SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obi-Gyn Kenobi

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

It seems to me that the larger problem is the tax discrimination... it is automatic and consistant. Gay couples are always penalized in every occassion, because the two partners living effectively in a common-law marriage are of the same gender.

This to me, obviously outweighs any nebulous theoretical problem with homosexuals raising children.

Indeed, Children are actually a different, and separate issue... since homosexuals can be in de-facto marriages, and be raising children, already... E.G. a lesbian getting artificial insemination and living with another woman.

Would you ban artificial insemination? Would you ban single mothers or fathers from persuing gay relationships (de-facto marriages)?

I beg to differ. Tax policy is central to discrimination in favor of families. This is why I may oppose gay marriages even if I might otherwise be in favor. I am strongly pro-family. I believe in raising kids in the same families with their fathers and their mothers and in no other place. I am strongly against divorce. I am strongly against single parenthood. And above all I oppose gays and lesbians raising children.

Until and unless I am convinced that approving of gay marriages will not undermine our ability to legislate in favor of families, then count me as a bitter opponent of gay marriages.

[MrBaggins]

Ned> I think that tax and benefit law is utterly the wrong place to be encouraging good family values, whatever those might be, and I'm unconvinced that they are always beneficial in the context of male-female marriage, anyway.

I think the discriminatory nature of this taxation is absolutely demonstratable, repeatable, and thus the more imminent and immediate concern. The US is founded on this principal of equality... not equality, except where marriage and nuclear families are concerned... so... I see no reason not to provide the same basis of taxation and benefit for homosexual couples as is granted to commonlaw married couples.

So, in conclusion, I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it there.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Originally posted by mindseye

you drop the subject when bested, then simply re-state it in another thread, as if you didn't know better.

I do sleep you know.

I don't always see the replies to my posts.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. In other threads you have responded a few times before abandoning ship, so it doesn't wash that you "didn't see" the replies.

Example: the tired claims about gays having special problems. What about our recent conversation in which we discussed the symptoms exhibited by minorities facing discrimination, and how those symptoms and stresses vary by gender? Did that exchange slip from your memory?

Some of these topics have come up multiple times, each time with you writing as if it was the first posting, as if you weren't aware of the problems that have been previously pointed out multiple times by multiple posters.

Example: you have at least FIVE TIMES claimed that gays have equal access to marriage since they can marry someone of the opposite gender. Each time you were called on this. Yet you continue stating it in new threads, as if it were sound. You expect us to believe you "didn't see" all those replies? You even responded to some of them!

----------------

Your style of debate shows little respect for your fellow posters.

If you won't even acknowledge our arguments, if you use arguments that have been repeatedly shown to employ faulty reasoning (protests which you were unable to refute), then simply re-stating and re-re-stating these arguments shows that you don't care a whit for our time or what we have to say.

So ... why bother coming here? Repetition of faulty arguments won't convince anyone here. Are you trying to convince yourself of something you feel ambivolent about? Or are you just some kind of fanatic with an axe to grind?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned

(...) as the interests of children outweigh the interests of homosexuals.

Ned, can I please quote this next time someone has a problem with claims that gays are treated as second-class citizens?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by mindseye

Originally posted by Ned
the interests of children outweigh the interests of homosexuals.

Ned, can I please quote this next time someone has a problem with claims that gays are treated as second-class citizens?

Hmmm.. but what about homosexual children? Where would their interest rank?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No such right exists.

So I suppose since before Reconstruction in many parts of United States that blacks did not have the right to vote in the first place, that it was unconstitutional to grant them this right of citizenship?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Ned> I think that tax and benefit law is utterly the wrong place to be encouraging good family values, whatever those might be, and I'm unconvinced that they are always beneficial in the context of male-female marriage, anyway.

I think the discriminatory nature of this taxation is absolutely demonstratable, repeatable, and thus the more imminent and immediate concern. The US is founded on this principal of equality... not equality, except where marriage and nuclear families are concerned... so... I see no reason not to provide the same basis of taxation and benefit for homosexual couples as is granted to commonlaw married couples.

So, in conclusion, I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it there.

Well, to the extent the tax laws are written to subsidize marriage between a man a woman, they do so because we want to encourage raising kids in families. Providing the same tax breaks to homosexuals is wrong because it would encourage the exact opposite of what we intend to encourage.

For example, we now subsidize home ownership by allowing people to deduct interest. If we were to now allow rent to be deducted, we would kill the effective preference for home ownership.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mindseye


Ned, can I please quote this next time someone has a problem with claims that gays are treated as second-class citizens?

We have to consider the benefits and privileges of marriage issue by issue, in my view. Otherwise we will really screw up families.

I have no objection to giving gay married couples community property rights, inheritance rights, etc. I do mind them being given preferences we intend for traditional families for the very purpose of incenting that form of arrangement for raising kids.

[Ned]

MrBaggins, the issue of homosexual children in the future may become academic. As soon as we discover the "gay" gene, women will abort gay fetuses.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
MrBaggins, the issue of homosexual children in the future may become academic. As soon as we discover the "gay" gene, women will abort gay fetuses.

The religionistas won't, unless they really want to be seen as hypocritical; lesbians won't, and plenty of heterosexual non-religionistas won't- otherwise who is going to grow up and tell their husbands how to dress, treat their wives properly, trim their nasal and ear hairs, be prison warders and policewomen, et cetera, et cetera.

Mostly tongue in cheek Ned, but you're showing the same deficiency in imagination that Obi Gyn does with his fixation on sexual acts between gay males.

