The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Annoyed
That doesn't help. Unlike the federal government, which is not required to balance its budget, the states are required to balance their budgets. The article I cited regarding misdirected highway funds was strictly a state level issue from NY State. So requiring a balanced budget is not the answer. The problem isn't that the governments can't take in enough money, they already take in far too much. The problem is that they spend too much.

Which is why i want the feds as well, to be required to do balanced budgets. That way they can't spend more than they take in!

It is a nice theory, but even if it were done tomorrow, it wouldn't make a difference. The government will just find financial and accounting tricks, borrowing or some other quasi legal means to take in more money to match what they want to spend, the same as the states do today.
We have to restrict spending first, once that is done, the govt. will not need to take so much in, legally or through budget chicanery.

[Britta]

If you choose to approve gay marriage, how do you logically oppose polygamy, polyandry, pedophilia and other alternative forms of marriage? Opening the door to gay marriages also opens the door to legitimize these other forms of marriage.

Polygamy, polyandry: These involve more than two participants in a marriage. Gay marriage is still two people, there's no significant administrative difference. Poly-marriages would require the entire bureaucratic institution of marriage to change. You can't recognise an unlimited number of partners for benefit purposes. Where do you set the limit? Why not one spouse? Let the rest have a marriage ceremony, but each person can only have one official spouse for governmental purposes.

Pedophilia: Is not, and can never be, a crime unless you endorse thoughtcrime. Acting on those impulses, however, is child abuse. That is not a consensual relationship, and comparing it to gay relationships is preposterous.

To say that gay marriage opens the door to these things is ridiculous. I suppose Lawrence v. Texas opened the door to legalising rape when it overturned bans on same-sex sexual activity? Absurd!

There were no valid legal arguments against gay marriage being legal. People just kept spewing subjective opinions based on intangibles like "morality" and "religion". If those are their beliefs, that's their business. It has no place as the basis of law.

Your slippery slope argument is false. You assume that some hypothetical consequence will happen, and that it will be a result of the legalisation of gay marriage. Let me give it a spin, for demonstrative purposes.

• You can't repeal any wrong laws. It sets precedent that laws can be mistaken, and allows any law to potentially be overturned.
• You can't free innocent people from prison. What if you start letting out anyone who claims to be innocent? Don't they all?!
• You can't protect religious freedom. What next? Exempt religious people from all laws? "I killed a man in Reno just to watch him die, but don't worry, I go to church every sunday."
• It's just a matter of time before any government does something wrong, so abolish government! Anarchy!

How freeing it is when you get to just make up the facts. Sound facetious? My point exactly.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Polygamy, polyandry: These involve more than two participants in a marriage. Gay marriage is still two people, there's no significant administrative difference. Poly-marriages would require the entire bureaucratic institution of marriage to change. You can't recognise an unlimited number of partners for benefit purposes. Where do you set the limit? Why not one spouse? Let the rest have a marriage ceremony, but each person can only have one official spouse for governmental purposes.

Pedophilia: Is not, and can never be, a crime unless you endorse thoughtcrime. Acting on those impulses, however, is child abuse. That is not a consensual relationship, and comparing it to gay relationships is preposterous.

To say that gay marriage opens the door to these things is ridiculous. I suppose Lawrence v. Texas opened the door to legalising rape when it overturned bans on same-sex sexual activity? Absurd!

There were no valid legal arguments against gay marriage being legal. People just kept spewing subjective opinions based on intangibles like "morality" and "religion". If those are their beliefs, that's their business. It has no place as the basis of law.

Your slippery slope argument is false. You assume that some hypothetical consequence will happen, and that it will be a result of the legalisation of gay marriage. Let me give it a spin, for demonstrative purposes.

• You can't repeal any wrong laws. It sets precedent that laws can be mistaken, and allows any law to potentially be overturned.
• You can't free innocent people from prison. What if you start letting out anyone who claims to be innocent? Don't they all?!
• You can't protect religious freedom. What next? Exempt religious people from all laws? "I killed a man in Reno just to watch him die, but don't worry, I go to church every sunday."
• It's just a matter of time before any government does something wrong, so abolish government! Anarchy!

How freeing it is when you get to just make up the facts. Sound facetious? My point exactly.

