quoted text>
How are those two even related?

Because polygamy and incestuous marriages are "nontraditional marriage", which you said are not bad.

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Despite your inflated ego, I simply don't care enough to remember what your specific position is on the topic.

.
Oh, this is gold. So you're perfectly willing to keep arguing with me fruitlessly, even when I've told you exactly why I consider your argument morally bogus and have proven why it is using common fallacies.
.

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
[...] since the gov't will have to pay benefits but get nothing in return [...]

.
I'm sorry, what? What? Are you even aware of what taxes do? To quote Robin Hood: "Gay couples are already taxed double for the $467,562 marriage benefit package [paying] as two single individuals [because the government does not recognize them as a couple]; but they get nothing in return [federal benefit]."
.
Since when does our government do anything without "getting something first"? Of course you have to pay taxes for something you want. Ironically, you're complaining about how taxpayers would be forced to pay even more by having the government recognizing these marriages, but then simultaneously claiming that the government will get nothing in return from those that they benefit. Again. Taxes. I'm sure you've paid them at least once.
.

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
[...] and certainly not a long-term thinker of good steward of our gov't resources, but consistent.[...]

.
Why thank you.
.

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
[...] You simply aren't important enough [for me] to remember that you are the one who just wants to more quickly bankrupt the country (Obama, is that you?)[...]

.
Your Republican jibe at Obama aside, I see no reason for why anything I'm saying would "bankrupt the country". And again, stating that I'm "not important enough" to remember what I've said is blatantly admitting to your own error. You seem to not even care that what you're saying can be legitimately refused.
.
Let me wrap up by seeing things your way. You're saying - correctly, albeit slightly unfairly - that allowing gay couples to be federally recognized will make the government lose money, as the couples would then be recognized as one couple being taxed, not two people. From the way I see it, the simple fact of not being recognized as a couple creates unbelievable hurdles that they must go through just to be able to file their federal and state tax returns. There are so many exemptions for straight couples - such as the gift tax - that gay couples are extremely worse off in financial matters, just because their government refuses to recognize them. Is this fair to those people? Are you content with having them jump through hoops just to pay the same taxes you have to?

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Oh, this is gold. So you're perfectly willing to keep arguing with me fruitlessly, even when I've told you exactly why I consider your argument morally bogus and have proven why it is using common fallacies.

Sure. Since you aren't wiling to admit that there is no "slippery slope" invovled, I will continue to drive the point home.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry, what? What? Are you even aware of what taxes do? To quote Robin Hood: "Gay couples are already taxed double for the $467,562 marriage benefit package [paying] as two single individuals [because the government does not recognize them as a couple]; but they get nothing in return [federal benefit]."

They are not taxed double. They are taxed just as single people, siblings, and most of the members of a polygamist marriage are.

And you are whining about a $467 thousand dollar discrepancy compared to a $277 BILLION expense?

Really?

You think $457K of additional income and $200,000,000K more in expenses HELP balance the checkbook?

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when does our government do anything without "getting something first"? Of course you have to pay taxes for something you want. Ironically, you're complaining about how taxpayers would be forced to pay even more by having the government recognizing these marriages, but then simultaneously claiming that the government will get nothing in return from those that they benefit. Again. Taxes. I'm sure you've paid them at least once.

So please explain how single people benefit from gay marriage. They will be paying many of those additional taxes.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
From the way I see it, the simple fact of not being recognized as a couple creates unbelievable hurdles that they must go through just to be able to file their federal and state tax returns.

Wow, could you be more of a drama queen? "unbelievable hurdles"?

So how do roommates manage it??? How do people who are dating manage it?

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
There are so many exemptions for straight couples - such as the gift tax - that gay couples are extremely worse off in financial matters, just because their government refuses to recognize them. Is this fair to those people?

Yes. Most years I run through the taxes for my wife and I filing separately and jointly. Honestly, it isn't that hard (and the difference is usually insignificant). Certainly not as hard as you seem to think it is.

