Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not true in the UK.

Wikipedia isn't a source. This is a source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145973/How-paid-men-Stay-single.html

And for the US:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308508/Gender-pay-gap-U-S-reversed-young-women.html

Ruth Lea, adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said: 'It is a matter of choice. People earn the same until they get together, and then they make choices about work, family and lifestyle. That is what adults are expected to do - make decisions.

'I suspect that in reality the pay advantage lies with women and I think the whole pay gap debate should stop now.'

Date on the UK article is 2009. So in reality, the pay gap has been reversed.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't be bothered to look up the study

Interesting evidentiary standard.

[Dauphin]

Wiki isn't a source, the Daily Mail is?



You have a great sense of humour.

[Ben Kenobi]

Same article:

James Chung, of market research company Reach Advisors, produced his report after analysing U.S. Census Bureau statistics from 2,000 communities.

He put the pay reversal down to the trend in women getting a better education. For every two American men that graduated from university or get a higher degree, there are three women with the same qualifications.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/women_pay/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[rah]

It says the union in marriage. Men and women.

Where does it say men and women?

Aren't you a Catholic? Yeah, it's official Catholic teaching that sex is supposed to produce babies. It's not exactly controversial. Have sex, have a baby. Gosh.

What does catholic teaching have to do with the government. Non catholics have sex all the time without the intention of having babies. (as most catholics do if only you'd admit it)

You don't have to have sex if you don't want babies.

Only in ben land. Most people have sex for run. (and again, a lot of catholics do to.) And I'm sure all those priests were intending on making babies with all little boys.

Uh, so there's no difference between sodomy and sex?

Sex can be a whole lot of different things.

Nonsense. Consummation is considered to be an essential part of marriage.

I never argued that. I said it had no relevance to your argument. It's another one of those things you tossed out because you have no reasons, beyond your bigoted beliefs that you want to cram down everyone's throat.

How are you personally harmed? How are people harmed? You still haven't really addressed that except with your feeling that society has gone down hill. A blatant generalization that you can't even come close to laying at the the feet of gay marriage. Try being a true christian and live and let live.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where does it say men and women?

It says the union in marriage, presupposing there is only one.

What does catholic teaching have to do with the government?

Quite a bit actually. The state isn't permitted to force Catholics or Catholic institutions to provide health care which includes abortion and contraceptive coverage. So it's an important point to get right. Yes, the Catholic church teaches it, and yes, the government cannot infringe on their conscience rights.

Non catholics have sex all the time without the intention of having babies. (as most catholics do if only you'd admit it)

Indeed. I'm well aware that there are quite a few dissenting Catholics on this point. As a Church teaching, it's not controversial, the Church has always taught this to be the case. Catholic Dissenters go to quite some lengths in order to prevent themselves from getting pregnant. So I'm pretty sure they are aware of the connection between sex and babies. If they weren't they wouldn't be using contraception in the first place.

Only in ben land.

Oh, really? Seems pretty sensible to me. If you don't want to have kids - don't have sex!

Most people have sex for run

Rornery are you?

And I'm sure all those priests were intending on making babies with all little boys.

Gosh, we haven't had any priest bashing on this page of the thread yet. Man I sure didn't see that one coming :P

Sex can be a whole lot of different things.

You don't say. Like what?

I never argued that. I said it had no relevance to your argument.

Oh, I daresay that it's very relevant to my argument. See, if I'm arguing that marriage requires the union of a man and a woman, consummation fulfills the union between the two. No consummation, no marriage.

How are you personally harmed?

So if I mug the guy on the street, that's ok, because it's not personally harming you? Society doesn't work that way, rah. And yes, changing the law regarding marriage and who and what relationships are considered to be marriage does affect me personally. Remember, I'm a teacher who can no longer teach in the province where I am from, thanks to how the laws have changed requiring me to teach contrary to what my religion teaches.

So that's a very real and concrete harm.

Well, last I checked, part of my Christian duty is to be my brother's keeper, to look after other people, not leave them alone on the side of the street to fend for themselves. But I guess you have a different Gospel then the one I read.

