Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

Uh huh. Sure.



BC is very politically divided between Vancouver, which is more liberal than NYC and the rest of the province. The point is you don't know what you're talking about. I am from the conservative hinterland. As a whole - BC went Liberal last election, and isn't particularly known for their conservativism. Sections of the province, however, are.

Do you think I care about where you live or what you think?

You are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about. I was talking about the US. Not Canada, ignoramus.

Your point about same sex marriage was stupid.

[Giancarlo]

And Vancouver... More liberal than NYC and I thought I heard it all. This guy is so hopelessly full of ****. NYC has a vastly bigger LGBT community and more people live there.

[Jon Miller]

Of all the cities I have spent significant time in (doesn't include NYC), Vancouver appears to be the second most liberal after SF.

JM

[Giancarlo]

Well my point is that Ben is trying to say same sex marriage is hurting straight marriage and has no benefit for the state.

He simply cannot justify that remark.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of all the cities I have spent significant time in (doesn't include NYC), Vancouver appears to be the second most liberal after SF.

Thanks Jon. Vancouver is far more similar to San Francisco and NYC than it is to the hinterlands.

Well my point is that Ben is trying to say same sex marriage is hurting straight marriage and has no benefit for the state.

Actually my argument is that it's irrelevant to the province. Ongoing demographic changes are having a far more significant economic effect on British Columbia, ie, the aforementioned 1 percent drop in the marriage rate.

[Giancarlo]

Actually my argument is that it's irrelevant to the province. Ongoing demographic changes are having a far more significant economic effect on British Columbia, ie, the aforementioned 1 percent drop in the marriage rate.

Then your "point" is a non-point and you engaged in false equivalence. A false correlation. Maybe you need to actually finish one of your unfinished degrees. I'm sure they can offer a debate class.

I love this definition of "false equivalence":

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."

You attempted to make a relation where none exists. Same sex marriage only benefits the state. It doesn't harm it. Any decline in heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then your "point" is a non-point and you engaged in false equivalence. A false correlation. Maybe you need to actually finish one of your unfinished degrees. I'm sure they can offer a debate class.

Put a flash light up to a strobe. Tinkering with the flashlight isn't going to mean a tinkers damn if the strobe is dimming. That's my point.

Same sex marriage only benefits the state.

The only people that benefit longterm are those from outside of state via marriage tourism.

Those within the state suffer economically as marriage rates fall.

Eventually the people who actually run the numbers are going to realize this and realize that they actually have to provide benefits exclusive to men and women. Or rather - the jurisdictions that figure this out will benefit over the jurisdictions that do not.

[Proteus_MST]

...

Those within the state suffer economically as marriage rates fall.

...

LOLWUT?

The impact of gay marriages on normal marriages will be negilible to non existent.
Only idiots will make their plans on a (heterosexual) marroiage dependant on whether homosexual marriages are allowed or not

[Ming]

Eventually the people who actually run the numbers are going to realize this and realize that they actually have to provide benefits exclusive to men and women. Or rather - the jurisdictions that figure this out will benefit over the jurisdictions that do not.

This makes no sense at all... and is totally discriminatory as well.
If straight marriage rates are falling, then an increase in gay marriages can help balance the numbers.

And if you are really arguing that additional benefits will help increase straight marriages (and I would love to see some facts to support this), than the same benefits offered to gay couples should increase gay marriages. Limiting increased benefits to simply straight marriages makes NO SENSE if you are trying to increase the total numbers of marriages so that the state benefits more. Oh, that's right, you only want to increase straight marriages you bigot.

[Giancarlo]

Put a flash light up to a strobe. Tinkering with the flashlight isn't going to mean a tinkers damn if the strobe is dimming. That's my point.

This has to be the stupidest argument I have seen from you yet. You engaged in a false equivalence. Same sex marriage has no impact on heterosexual marriage. You have absolutely no proof for your argument.

The only people that benefit longterm are those from outside of state via marriage tourism.

Absolutely wrong. The state experiences an increase in revenues and those couples who get married also have long term benefits.

Those within the state suffer economically as marriage rates fall.