Okay, listen. I'm tired of arguing with you. It is extremely obvious that neither of us is going to back down in any sense, or submit to the arguments or standpoints of the other. Even you have to admit this makes it pointless.
.
I support gay marriage because I want them to have equality, and I'm frustrated with the majority of the largely religious American population which seems to find no fault in treating a large minority group as second-class citizens. Discrimination against homosexuals is just as legitimate as discrimination against women or African-Americans, and the opposition towards the latter groups in the past has been remarkably similar to what we see now regarding the former (those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, much?). The fact that your arguments only cover things from a financial perspective shows me that, while you are fiscally active and intelligent, you're treating these people as the money they will cost, not the value of who they are or the bonds which they create with their partners. If your parents only gave you the money needed to support you and refused to acknowledge you in any other sense, would you be happy with it? Would you consider them moral parents? Or if, knowing what you've said, homosexuals had to vote on the fiscal weight of YOUR marriage, do you think they would even bother considering? Why would they want to pay for you? Why should they "waste" their tax dollars?
.
I'm sick of this. I've been coming here for over a week now just because I showed my support for the LGBT community and left an innocent - albeit poorly thought out - comment on how our personal actions should be less directly affected by government control and/or recognition. Isn't that supposed to be a conservative position in the first place? Smaller government control? It seems to me that the "stereotypical conservative" is always interested in making the government less controlling, except for when they want a group to be controlled.
.
I am still remarkably young, so I lack the substantial knowledge necessary to fully debate your arguments from a fiscal perspective, but I have countered everything else from the moral and equal perspective, which I hope to have made you understand to some extent. However, your specific arguments about tax dollars are a bit lost on me in the end (as of course, I don't pay them yet). I still sufficiently understand how our economy works and where our money goes, as I am by no means unintelligent, but it frustrates me that you only seem to see things from this fiscal point of view. Your marriage, I'm certain, means a hell of a lot more to you than the money that comes and goes into it. Your wife isn't something you paid for, and the many homosexual partners we have in the States most likely wouldn't appreciate you thinking about them in the same way. Hopefully I was able to communicate this to you.
.
Thanks for your time and your substantive arguments.

Sean wrote:

The fact that your arguments only cover things from a financial perspective shows me that, while you are fiscally active and intelligent, you're treating these people as the money they will cost, not the value of who they are or the bonds which they create with their partners.

That is because SOMEONE has to balance the books. the gov't has no business going around giving out benefits just to make people feel good about themselves.

Sean wrote:

If your parents only gave you the money needed to support you and refused to acknowledge you in any other sense, would you be happy with it? Would you consider them moral parents?

And there is the rub. The gov't IS NOT YOUR PARENT.

Yes, some people think it is and should be, but logically it should not be.

Sean wrote:

Or if, knowing what you've said, homosexuals had to vote on the fiscal weight of YOUR marriage, do you think they would even bother considering? Why would they want to pay for you? Why should they "waste" their tax dollars?

I agree. I would probably not vote for the gov't providing benefits for it either. But that decision was made long ago and it is nearly impossible to take away entitlements. Which is why we must proceed very cautiously before adding more entitlements--especially if we would also have to extend them beyond the target group that currently has a large lobby pushing for them.

.

Sean wrote:

Isn't that supposed to be a conservative position in the first place? Smaller government control? It seems to me that the "stereotypical conservative" is always interested in making the government less controlling, except for when they want a group to be controlled.

Except that your position ISN'T about less gov't control. It is about expanding the relationships that gov't is involved in AND the number of people it will have to provide benefits to.
.

Sean wrote:

I am still remarkably young, so I lack the substantial knowledge necessary to fully debate your arguments from a fiscal perspective,

That is clear. And that was not meant to be an insult. It is just that young people are often idealistic and fail to full think out the long-term and big-picture implications of their actions and decisions.

I admire your spirit, but spirit doesn't define rights or balance the books. Right now we are already running a deficit. Where will the money to balance the books, much less add benefits, come from?

Sean wrote:

but it frustrates me that you only seem to see things from this fiscal point of view.

Just as it frustrates me that you think the gov't is somehow responsible (or should care) about making you feel accepted by your peers or help your self-esteem. It shouldn't. It can't. The gov't is there to provide for the needy, consolidate resources for common usage, and encourage behavior that helps society in the long-run. That's is.

Does making people happy fit any of those? No.. Some could argue that making people happy helps society in the long run but I can easily point out the example of illegal drugs like cocaine. It makes people happy in the short-term, right?

Sean wrote:

Your marriage, I'm certain, means a hell of a lot more to you than the money that comes and goes into it. Your wife isn't something you paid for, and the many homosexual partners we have in the States most likely wouldn't appreciate you thinking about them in the same way.

Yet my marriage would mean just as much if the gov't weren't involved at all. In fact, I was married for about 3 years before we could legally get a license.(I was at a Service Academy and cadets are not allowed to get married or they lose their scholarship and their commission as an officer in the military)

Sawber wrote:

And there is the rub. The gov't IS NOT YOUR PARENT.
Yes, some people think it is and should be, but logically it should not be.

.
Sorry, I think I was a bit unclear here - when I made the relation to "parents" in my last post, I was using a slightly muddled metaphor to demonstrate the idea of giving solely physical support (money) without moral consideration (equality), in response to you seeming to treat homosexual marriages only as the money they would cost. I equated this to a parent who only gave you money without caring about you as a person, because technically, money would be all the support you'd need - similarly to your argument that eventually, the money of the marriage benefit is still the most important consideration of the matter (which it arguably is). The question was: does that make that metaphorical parent responsible or justified? It's perfectly fine for them to just give money, but it should be obvious that ignoring their offspring in every other way isn't fulfilling the typical duties expected with raising a child. It was an appeal to emotion and morality, nothing more, nothing less, so I'm sorry if it confused. Relating to a "parent" was NOT meant to say that government was or should be one, and I don't believe this at all anyway (that's honestly more "stereotypical liberal", as opposed to my "stereotypical conservative").
.

Sawber wrote:

That is clear. And that was not meant to be an insult. It is just that young people are often idealistic and fail to full think out the long-term and big-picture implications of their actions and decisions.
I admire your spirit, but spirit doesn't define rights or balance the books. Right now we are already running a deficit. Where will the money to balance the books, much less add benefits, come from?

.
Thank you for understanding my naivete - but doesn't it say more about us as Americans that what I'm saying is considered, to some extent, idealistic? A society in which bare equality alone is considered an idealistic belief is a very sad one at that - or where the workings of our society have become so fragile or belligerent that merely wanting equality for all really IS an illogical thing to consider.
.

Sawber wrote:

Just as it frustrates me that you think the gov't is somehow responsible (or should care) about making you feel accepted by your peers or help your self-esteem. It shouldn't. It can't.

.
I'm a bit confused by this; I think this is an extrapolation from my poorly-worded "parent" metaphor (you thought I was saying the government should be parental, which wasn't what I meant). I don't think government should help me "feel accepted by my peers" or "help my self-esteem". I would hope, however, that my government is still interested in upholding the value that all men are created equal.
.

Sawber wrote:

The gov't is there to provide for the needy, consolidate resources for common usage, and encourage behavior that helps society in the long-run. That's is.
Does making people happy fit any of those? No.. Some could argue that making people happy helps society in the long run but I can easily point out the example of illegal drugs like cocaine. It makes people happy in the short-term, right?

.
I agree perfectly with your description of government, but I again think that a government that did not care about the morale of its constituents would not be a very successful government at all, and not catering to the people who are affected by it would be a fatal mistake. Government by the people and for the people, per se. Especially in ours, where we've literally instated the right to protest about it if we don't like how things are going.
But all that said, I sincerely thank you for your arguments and the viewpoints you've shared with me, however quarrelsome we've been. It's honestly refreshing to hear a substantive argument against gay marriage, as opposed to "gays are sinners".