[MikeH]

Wiki isn't a source, the Daily Mail is?



You have a great sense of humour.

Indeed.

[rah]

Oh, I daresay that it's very relevant to my argument. See, if I'm arguing that marriage requires the union of a man and a woman, consummation fulfills the union between the two. No consummation, no marriage.

Again, just your opinion that you use to deny other people the rights that you enjoy. And hide behind a religious definition. Faith can not be successfully argued against, just mocked.

Remember, I'm a teacher who can no longer teach in the province where I am from, thanks to how the laws have changed requiring me to teach contrary to what my religion teaches.

And was it the implementation of Gay marriages the change? Wasn't it your CHOICE not to teach because of those changes. Were you forced to not teach.

Well, last I checked, part of my Christian duty is to be my brother's keeper, to look after other people,

Giving them equal protection under the law is how I would 'Look after other people'. I don't see how your desire to deny them that is looking after them.
Please don't look after me.

[giblets]

Well, that's actually an interesting discussion.

Using the pre-1980's methodology, the inflation rate since 1980 onwards is about double what the CPI states. I'll have to run the numbers, but that affects the 'real' incomes, since those are directly tied to the true inflation rate, not whatever the CPI states.

Since I'm interested in these numbers, I'll run the data if I can't find someone who's already ran the numbers 'pre-Volker' inflation measurements vis-a-vis real incomes.

That's utterly wrong. What the hell are you even talking about? This must be another conspiracy theory from Benland. If anything the CPI slightly overstates inflation.

It's called his 2012 campaign fund. There's quite a bit of the stimulus that's unaccounted for. Apparently not enough 'shovel-ready' jobs.

HAHAHA two conspiracy theories in one post.

That young people are disproportionately affected does. Your argument is that we can explain the lower workforce participation to aging ignores the fact that the largest changes are happening to the under 30's, and that the numbers for the older people are actually better, not worse. The workforce participation numbers for the under 30s are grim.

Suure they are. I couldn't find "under 30" numbers but I found this:

Spoiler:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...te-by-age.html

Yes, the drop in participation among high schoolers and people aged 20-24 is a truly terrifying sight to behold. One that apparently began under Bush. Not that Bush is necessarily responsible.

What 'tax relief' did he offer? The 10 cent payroll tax reduction, that was easily outshadowed by the increase in medical expenses associated with Obamacare? The loss of coverage for folks who were covered by their job, but were dropped? Obamacare has actually increased, not decreased the number of uninsured.

Great, now you're blaming a slow recovery from a deep recession on a law that hadn't even gone into effect? The number of uninsured has been increasing ever since the recession hit but never mind that, it's obviously Obama's fault for trying to do something about it.

[The Mad Monk]

It doesn't have to be in effect to have an effect on business plans. They plan out at least a year in advance, so yes, a law that hasn't yet gone into effect can certainly affect that.

[Ming]

You just keep making yourself look stupid...

Oh, and what happens to people who owe money to the IRS? They are arrested and go to jail.
So, slavery, you are property. Taxation, you are property. You are owned by the state.

Nice try you moron... but not even close. Slavery... you are forced to do what a master tells you do, and you don't get paid. Taxation... you do what you want to do, and pay the government it's share... you don't, and you've broken the law... just like breaking any other law... you go to jail. You are not OWNED by the state. You pay with money or time, and then you are free.

And the state can do with you what they want. See above.

Just like if you murder somebody... you break THE LAW and you go to jail... It's YOUR choice to break the law... The FREEDOM to make a bad choice... Slavery isn't about choice... it's about lack of FREEDOM

Sounds like prison.

Strawman yet again... tell me what crime slaves committed?

Sounds like prison. So far it's 4/4.

Yep... 4/4... you are proving to be a complete moron.

And what happens to your children if you are arrested and put in jail? They become wards of the state, who are given to foster families. 5/5

Maybe even more of a complete moron. Again, for your simple mind... you go to jail for breaking the law... not the case with slaves... they had no choice.

