Hello everybody

[Aeson]

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.

No. It only shows that people have choice even at rather low income levels, they aren't slaves.

Land prices are high in most places people want to live in the US because people have the means to pay for it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I did not say, nor even imply, that the state should do away with recognition of marriage.

Yet you said you didn't want to be providing state recognition for having children. How are you going to split the difference between one and the other?

My point is that expanding the definition to include same-gender couples does not diminish, or even change, the situation of heterosexual couples.

Yes, it does. And quite significantly so.

By analogy, if we were to grant the vote to non-citizens, would that impact the rights of a citizen of the united states? Yes or no?

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

You said there was no fertility crisis. So you are conceding, that yes, in fact, there is a fertility crisis? That society has a concern over the fact that people are not choosing to have children, is a very real problem for Europe. Ergo, society does have a vested interest in ensuring it's own survival, which is the point that I was trying to make.

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.

So you're willing to concede that there have been exactly zero improvements over the last 50 years? I rest my case. For all the brilliance of your argument, you've given me everything I've asked for.

I've got a fellow who found his opportunities in the Philippines arguing that America isn't in trouble (which seems obvious given what he's been doing), and not I have a 'progressive' arguing that there's been no 'progress' in 50 years and he finds that acceptable - enough so to call me a reactionary! I said that the balance is negative, and JR would know that if he had read my earlier posts..

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course he ignored this brilliant post.

Last I checked Poly is running like ****, and is still broken.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Newsflash, Obama's turned the clock back on workforce participation 20 years. People are choosing to stay home rather than look for work. Under Reagan's tenure, people actually had jobs and there was a large increase in the percentage of people working.

[Ben Kenobi]

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 ?

Will North Carolina do?

Thomas Sowell shares my opinion that taxation is just another form of slavery.

[Ben Kenobi]

I didn't. I don't mind you paraphrasing what I say, but entirely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I say, well, that's rather dim.

When I believe that the Church's authority comes from Christ - calling me a pre-20th century Catholic is a compliment.

[rah]

So you're saying things improved under Reagan. Wasn't he a president less than 50 years ago?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're saying things improved under Reagan. Wasn't he a president less than 50 years ago?

Economically, yes. I'm not aware of any significant positive social changes that he enacted.

[Ben Kenobi]

How you can think this situation (which favors US citizens in every way) means America is in trouble is beyond me.

It's simply supply and demand. American dollars go far further there than stateside. My point is that it is difficult for most people in the states to buy a house without putting themselves into significant debt. You counter that by saying, this isn't so, by citing your experience in the Philippines.

If Americans like you are choosing to go to the Philippines in order to live like you could have done in America, yes, that's a sign of decline.

[Ming]

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

Let's see... slavery....
- you are property
- your owner can do with you what you want
- They can rape you
- They can beat you
- They can sell your family members to other owners
- You have no choices on how to live your life
- You have no freedom

Taxes
- You have freedom
- You owe part of what you make to the government

Not even close Ben...
Yes, this is one of the most moronic posts you have ever made. But one we would expect from you.
Ben Land is an ugly and bigoted place.

[Dauphin]

Taxes
- You have freedom
- You owe part of what you make to the government

Plus, ostensibly on point B), the government owes you services in return.

[giblets]

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.

Ben has claimed in the past that blacks were better off when they were slaves than they are now.

[giblets]

Newsflash, Obama's turned the clock back on workforce participation 20 years. People are choosing to stay home rather than look for work. Under Reagan's tenure, people actually had jobs and there was a large increase in the percentage of people working.

Newsflash, there was a global financial meltdown near the end of Bush's tenure that gave us the worst recession since WWII. There wasn't much Obama could do about it except deficit spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy which he obviously did.

Newsflash, the decline in labor force participation began under Bush. Apparently as the population ages more people "retire" and stop wanting work.

You whined about how the standard of living hasn't changed much for most people since the 70s. Newsflash, the US economy has grown a lot since then but almost all of the gains have gone to the rich.

[rah]

I still haven't figured out how taxation is relevant to gay marriages. This is his typical moving argument style. If you never know what he's really arguing, it's tougher to pin him down. And if you know what he's arguing badly, he just changes it.

I still want to know how he is personally harmed by gay marriage. I don't see how his "I THINK" society has gone down hill in the last 100 years can be laid at the feet of gay marriage. Please make a more concrete connection. Or just admit that the thought of a couple of guys next door being married freaks you out.

[rah]

And just for grins.

con·sum·mate   [v. kon-suh-meyt; adj. kuhn-suhm-it, kon-suh-mit] Show IPA verb, con·sum·mat·ed, con·sum·mat·ing, adjective
verb (used with object)
1.
to bring to a state of perfection; fulfill.
2.
to complete (an arrangement, agreement, or the like) by a pledge or the signing of a contract: The company consummated its deal to buy a smaller firm.
3.
to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.


You'll note that number 3 doesn't say "have babies" It just says first marital sexual intercourse.
Now I know in sick Ben christian land that all sexual intercourse is meant to produce babies, and any deviation from that goal lands you in hell, but in the non sicko world, sexual intercourse means sexual intercourse. Gays qualify there.

So failure to consummation as a reason for divorce is totally irrelevant to the argument.