Page 159 of 159 FirstFirst ... 59109149157158159
Results 1,581 to 1,585 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #1581
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    We have more money in the pool if they remain single, ergo it is an expense to the imaginary social security trust fund. What is wrong with cutting all added expenses from food stamps if they do not exist?
    And if we got rid of heterosexual marriage and allowed only gays to marry, then there would be even less of an expense to the social security trust fund. Your argument is true of all marriages, so applying it only to same-sex marriages is invalid.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  2. #1582
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Not true. Because the money comes from other places and goes to other places. Plus, think about how many more of those orphans/foster children can be placed with married parents, requiring less money by the government to support. Plus, when married legally, couples are required to report both their incomes when it comes to applying for assistance, not just their own with a single person. There are so many things that will benefit the federal finances, and you can't show otherwise. You have one single thing that might face a little hardship, but you fail to answer simple questions concerning it. What is the difference if they are allowed to marry a person who is of the same sex rather than getting those same benefits for marrying someone of the opposite sex?
    You seem to miss the fundamental issue here--if they are gay they are unlikely to be getting married to someone of the opposite sex ergo the extra marital benefits are otherwise never received and therefore there is no cost to them now. That you come up with improbable hypothetical ancillary situations and that you would not be willing to peg any added cost with an automatic offset to other liberal porn programs are proof positive that you know I am correct that there are added costs to the public and you just refuse to admit it.

  3. #1583
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    You seem to miss the fundamental issue here--if they are gay they are unlikely to be getting married to someone of the opposite sex ergo the extra marital benefits are otherwise never received and therefore there is no cost to them now. That you come up with improbable hypothetical ancillary situations and that you would not be willing to peg any added cost with an automatic offset to other liberal porn programs are proof positive that you know I am correct that there are added costs to the public and you just refuse to admit it.
    This simply isn't true. Just look at what happens in the military (I'll fill you in in case you aren't aware). Some homosexuals in the military started breaking off and marrying in sets of opposite sex couples in order to gain benefits of marriage but be with each other. They simply lived in the same house as two married couples, when in fact the relationships were of the same sex while the marriages were opposite sex. Or, same sex couples would simply find one person of the opposite sex to marry so that the one who needed the benefits could get them. It happens.

    But the thing is though that this cannot be a consideration. It wouldn't have been right to consider such things when it came to bans on interracial marriage, even if they would have been federal bans. Those couples would not have been any more likely to marry someone of their own race rather than the person they were in a relationship with.

    And on top of all this, you still failed to address the fact that much more goes into federal finances than that one consideration. Those other things can easily make up for those few who actually would qualify for their spouse benefits, and more beyond.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #1584
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    This simply isn't true. Just look at what happens in the military (I'll fill you in in case you aren't aware). Some homosexuals in the military started breaking off and marrying in sets of opposite sex couples in order to gain benefits of marriage but be with each other. They simply lived in the same house as two married couples, when in fact the relationships were of the same sex while the marriages were opposite sex. Or, same sex couples would simply find one person of the opposite sex to marry so that the one who needed the benefits could get them. It happens.

    But the thing is though that this cannot be a consideration. It wouldn't have been right to consider such things when it came to bans on interracial marriage, even if they would have been federal bans. Those couples would not have been any more likely to marry someone of their own race rather than the person they were in a relationship with.

    And on top of all this, you still failed to address the fact that much more goes into federal finances than that one consideration. Those other things can easily make up for those few who actually would qualify for their spouse benefits, and more beyond.
    Ancillary anecdotal not withstanding, then why would you not be willing to peg the cost increases with automatic cuts to other programs if they do not exist? Hell, peg the imaginary savings to them too if you want. The simple answer is you know that these will cost money.

    don't worry, I'd be willing to do the same to conservative programs too. Peg overruns to automatic cuts to their sacred cows as well. We would have a lot more truth in advertising. Until then, nothing you say is going to change my position that you are wrong. There will be added public costs.

  5. #1585
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Ancillary anecdotal not withstanding, then why would you not be willing to peg the cost increases with automatic cuts to other programs if they do not exist? Hell, peg the imaginary savings to them too if you want. The simple answer is you know that these will cost money.

    don't worry, I'd be willing to do the same to conservative programs too. Peg overruns to automatic cuts to their sacred cows as well. We would have a lot more truth in advertising. Until then, nothing you say is going to change my position that you are wrong. There will be added public costs.
    I told you. You want to prove it will cost the federal government money overall, then you need to actually prove it instead of continuing to repeat one single part of the federal budget. It doesn't work that way.

    As was pointed out to you by another poster, only allowing homosexual couples to marry and receive that particular benefit would save us a whole heck of a lot of money, way more than the other way around. So it is wrong to try to say that just this one thing that you can find that may cost money (eventhough others are much more likely to even it out plus add more) is worth preventing marriage to same sex couples over. You need to show overall numbers and that it would be likely to cause issues that would severely affect our economy, governmental finances, or cause our taxes to rise just from this one thing.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •