Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

You said the balance of social change in the last 100 years was negative. Of course the obvious implication of my statement is that there's nothing that even comes close to balancing out the good social changes that have occurred in that timeframe.

I'm not quite sure how extending slavery to everyone through taxation is a 'good' social change. You used to be able to own a house, get an education, and make a decent wage and living without being crippled with debt as you are today. Now, that's not really the case for most people. Is this an example of how society has improved? I really don't see it.

Since 1964 with the passing of the civil rights act, close to half a century ago, what advances have been made in social change?

[Ben Kenobi]

Gay people may make up about ten percent of population. Granting ten percent of population equal marriage rights will not force the other ninety percent to stop reproducing.

If society has an interest in it's preservation and propagation, why would it treat two things that aren't the same by asserting that they are?

[Aeson]

I'm not quite sure how extending slavery to everyone through taxation is a 'good' social change. You used to be able to own a house, get an education, and make a decent wage and living without being crippled with debt as you are today. Now, that's not really the case for most people. Is this an example of how society has improved? I really don't see it.

Since 1964 with the passing of the civil rights act, close to half a century ago, what advances have been made in social change?

First, that's an economic and personal finance issue you're pointing out. It's not slavery. I own a (half finished) house, land, no debt, and I've never made more than $17,000 in a single year of my life. Most years under $10k. Just because a lot of people choose different paths than I did doesn't mean they are slaves. The fact that such a huge variation in lifestyle is possible (by choice) shows just how free we are economically.

Things that have gotten worse since 1964 ... DOMA, knee-jerk reactions to terrorism (Patriot Act, NDAA), anti-piracy/internet security stupidity (SOPA like crap), not being willing to pay for or fix social programs, and reverse racism (Affirmative Action). It's good you realize those are awful things for our society.

[gribbler]

Gay people may make up about ten percent of population. Granting ten percent of population equal marriage rights will not force the other ninety percent to stop reproducing.

Bullshit, there's no way ten percent of people are gay.

[Aeson]

Bullshit, there's no way ten percent of people are gay.

Close to 100% of people on the internet are gay.

[gribbler]

As of April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while 0.3% are transgender—approximately 11.7 million Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_de..._United_States

Where did MrFun get such an absurd number?

[Tupac Shakur]

Oerdin?

[MrFun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_de..._United_States

Where did MrFun get such an absurd number?

You're saying they tracked down every single person on earth who is gay, including the ones who are in the closet and so the possible maximum is only 3.5 percent?

[MrFun]

What is absurd about the possibility that ten percent of population is gay?

[MrFun]

If society has an interest in it's preservation and propagation, why would it treat two things that aren't the same by asserting that they are?

They're the same in that, at least in the Western world, people who marry, tend to marry for the same reason - out of love. It's basically replaced marriages for economic and/or political reasons.

[gribbler]

You're saying they tracked down every single person on earth who is gay, including the ones who are in the closet and so the possible maximum is only 3.5 percent?

So the absence of evidence for homosexuals beyond 3.5% of the population is proof that 10% of Americans are homosexual?

[gribbler]

What is absurd about the possibility that ten percent of population is gay?

The size of the estimate.

[-Jrabbit]

I believe that changing societal norms is a harm. One of the goals of society is to maintain laws, rules and practices which have worked to sustain society for generations. Changing those rules damages society as a whole and makes it less able to cope with other stresses. One of the rules is that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

I think that society at present is much weaker than it was close to a hundred years ago, because of the changes that have been wrought since then. In some ways it has improved, but in many ways it has not, and I believe the balance is negative. Gay marriage is merely the last of a long sequence of changes that have had the same goal in mind.

I reject the assertion that the government needs to make laws encouraging reproduction. People pretty much do that on their own. "Sustaining" society is not the issue here; there is no fertility crisis or unwillingness to reproduce. The idea that breeding is an activity that is "solemnified" by the government through marriage and thus deserves special status is laughable.

I especially reject the idea that "changing rules damages society as a whole." 100 years ago, separate but equal race laws were in force. Women did not enjoy basic suffrage. Not too long before that, child labor and slave labor were thought of as necessary to the economy. But then those damned liberals freed the slaves, gave women the vote, and gave the blacks legal equality.

It's a world gone mad.

[MrFun]

So the absence of evidence for homosexuals beyond 3.5% of the population is proof that 10% of Americans are homosexual?

Never said ten percent is absolutely fact. Did you see the words I used as qualifiers, like "may" and "possibly?"

[MrFun]

The size of the estimate.

ten percent is not huge

[gribbler]

ten percent is not huge

Relative to the number of gay people, yes it is. Being gay is not as common as being left handed or being black. That's absurd.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, that's an economic and personal finance issue you're pointing out.

And your point is? Doesn't change the fact that taxation is slavery, just in a different form. Instead of being owned by an individual, you are owned by the state. We've emancipated a portion only to sell everyone back.

Just because a lot of people choose different paths than I did doesn't mean they are slaves.

In America or in the Philippines?

Things that have gotten worse since 1964 ... DOMA, knee-jerk reactions to terrorism (Patriot Act, NDAA), anti-piracy/internet security stupidity (SOPA like crap), not being willing to pay for or fix social programs, and reverse racism (Affirmative Action). It's good you realize those are awful things for our society.

And you start to see why I'm concerned. 1964 was 50 years ago. Looking at the recent numbers, a person earns on average today, what they did back in the late 70s. The number of people working has deteriorated back to the numbers then. All the gains made over the course of my lifetime are already gone.

[Ben Kenobi]

I reject the assertion that the government needs to make laws encouraging reproduction.

Then you're willing to do away with all state recognition of marriage? It's been the case, at least in the English speaking world, going back nearly 500 years.

there is no fertility crisis

Have you looked at the numbers in Europe? Yes, there is a fertility crisis.

I especially reject the idea that "changing rules damages society as a whole."

Then you'll happily answer my question as to what has been done in the last 50 years to improve society. 50 years is a long time, JR.

[Ben Kenobi]

They're the same in that, at least in the Western world, people who marry, tend to marry for the same reason - out of love. It's basically replaced marriages for economic and/or political reasons.

I ask the same question as gribbler. Why then is failure to consummate grounds for divorce?

[Jon Miller]

I have seen 10% listed as the high side for the number of homosexuals.

JM

[Aeson]

And your point is?

My point is you don't have a point. It's not a social issue.

Doesn't change the fact that taxation is slavery, just in a different form.

Don't be ridiculous. Taxation is not slavery. Even if we were to mutilate the English language and agree to refer to taxation as slavery, we've always had taxes. It doesn't help your point about social changes being for the worse.

By your logic reducing taxes would be "social change" and thus be negative, even though you think not doing so is reinforcing slavery. Follow to the ultimate conclusion, and you're saying slavery is good.

In America or in the Philippines?

In the Philippines. Though I have lived in America with a decent standard of living (probably better than most if you factor in "vacation" time) for many years.

2 seconds in the Philippines and you'd realize just how free we are in developed nations, even while paying taxes.

And you start to see why I'm concerned. 1964 was 50 years ago. Looking at the recent numbers, a person earns on average today, what they did back in the late 70s. The number of people working has deteriorated back to the numbers then. All the gains made over the course of my lifetime are already gone.

No. The value of the internet access you are using right now would have been astronomical in 1964.

There are some ways that people now are worse off (land prices being the most obvious one), and that might lead some to wish they could go back because those specific things are more important to them personally (as I would, because I want to own land more than shiny toys) ... but by and large we have more value in our lives today than ever before. And that is especially true for women, minorities, those with emotional/personality disorders, and homosexuals (and other non-traditionally accepted sexuality), because on top of all the technological advances that have made life better in general, they don't face the levels of discrimination that they did even in 1964.

[Wezil]

Where did MrFun get such an absurd number?

Iirc, it's the old Kinsey number. It was quoted for years until better numbers came along and is still quoted by those that want as big a number as they can get.

[-Jrabbit]

Then you're willing to do away with all state recognition of marriage? It's been the case, at least in the English speaking world, going back nearly 500 years.

I did not say, nor even imply, that the state should do away with recognition of marriage. My point is that expanding the definition to include same-gender couples does not diminish, or even change, the situation of heterosexual couples.

Have you looked at the numbers in Europe? Yes, there is a fertility crisis.

Again, gay marriage does not affect that in any way.

Then you'll happily answer my question as to what has been done in the last 50 years to improve society. 50 years is a long time, JR.

Not before you tell me how the Civil Rights Act, the 19th Amendment, and child labor laws have damaged society. Nice attempt at moving the goal posts from 100 years to 50 BTW. But it doesn't change the fact that your contention -- "changing rules damages society as a whole" -- is an obtusely reactionary "argument" that has absolutely no bearing on the issue of gay marriage.

[MrFun]

I ask the same question as gribbler. Why then is failure to consummate grounds for divorce?

I don't know what this question has to do with my point that I made.

[MrFun]

dp

[gribbler]

douple post. the server here sucks

[gribbler]

\And you start to see why I'm concerned. 1964 was 50 years ago. Looking at the recent numbers, a person earns on average today, what they did back in the late 70s. The number of people working has deteriorated back to the numbers then. All the gains made over the course of my lifetime are already gone.

What do you expect when you put people like Reagan in charge to give everything to the rich.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the Philippines.

You've proven my point. Arguing that you can buy land in the Philippines because it's cheaper, confirms the problem that I'm getting at. Land prices and housing values are way out of proportion with what most people earn.

[MikeH]

I especially reject the idea that "changing rules damages society as a whole." 100 years ago, separate but equal race laws were in force. Women did not enjoy basic suffrage. Not too long before that, child labor and slave labor were thought of as necessary to the economy. But then those damned liberals freed the slaves, gave women the vote, and gave the blacks legal equality.

It's a world gone mad.

Of course he ignored this brilliant post.

Welcome back Ben.

[molly bloom]

And your point is? Doesn't change the fact that taxation is slavery, just in a different form.

You have written a great many stupid things in your time. This may be one of the most offensive and stupid. May I suggest that you say to an African-American Texan that they are no better off paying taxes now than their ancestors were being slaves in the past ?


I somehow doubt that you will find anyone (in full possession of their mental faculties) to agree with you.