Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

Ben = Mr. False Equivalence

Walking logical fallacy!

[Giancarlo]

But it won't. That's my point - the strobe light dimming won't be compensated by a flashlight.



Again - the facts show that even in the year immediately after they were at most 3.5 percent. Let me ask you a question, Ming - you're a smart guy. If you were running a business, would you believe that increasing your market share among 3.5 percent of your consumers - would that counterbalance a decline in the other 96.5? No. And that's my point. Even after homosexual marriage, the overall marriage rate is declining. It hasn't had an impact at all.

There you have it. This moron is relying on this made up 3.5% number to justify his overall bigotry. Not only do you know nothing about business, you can't even get your percentages right.

[Ben Kenobi]

This moron is relying on this made up 3.5% number to justify his overall bigotry.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm

I already sourced it. 774 marriages in BC the year it was first approved. 60 percent of those from outside the province. 22k overall marriages makes 775 the exact equivalent of 3.5 percent.

[Berzerker]

I dont understand, marriage is good for the state but we must prevent gay marriage because hetero marriage is declining?

[Ben Kenobi]

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with declining rates of heterosexual marriage.

Again, I already said that. The problem is that homosexual marriage isn't going to affect the overall marriage rate - negative or positive.

You are engaging in a false equivalence, liar. Of course, same sex marriage is beneficial for the state and increases revenues. It also increases benefits for society and lowers costs (such as related to health insurance).

If that is true, then increasing the overall marriage rate would see the state benefit in the same way. Except - that's not what we are seeing. We are seeing a decline, ergo the state is net economically worse off.

Same sex marriage generates revenues. You are an idiot in thinking a state only relies on marriages to make money too. Get a ****ing grip.

The state's bottom line is still down. Why is that, Giancarlo?

You are clueless. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt the marriage rate. In fact it increases it.

But that's not what we're seeing. Marriage rates after homosexual marriage - and including all the marriage tourism are down.

Idiotic bigotry. You cannot give certain rights to heterosexual couples, yet deny that to same sex couples. Your argument is idiotic. And your remark on the percentage is also wrong. There are a lot more of us than you think.

No, there's not. That's the whole issue here, Giancarlo. You can't fix an issue with the 96.5 percent of people by tinkering with the flashlight.

You are a bigoted moron. I am so tired of your idiocy. Same sex marriage benefits the state, you ass. Period. End of story.

Then marriage rates overall increasing will benefit the state - except that's not what we see. Marriage rates continue to decline.

You are also calling for highly illegal and highly unconstitutional tax breaks and preferences just for heterosexual couples.

Indeed - because they are the 96.5 percent. If I'm running a business in which 96.5 percent of my customers are buying less, I'd better do something to figure out why that's happening. 3.5 percent isn't going to save my business. Especially given that they are going to exacerbate the already existing demographic problems...

I know you are a hateful homophobic bigot who has a dark heart and nothing but contempt for other people who don't comply with your ridiculous and stupid norms.

Actually, every piece of the argument is logical - following the statement that Marriage is economically beneficial to the state, and secondly - the argument that you've already advanced that marriage benefits are beneficial to the overall marriage rate - if they were not, you wouldn't be arguing that it is discriminatory to deprive them from some people.

In reality - the state benefits from marriage - through increased family formation, an increase in the population of the state, and a general increase in the productivity of the family. Broken families are tremendously expensive to the state. As we see things shift away - we're starting to see why marriage was so important in the first place.

[Ben Kenobi]

I dont understand, marriage is good for the state but we must prevent gay marriage because hetero marriage is declining?

Something is not well with marriage in general. It has major demographic roots. Marriage is too expensive these days, and people are less inclined to get married - especially at a younger age. These trends will need to be reversed. Given housing prices....

My argument is that cutting taxes for married men and women is a good way to incentivize marriage in general. Overall, we'd need to see some major, major changes in how the market works, including eliminating the benefits for homebuyers and decreasing the amount of land owned by the state.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, why JUST MEN AND WOMEN

You're a business. Why might you want to direct something at the 96.5 percent of your customers if you're a wedding store?

... is the fact that they don't give them to gay couples going to increase straight marriages?

If I'm a wedding store? My business depends on their patronage.

So why not offer them across the board to increase gay marriages as well. If the goal is to raise the number of marriages, every little bit helps.

Because that's what I'm doing and I'm still losing money.

[Proteus_MST]

And that's precisely my point. There is a secular decline in marriage rates. You cannot argue that marriage benefits a state economically and then turn around and say that the decline in marriage rates is a good thing.