If a gay gene is identified, then the technology to develop a child from merged ova probably won't be that far behind. By which time one might hope that human societies might have matured beyond the stage of applying moral strictures from old tomes to natural human behaviour.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, I'm not buying it. In other threads you have responded a few times before abandoning ship, so it doesn't wash that you "didn't see" the replies.

I'm here now.

Did that exchange slip from your memory?

No. I said that the complaint that all the problems with homosexuality cannot be traced to societal disapproval, and that this is a trope.

weren't aware of the problems that have been previously pointed out multiple times by multiple posters.

Of which said problems were dealt with and refuted. Hence I return to my valid statements, to retain consistency.

You expect us to believe you "didn't see" all those replies? You even responded to some of them!

No, stop putting words in my mouth. I merely said that I do not always see the replies to the post. When I do post in the thread, I deal with each and every post against me, even if the ratio be 5:1.

So I am quite patient.

Each time you were called on this. Yet you continue stating it in new threads, as if it were sound.

Which it is.

Your style of debate shows little respect for your fellow posters.

Many of my ideological enemies would differ with you on that point.

If you won't even acknowledge our arguments,

I do acknowledge points. Particularly weak arguments.

if you use arguments that have been repeatedly shown to employ faulty reasoning

Which they have not.

So ... why bother coming here?

I enjoy myself, and I have made some friends.

Repetition of faulty arguments won't convince anyone here.

True, but you have not shown my arguments to be faulty.

[Ben Kenobi]

A point needs to be taken in context. All points do not have to be addressed simultaneously, and some points are not necessary to address at all (due to time constraints or just a lack of new things to say on the subject). Completely different issues.

True. I can understand facing time constraints. Just don't accuse me of ignoring your points when I parse, or deliberately trying to take a quote out of context. I feel my position is stronger, so why should I need to misrepresent your position?

I didn't comment on anything contained within your NARTH reference because I am not familiar enough with their work to do so. Do you think I should be required to comment even when I have nothing to say (at least as of yet)?

No. I would never take a poster to task for abandoning a thread.

I am not comfortable in exspousing personal opinions about subject matter which I have no knowlege. I'd hope you could understand.

Sure do. Glad you could be honest with me. That takes courage.

You seem to want people to treat extend you some courtesy (in regards to whether you will be able to respond or not), but aren't willing to extend the same courtesy to me?

No, I just don't feel the other posters are being all that fair with me. Take your time. Post when you want to.

If I don't respond to all your points, you use it as an argument against the points I am responding to. Seems hypocritical to me.

Nah. I try to confine myself to what the poster says, unless I feel they are trying to dodge a point.

That you have several times ignored a qualifying portion of a sentence, or the context of the paragraph, to refute the now 'wrongly qualified' portion of the sentence is what I have a problem with

I felt the sentence was ambigious. You needer to clarify whether the drug use was deviant behavior, which you have.

You of all people should understand the fallacy of your statement here. I identified drug use as deviant behavior, but applied no label to drug users. That label is your own creation, and should be qualified as such. How many times have you said something to the effect that it is not labelling the person, but the action? Was that just hypocrisy on your part, or do you believe such is possible?

Point very well taken. By this logic, I ought to be able to distinguish between homosexuality and homosexuals. I ought to be able to characterise the behavior as deviant, and not the person.

The negative connotation you seem to apply to that statement isn't supported by the definition of the term deviant though.

Oh, I'm not the only one who would consider the term to have a negative connotation.

As there are no legally accepted gay marriages as of yet, there probably are no legal definitions defining what is and what is not consummation of a gay marriage. If you can find any, please share.

AFAIK, most gay marriage provisions overlook this point of consummation. They argue that the sexual union is insignificant to marriage, a rather radical point.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obi-Gyn Kenobi

I really hope that doesn't stick. Could get embarrassing in religion threads.

Unfortunately like many religionistas of his kind, seems fixated on a particular sexual act between gay men. Not all gay men regularly engage in anal intercourse, and many heterosexuals do.

You were the first to mention anal intercourse in the thread molly, so perhaps I am not the one so fixated.

Oral sex between gay men would constitute a 'homosexual sexual act' but this doesn't appear to have occurred to Obi-Gyn- lack of imagination possibly.

Well sucking Boris' wang is not my preferred thought for the morning.

Not many lesbians engage in regular anal intercourse (and according to informal studies conducted amongst lesbian friends of mine) it doesn't play a great role in the sex live of those who do occasionally.

Again, you speculate that these are my positions. A great amount of speculation based on sparse evidence.

Watching Obi-Gyn talk about 'homosexuality' is rather like imagining a blind person attempt to describe the interior of the Vatican by touching the roof of the dome.

Or a deaf man listening to Mariah Carey, but please continue. Quite a rant you have going, and I would hate to spoil.

Still would like to know what this 'lifestyle' is that I'm meant to have, or indulge in.

Could someone tell me what a 'heterosexual lifestyle' is, or if they have one?

I wanted to deal with that point before I left, but I had to go.

What do I mean by the gay lifestyle? I would argue, a propensity for promiscuity, lack of stable relationships, and a the concamitant psychological and physical problems associated with the above behaviors.

All of these, can be found in greater proportion among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I suppose since before Reconstruction in many parts of United States that blacks did not have the right to vote in the first place, that it was unconstitutional to grant them this right of citizenship?

Again, false analogy, in the comparison between race, which cannot be chosen, and sexual preferences, which can.