You're wasting your time.. How many times has he made the same argument? He's never going to change his mind.

Just smile and nod, and maybe he'll finally drop it and move on to something else..

[Britta]

You're wasting your time.. How many times has he made the same argument? He's never going to change his mind.

Just smile and nod, and maybe he'll finally drop it and move on to something else..

I suppose if someone can't tell the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia, you should start making a sign that says "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I suppose if someone can't tell the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia, you should start making a sign that says "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...

He can tell the difference. And he knows exactly what he's saying...

[jelgate]

You're wasting your time.. How many times has he made the same argument? He's never going to change his mind.

Just smile and nod, and maybe he'll finally drop it and move on to something else..

Just to play devil's advocate, you would do the same. Such is common when it comes to a political views

[Britta]

He can tell the difference. And he knows exactly what he's saying...

Never assume malice when you can assume ignorance. It feels better that way.

[LtColCarter]

Sounds like we all need to pray to St. Ignora!

[jelgate]

Sounds like we all need to pray to St. Ignora!

If we gather around a circle and sing Kumbaya, I'm leaving

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Never assume malice when you can assume ignorance. It feels better that way.

If he had only said it once.. then maybe..

[Britta]

Sounds like we all need to pray to St. Ignora!

Unfortunately nobody knows how. If you think about it, wouldn't it be ironic if people did?

If he had only said it once.. then maybe..

Stubbornness.

[LtColCarter]

Unfortunately nobody knows how. If you think about it, wouldn't it be ironic if people did?

That is my way of saying put him on ignore. I have a few users on ignore...and it makes me time on here much more enjoyable.

[Britta]

That is my way of saying put him on ignore. I have a few users on ignore...and it makes me time on here much more enjoyable.

He's not so bad outside of this thread.

[Annoyed]

You're wasting your time.. How many times has he made the same argument? He's never going to change his mind.

Just smile and nod, and maybe he'll finally drop it and move on to something else..

I am sick of the topic. I've been posting on different topics, such as the Greece situation or the shark attacks in the Carolina and their failure to close the beaches, or the Oregon plan to mandate GPS tracking devices on vehicles, only going back to the gay topic to respond to a question or comment from someone else
I have my opinions, others have theirs. I've said my piece on it, and others have stated theirs. You say I'm not going to change my mind. Probably no more than I'm going to convince you or anyone else to change theirs.

In my view, as far as this topic goes, I think it's best if we just agree to disagree and let it drop.

[Womble]

Polygamy, polyandry: These involve more than two participants in a marriage. Gay marriage is still two people, there's no significant administrative difference. Poly-marriages would require the entire bureaucratic institution of marriage to change. You can't recognise an unlimited number of partners for benefit purposes. Where do you set the limit? Why not one spouse? Let the rest have a marriage ceremony, but each person can only have one official spouse for governmental purposes.

All these are mirror images of arguments deployed against gay marriage. And the same retort applies - once marriage is established as a universal right, you cannot deny people their rights for mere administrative convenience. If it's complicated to regulate benefits and property rights for a poly marriage, so be it- draft more inclusive contracts and restructure your bureaucracy. It actually won't take much restructuring; apply benefits on the "per family" basis and you're still dealing with one unit for legal purposes regardless of the number of spouses; there's always a way. Existing bureaucracies in Muslim states with institutionalized polygamy can provide readily available models from which one can borrow on a pick-and-choose basis.

Basically, once you started out on the road of defining marriage down, there's no way to stop it so long as only consenting adults are involved.

And you know what? The question of age of consent is bound to become increasingly controversial as well. I'm not one to equate gays with pedophiles, but here's the thing. Pedophilia is thought to be a different sort of issue from homosexuality because of the issue of age of consent, which supposedly isn't malleable. Problem is, it is more malleable than people realize. There exists a legal mechanism in most states' laws (including in US law) by which a minor can become emancipated before reaching the legal age of majority. One of the ways is emancipation through marriage; another is by proving economic self-sufficiency. In a number of European states, and in some Canadian provinces, marriageable age is set to 15-16, so there's certainly room for lowering the age requirement for marriage in the USA. There's also a growing number of immigrants from cultures in which marrigeable age is lower. What legal arguments may be deployed to stop the lowering of age of consent or of age of marriage is not very clear.