So you're aware of the current bill that Pelosi is pushing, that if the IRS says you owe money, you lose your passport? That's a significant step towards total control of your life.

A small step... unlike slavery which is indeed total control of your life.

And when you are arrested, you don't have freedom either.

Yep... just like if you murder somebody, rape them, steal from them.... yeah, when you choose to break the law, you risk getting arrested... what law did slaves choose to break?

You are owned by the government, for whom you work for 6 months of the year, and you're thankful that they let you have the other 6 months? America used to know what real freedom was like.

Please provide some actual facts instead of tossing around 6 months. Please PROVE how many people pay half their income... and, for many taxes, we get something in return, police protection, schools, parks, library's....

How is arguing that income taxation is equivalent to slavery, where the fruits of your labor are consumed by the apparatus of the state? At least under slavery, you could flee and escape. The current Pelosi law is akin to the fugitive slave law, barring people from escaping their master, the state.

If you don't like the country you live in for their tax laws, you are free to leave and go where you want. Even without a passport, you can flee and escape just like those slaves did.
So what's your point here?

OH that's right, you have no point.
Only a total idiot would equate taxes to slavery...
OH that's right, you are an idiot.

As others have said... please explain how Gates is a slave because of taxes...

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, it is. It's really no different then if you were to require everyone to work for the government six months out of the year.



Same as anyone else, really.



Why? There are plenty of folks who agree with me here, who disagree with me on plenty of other topics. Ever read Hayek? It's all right there. "Road to Serfdom"?

You are ignoring the fact that the rich pay the most tax and they don't have to work at all. Those that do work for pure satisfaction, not necessity. You're being silly.

[Flubber]

Barring physical impediment, this argument doesn't work, as you noted in your post.

Where did I note this

Lack of consummation is NOT grounds for divorce if the parties married with no expectation of consumation. While is is considered a fundamental aspect of many marriages (and therefore its lack is grounds for divorce (or to render the marriage a nullity)) it is not a fundamental part of all marriages.

Note the common law exception around consummation had nothing to do with gay people as I understand it and was more around allowing the impotent, disabled or sexually disinterested to marry without having their partner able to render the marriage a nullity at any later time.

Consumation is not an issue for anyone that doesn't expect consummation.

However as you define consummation, a gay couple does have a physical impediment preventing consumation ( ie the lack of one of a penis or vagina certainly makes consumation impossible for that given couple (AGAIN as YOU define it))-- so such a marriage is valid even lacking consummation according to the old common law rules, is it not?


Oh and Ben while a physical impediment certainly can be a valid reason for no consummation, I also cited sexual disinterest as an example--- Really as long as consummation was not expected it could not be cited as a grounds to nullify a marriage

[Flubber]

Oh and Ben-- your comparison of today unfavorably with slavery times is absurd

Or did you not hear of things like the master having a black man neutered for say having sex with another slave that the master had chosen to breed with a lighter skinned slave. . . .. Or whipped on a whim or raped repeatedly because the master decided so.

Last 100 years

large progress on equal rights on things like race, gender, sexual orientation . . . even religion
less hunger, better education

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber, as you stated:

was more around allowing the impotent, disabled or sexually disinterested to marry without having their partner able to render the marriage a nullity at any later time.
Consumation is not an issue for anyone that doesn't expect consummation.

The first two, yes, if disclosed prior to the marriage. The third, no. The spouse could file for nullity and get it. None of which apply to gay people. So I'm not sure why the exceptions you cited work for gay people.

However as you define consummation, a gay couple does have a physical impediment preventing consumation

What physical impediment do they have? Are you implying that homosexual men and women are impotent/infertile?

the lack of one of a penis or vagina certainly makes consumation impossible for that given couple

Indeed, but it's not a physical deficiency/defect. If you were to take them and put them with women, they could consummate the relationship. That's my point. They can't appeal to an exception that doesn't apply.

I also cited sexual disinterest as an example

I'd like to see the case history on that one. Seems to me that sexual disinterest would be grounds for nullity.