Sawber wrote:

I admire your spirit, but spirit doesn't define rights or balance the books. Right now we are already running a deficit. Where will the money to balance the books, much less add benefits, come from?

Gay couples already pay double taxes for 1,138 benefits and get nothing in return
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
.
What did you greedy hedro goobers do with our benefit money?
.
If you can't cough up the benefits; we want a refund. We're standing by the mailbox waiting for you to come driving up in your Treasury Truck to dump boatloads of our stolen marriage benefit money back on our front lawns
.
FULL restitution
.
And take gay couples off the tax rolls altogether if we're going to be second-class citizens forever
.
DUH!

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
.
the idea of giving solely physical support (money) without moral consideration (equality),

I understood and the metaphor you were using, but my point is that the metaphor doesn't apply because the gov't should be not be in the role of doing anything except coldly providing services.

It is the role of individuals in the community to provide the warmth or social validation.

If the gov't is going to treat people equally (which in should within the confines of specific requirements) then if it redefines the traditional definition of marriage in the US from being a man and woman who are not closely related, there is no logical reason they can deny it to incestuous relationships or polygamy.

And no, the gov't does not truly treat people equally. Social security only goes to people of a certain age. The Earned Income Tax Credit only goes to people with a certain taxable income. And so on.
.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
A society in which bare equality alone is considered an idealistic belief is a very sad one at that - or where the workings of our society have become so fragile or belligerent that merely wanting equality for all really IS an illogical thing to consider.

Except that gays and heterosexual couples are not truly equal (heterosexual couples can do things gay couples cannot) any more than straight unrelated couples are the same as plural marriages and incestuous marriages.

There are differences that warrant the different treatment.

.

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>I would hope, however, that my government is still interested in upholding the value that all men are created equal.

But that still necessitates that if gay marriage is recognized and financially encouraged, incestuous and plural marriages MUST be recognized and financially encouraged

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>
I again think that a government that did not care about the morale of its constituents would not be a very successful government at all, and not catering to the people who are affected by it would be a fatal mistake.

I completely disagree. The morale of the people depends primarily on the STRUCTURE of that gov't, not the specifics of it, and the gov't doesn't (cannot) care about the morale of the people.

Gov't is made up of a bunch of people with widely varying motivations and interests. One may "care" about a certain issue, but others do not. The gov't, as an entity, cannot care about people. Some politicians can give things to sub-groups to try to convince them that he/she personally cares about them. But I have never bought into buying/giving stuff to show love..

Not only that, how does it help the morale of the people represented by the gov't if the federal gov't eventually comes in and tries to override the state constitutional amendments (approved by a majority of the people)?

Sean wrote:

<quoted text>It's honestly refreshing to hear a substantive argument against gay marriage, as opposed to "gays are sinners".

You are quite welcome. I've found that using religion or the Bible as a basis for arguments has no impact since many people (heck, almost know one) shares the exact same beliefs or interpretations of them.

And likewise, it is nice you have the discussion with a young person who is able to do more than yell "bigot" adn then run around with fingers in their ears.

Get it Together wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay couples already pay double taxes for 1,138 benefits and get nothing in return
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

They do NOT pay double taxes. Do you honestly believe that when people get married, one of them suddenly gets to stop paying taxes?

No one can be that stupid.

Most years, I do the taxes both ways--like my wife and I are married and then if we file them separately. I recently stopped doing it because the difference in the result wasn't worth the time of doing it.

Get it Together wrote:

<quoted text>
What did you greedy hedro goobers do with our benefit money?

As someone upthread posted, allowing gay marriage would COST the taxpayers additional HUNDREDS of BILLIONS in expenditures.

Get it Together wrote:

<quoted text>
If you can't cough up the benefits; we want a refund. We're standing by the mailbox waiting for you to come driving up in your Treasury Truck to dump boatloads of our stolen marriage benefit money back on our front lawns

So are you going to provide full restitution to polygamists as well?