Yet this is another false equivalence. Same sex marriage doesn't cause marriage rates to fall. Come up with a better argument.

Eventually the people who actually run the numbers are going to realize this and realize that they actually have to provide benefits exclusive to men and women. Or rather - the jurisdictions that figure this out will benefit over the jurisdictions that do not.

Another stupid argument not based on any actual proof. Same sex marriage has absolutely no impact in heterosexual marriage. And provide benefits exclusive to heterosexual couples? Sorry, but the US Supreme Court basically struck that argument down. You are relying on a bigoted argument to justify treating same sex couples differently and in a inferior manner.

You are a complete bigot and your ignorance is now on display for everyone to see.

[Ben Kenobi]

This has to be the stupidest argument I have seen from you yet. You engaged in a false equivalence. Same sex marriage has no impact on heterosexual marriage. You have absolutely no proof for your argument.

Your argument is that marriage is economically beneficial to the state, no?

If that is true, then a state that sees marriage rates declining is declining economically.

Absolutely wrong. The state experiences an increase in revenues and those couples who get married also have long term benefits.

But it's not. Marriage rates are down, not up. So the state is experiencing a decline in revenues. Those in the state who marry, will not benefit as the state declines economically.

Those within the state suffer economically as marriage rates fall. Yet this is another false equivalence. Same sex marriage doesn't cause marriage rates to fall. Come up with a better argument.

Again, if marriage is economically beneficial to the state, then a decline in the marriage rate is economically detrimental.

Another stupid argument not based on any actual proof.

There's just not enough homosexual people to have an effect on the overall rate - just 3.5 percent of the total. If the state wants to arrest the secular decline, it is going to have to address the underlying demographic issues. This will mean providing tax cuts and benefits for men and women.

And provide benefits exclusive to heterosexual couples? Sorry, but the US Supreme Court basically struck that argument down. You are relying on a bigoted argument to justify treating same sex couples differently and in a inferior manner.

Again, the states that do this will benefit economically, even if all they do is simply lower their tax burden.

You are a complete bigot and your ignorance is now on display for everyone to see.

You're the one arguing that marriage provides economic benefits to the state.

[Ben Kenobi]

The impact of gay marriages on normal marriages will be negilible to non existent.

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.

Only idiots will make their plans on a (heterosexual) marroiage dependant on whether homosexual marriages are allowed or not

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

This makes no sense at all... and is totally discriminatory as well.
If straight marriage rates are falling, then an increase in gay marriages can help balance the numbers.

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

And if you are really arguing that additional benefits will help increase straight marriages (and I would love to see some facts to support this), than the same benefits offered to gay couples should increase gay marriages. Limiting increased benefits to simply straight marriages makes NO SENSE if you are trying to increase the total numbers of marriages so that the state benefits more. Oh, that's right, you only want to increase straight marriages you bigot.

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.

[Ming]

There's just not enough homosexual people to have an effect on the overall rate - just 3.5 percent of the total. If the state wants to arrest the secular decline, it is going to have to address the underlying demographic issues. This will mean providing tax cuts and benefits for men and women.

Again, why JUST MEN AND WOMEN... is the fact that they don't give them to gay couples going to increase straight marriages?
If you say yes, please prove it.

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.

Unless all you want to do is promote straight and not gay marriages... in which case you are showing your true colors yet again.

[Giancarlo]

Your argument is that marriage is economically beneficial to the state, no?

If that is true, then a state that sees marriage rates declining is declining economically.

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

But it's not. Marriage rates are down, not up. So the state is experiencing a decline in revenues. Those in the state who marry, will not benefit as the state declines economically.

False equivalence. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with the rates of straight marriage. 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.

Again, if marriage is economically beneficial to the state, then a decline in the marriage rate is economically detrimental.

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

There's just not enough homosexual people to have an effect on the overall rate - just 3.5 percent of the total. If the state wants to arrest the secular decline, it is going to have to address the underlying demographic issues. This will mean providing tax cuts and benefits for men and women.

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.

Again, the states that do this will benefit economically, even if all they do is simply lower their tax burden.



You're the one arguing that marriage provides economic benefits to the state.

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

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

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.