Tea Time Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 No one called you a bigot or said you were in favor of slavery. If he was in the military we would be paying for all those children. Do you think military families should be limited on the number of children we will pay for? Should we only pay for say.....3? What? If he was in the military, the military would only recognize one wife (which is the situation anyway, I believe). If his lifestyle caused disruption of his duty, he would be discharged. If he attempted to actually, legally marry multiple wives, he would be in legal trouble. The military does pay for multiple children, but it would not pay benefits for multiple wives, say for educational benefits or for medical benefits. Some people do not remarry, I think, to keep their military benefits. I think there are a lot of questionable things that already go on. I can't see expanding that by allowing a broader definition of marriage. That is my position. Okay, you did not call me a bigot directly, but suggesting that I favored an argument for slavery has pretty big implications. Just the use of the word, slavery is pretty loaded. It is akin to invoking Hitler, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) What? If he was in the military, the military would only recognize one wife (which is the situation anyway, I believe). If his lifestyle caused disruption of his duty, he would be discharged. If he attempted to actually, legally marry multiple wives, he would be in legal trouble. The military does pay for multiple children, but it would not pay benefits for multiple wives, say for educational benefits or for medical benefits. Some people do not remarry, I think, to keep their military benefits. I think there are a lot of questionable things that already go on. I can't see expanding that by allowing a broader definition of marriage. That is my position. Okay, you did not call me a bigot directly, but suggesting that I favored an argument for slavery has pretty big implications. Just the use of the word, slavery is pretty loaded. It is akin to invoking Hitler, IMO. I did not state you argued for slavery. I said *the type* of argument was similar: financial or hardship reasons for denying people rights. I do not think you are in favor of slavery in the slightest. Edited March 28, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 What, how did I call you a bigot? I was saying that I didn't understand what you were saying. You thanked the poster who suggested that my argument was like that against slavery. I assumed you agreed. My response to her: You did not call me a bigot directly, but suggesting that I favored an argument for slavery has pretty big implications. Just the use of the word, slavery is pretty loaded. It is akin to invoking Hitler, IMO. This type of bomb throwing has stifled real discussion about the issue, and it is propaganda, IMO. It is quite effective in shutting down discussion. But I definitely do want you to understand me, and I am more than happy to have real dialog. So let me know what part you don't follow, and I will do my best to clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 You thanked the poster who suggested that my argument was like that against slavery. I assumed you agreed. My response to her: This type of bomb throwing has stifled real discussion about the issue, and it is propaganda, IMO. It is quite effective in shutting down discussion. But I definitely do want you to understand me, and I am more than happy to have real dialog. So let me know what part you don't follow, and I will do my best to clarify. I did not suggest that. I wasn't attempting to shut down the discussion or throw bombs. I was making a comparison, obviously you didn't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Nice to hear from you Ms. M. I appreciate your thoughtful post. Good points. Did you read back a bit to see the entirety of my argument? I think I covered your points, but I am happy to address them here a bit, too. I read your response. I'm trying for clarity. You imply a great deal. I don't think it would change, I just think the over all cost would expand and the amount of fraud would expand accordingly. That is one argument for holding the current definition of marriage as it stands, to try to continue to be able to meet the demands of just that one kind of marriage. Again, not for the purpose of making value judgments on every relationship, but for the purpose of being prudent, of keeping a budget. That was my original point. Why keep other forms of marriage illegal? Because we can't afford to pay everyone for everything. Who is "we" and what are we paying for in this scenario? If "we" allow gay marriage v. heterosexual marriage what, exactly, are you "subsidizing?" Unless your argument is that all gay people are employed by the government, your argument does not hold. That is not a value judgement, that is economics. It is a good use of resources to aim them at encouraging stable families because of children. This is a strawman argument. The vast majority of people who desire a "non-traditional" marriage are not employed by the government. Yes, we are making numerous bad decisions because we can't endorse the one kind of marriage that is designed by nature to support children, but this just supports my argument further, doesn't it? I have no idea what you are trying to say here because it doesn't really have anything to do with that bit of my post. I think, if we were clear thinking on this issue, and we were really looking at it without other agendas at work, we could come to some kind of arrangement that would favor certain types of civil unions for practical and unemotional purposes like you are suggesting. I think the private sector is already doing this to some extent. Agreed. There has been blustering about boycotts against those places, but not about laws to force such businesses out of existence. That is a vital distinction, see? Distinction between no law forcing a business out of existence and what? I just don't think we are in a place where we should force the State to do such things, for financial reason, but also because our society is not in consensus and it would be forcing the issue unnecessarily. That is just the reality. This is where the argument of Sis comes into play regarding the tyranny of the majority. For one thing, people are suggesting that if you don't agree with this particular allocation, you are a bigot and in favor of slavery. Another strawman. Nobody suggested any such thing. You are completely right about the fraud issues. How will that improve if we further expand the definition of marriage to include gay marriage or polygamy? I think saying one partner per person is an extremely reasonable limitation. I do not think you'd have very many military personnel willing to take on the stigma of homosexuality in order to be pretend gay married to a buddy for government benefits. That is pretty far-fetched. Right now our friend, the polygamist, lives his dream, but because the definition of marriage is one man/one woman, we don't pay for his dream. He is NOT receiving benefits for multiple wives. (Whew!) That is a-okay with me. Which is what would happen, Ms. M., if we start monkeying with the biological definition of marriage (man+woman=child). I disagree with your slippery slope argument. What? If he was in the military, the military would only recognize one wife (which is the situation anyway, I believe). If his lifestyle caused disruption of his duty, he would be discharged. If he attempted to actually, legally marry multiple wives, he would be in legal trouble.The military does pay for multiple children, but it would not pay benefits for multiple wives, say for educational benefits or for medical benefits. Again, I think saying "one partner per person" is both reasonable and *equitable* (the latter is the argument at hand). Some people do not remarry, I think, to keep their military benefits. That only applies to widows/widowers and possibly a handful of divorcees (the latter mostly depending upon the laws of specific states). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Just to be clear, each branch of the military has it's own policies regarding financial compensation of a service member for marrying and/or having children. The only additional money received by my dh for being married (an active duty Marine) is our housing allowance. Single Marines do not rate a housing allowance unless they attain a certain rank; married Marines rate a housing allowance, regardless of rank. Housing allowance is based solely on rank and zip code (cost of living for your area). We do not receive any additional money for food for either myself or our children. We could have a dozen children and we would not receive any additional food money; we would only receive our housing allowance which, again, is not based on family size. My dad was in the Army for 27 years and I believe that soldiers do rate a higher food allowance based on the number of dependents that they claim. Edited March 28, 2011 by Pretty in Pink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Just to be clear, each branch of the military has it's own policies regarding financial compensation of a service member for marrying and/or having children. The only additional money received by my dh for being married (an active duty Marine) is our housing allowance. Single Marines do not rate a housing allowance unless they attain a certain rank; married Marines rate a housing allowance, regardless of rank. Housing allowance is based solely on rank and zip code (cost of living for your area). We do not receive any additional money for food for either myself or our children. We could have a dozen children and we would not receive any additional food money; we would only receive our housing allowance which, again, is not based on family size. My dad was in the Army for 27 years and I believe that soldiers do rate a higher food allowance based on the number of dependents that they claim., disa No, they don't. There is no direct benefit to having more kids. There are other indirect benefits, mostly medical care for all of the kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 No, they don't. There is no direct benefit to having more kids. There are other indirect benefits, mostly medical care for all of the kids. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Yes, medical and dental certainly add up, don't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) I read your response. I'm trying for clarity. You imply a great deal. Who is "we" and what are we paying for in this scenario? If "we" allow gay marriage v. heterosexual marriage what, exactly, are you "subsidizing?" Unless your argument is that all gay people are employed by the government, your argument does not hold. This is a strawman argument. The vast majority of people who desire a "non-traditional" marriage are not employed by the government. I have no idea what you are trying to say here because it doesn't really have anything to do with that bit of my post. Agreed. Distinction between no law forcing a business out of existence and what? This is where the argument of Sis comes into play regarding the tyranny of the majority. Another strawman. Nobody suggested any such thing. I think saying one partner per person is an extremely reasonable limitation. I do not think you'd have very many military personnel willing to take on the stigma of homosexuality in order to be pretend gay married to a buddy for government benefits. That is pretty far-fetched. I disagree with your slippery slope argument. Again, I think saying "one partner per person" is both reasonable and *equitable* (the latter is the argument at hand). That only applies to widows/widowers and possibly a handful of divorcees (the latter mostly depending upon the laws of specific states). It was not a single response. It was a pretty lengthy argument covering a lot of ground. I'm not going to play this game, Ms. M.; I've done it before, and too many times the thread goes missing after that. Maybe if you could guarantee that would not happen, then I would be happy to proceed, but, way too much work for that result, ya know. My posts on this thread start at about #73. I posted this article to flesh out the argument: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...editors?page=1 There is such a thing as tyranny of the minority, too. Goodnight! Edited March 28, 2011 by Tea Time Correct numbering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) There is such a thing as tyranny of the minority, too. No? Tyrants generally need some sort of power. Edited March 28, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 So, you are saying that you are intentionally obfuscating your points so as to skirt the letter and spirit of the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 No? Tyrants generally need some sort of power. Like the power of the media? Minorities, today, can have lots of power. And that is well and good. But it is not well and good that reason should be lost. Democracy is about the power of the majority. Funny how some people like that when it provides benefits and hate it when it takes them away. And as to the slavery argument, I showed you the differences. I don't think they are the same at all. I'm done now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Like the power of the media? Minorities, today, can have lots of power. And that is well and good. But it is not well and good that reason should be lost. Democracy is about the power of the majority. Funny how some people like that when it provides benefits and hate it when it takes them away. And as to the slavery argument, I showed you the differences. I don't think they are the same at all. I'm done now. The Media isn't the minority! :lol: I wasn't making an argument about slavery. I don't think they are the same either? I was saying something completely different, which you missed. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. Edited March 28, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.