I won't argue against there being a trend towards fewer marriages ... has been this way since at leat 1-2 decades (and probably caused by people being more career oriented and having fewer long term relationships and others).

The point is that marriage rates continue to decline. Again, for reasons of demographics. If the state wants to salvage the significant economic benefits of marriage, they are going to have to find a way to keep this from happening. Which is why marriage benefits were there in the first place. Providing the same benefit to everyone destroys the purpose of the incentive in the first place.[

That's however something where I disagree.
You don't provide the "same benefit" to everyone ... you only provide it to married people.
And it won't affect the increase in marriage rates(for heterosexual couples) if you provide the benefit to married homosexual couples as well
Actually in sum (i.e. homo- + heterosexual marriages) you will get a bigger increase in marriages if you give homo- and heterosexual marriages the same benefits

[Ben Kenobi]

I won't argue against there being a trend towards fewer marriages ... has been this way since at leat 1-2 decades (and probably caused by people being more career oriented and having fewer long term relationships and others).

I've said demographic changes about 20 times in the thread. This is the real problem for the state to figure out a way to get this up. Germany's solution is to bring in immigrants. The problem with Merkel's argument is counterintuitive. There will not be enough immigrants after about 2025 or so. You'll see a bump up, then the long, slow, secular slide.

You don't provide the "same benefit" to everyone ... Actually in sum (i.e. homo- + heterosexual marriages) you will get a bigger increase in marriages if you give homo- and heterosexual marriages the same benefits

We're doing that in Canada. It isn't working - marriage overall is down. It's been 10 years, long enough to assess that the current policy regime is a failure.

[Giancarlo]

Again, I already said that. The problem is that homosexual marriage isn't going to affect the overall marriage rate - negative or positive.



If that is true, then increasing the overall marriage rate would see the state benefit in the same way. Except - that's not what we are seeing. We are seeing a decline, ergo the state is net economically worse off.



The state's bottom line is still down. Why is that, Giancarlo?



But that's not what we're seeing. Marriage rates after homosexual marriage - and including all the marriage tourism are down.



No, there's not. That's the whole issue here, Giancarlo. You can't fix an issue with the 96.5 percent of people by tinkering with the flashlight.



Then marriage rates overall increasing will benefit the state - except that's not what we see. Marriage rates continue to decline.



Indeed - because they are the 96.5 percent. If I'm running a business in which 96.5 percent of my customers are buying less, I'd better do something to figure out why that's happening. 3.5 percent isn't going to save my business. Especially given that they are going to exacerbate the already existing demographic problems...



Actually, every piece of the argument is logical - following the statement that Marriage is economically beneficial to the state, and secondly - the argument that you've already advanced that marriage benefits are beneficial to the overall marriage rate - if they were not, you wouldn't be arguing that it is discriminatory to deprive them from some people.

In reality - the state benefits from marriage - through increased family formation, an increase in the population of the state, and a general increase in the productivity of the family. Broken families are tremendously expensive to the state. As we see things shift away - we're starting to see why marriage was so important in the first place.

Except you don't have any evidence for any of this you stupid sack of ****.

[Giancarlo]

Mr logical fallacy jackass : Same sex marriage doesn't hurt heterosexual marriage. Get that in your thick ****ing skull.

[Giancarlo]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...70117a-eng.htm

I already sourced it. 774 marriages in BC the year it was first approved. 60 percent of those from outside the province. 22k overall marriages makes 775 the exact equivalent of 3.5 percent.

Again with the stupid example. BC has a small population. It is immaterial to the bigger picture.

[Giancarlo]

Something is not well with marriage in general. It has major demographic roots. Marriage is too expensive these days, and people are less inclined to get married - especially at a younger age. These trends will need to be reversed. Given housing prices....

My argument is that cutting taxes for married men and women is a good way to incentivize marriage in general. Overall, we'd need to see some major, major changes in how the market works, including eliminating the benefits for homebuyers and decreasing the amount of land owned by the state.

You propose giving some rights and preferences to heterosexual couples and not to same sex couples your argument is a pile of bull****. Just like everything else you post.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except you don't have any evidence for any of this you stupid sack of ****.

I've only used two premisses. One - that marriage in general is beneficial to the state, and two - that marriage benefits actually work at increasing the marriage rate. From there - pretty much everything else follows.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again with the stupid example. BC has a small population. It is immaterial to the bigger picture.

Then you're admitting that I'm actually citing facts in defense of my argument and that the facts, (at least for BC), are correct. Thank you, Giancarlo.