Sick of the Gay marriage Rhetoric

Solitarian wrote:Who are "you people"? Schizoids? Asexuals? Members of this forum? Looking through your posts it looks like you're all three.

I don't know, just you guys. You people here.

Solitarian wrote:If the benefits were equal, how could the cost be unequal?

Solitarian wrote:I'm not asking that we be provided for.

Are you considering costs and the act of being provided for only in terms of government handouts?
Everything that society produces has an economic cost. It doesn't have to come directly from the government. Even in an anarchic society there are costs. All the things that we grow and manufacture have a cost. All people in a society are provided for in some way, if not, would they still be part of the society?

Solitarian wrote:The economy benefits from spending, not saving, so singles boost the economy with their rampant consumerism.

This is definitely possible, as two single people living independently may each buy a vacuum cleaner whereas a couple may buy only one vacuum cleaner to share between them. But is the goal to sell more vacuum cleaners? Maybe it is. Or maybe it's to save on the cost of producing vacuum cleaners so that some other widget can be produced with those resources instead?

Then there's future costs and benefits to consider. Couples are more likely to have children than singles. Children are both the future labour force and the future spenders. Babies also drive immediate spending as apparently they need nappies, toys and stuff.

Solitarian wrote:That comes down to how welfare eligibility is handled, why should liberty be trodden on because of a programs inability to assess people's needs?

Implementing and managing welfare systems incurs costs. For the system to be effective, it needs to be relatively cheap to run. I assume that marriage records are easy to cross-reference and are a reasonable indicator of stable cohabitation.

Solitarian wrote:The very idea gets my dander up.

I guess I won't speculate on the spiritual benefits of marriage than either.

javert wrote:Then there's future costs and benefits to consider. Couples are more likely to have children than singles. Children are both the future labour force and the future spenders. Babies also drive immediate spending as apparently they need nappies, toys and stuff.

But if the government is making polices to have more kids, then they should give benefits to those who raise kids, not to those that are in official relationships. Why support something that might be statistically correlated if you can support directly the behavior that you want.

Polis wrote:

javert wrote:Then there's future costs and benefits to consider. Couples are more likely to have children than singles. Children are both the future labour force and the future spenders. Babies also drive immediate spending as apparently they need nappies, toys and stuff.

But if the government is making polices to have more kids, then they should give benefits to those who raise kids, not to those that are in official relationships. Why support something that might be statistically correlated if you can support directly the behavior that you want.

They do that here. You get cash for children. lol

Actually, the real issue is that marriage is obsolete. You don't need a license to fuk other people anymore, everybody does it.

I would not mind a policy that forces to be faithful though. So they can get cash for marrying, as long as their sexual life is scrutinized and in the acceptable range, and they have to reimburse with a fine if they go out of line. No money without responsibility.

I've never thought of benefits as rewards.

Marriage is sh1t anyway. Why would anyone take that liability so happily is beyond me.

javert wrote:Are you considering costs and the act of being provided for only in terms of government handouts?
Everything that society produces has an economic cost. It doesn't have to come directly from the government. Even in an anarchic society there are costs. All the things that we grow and manufacture have a cost. All people in a society are provided for in some way, if not, would they still be part of the society?

Still, these economic costs are paid for by the consumer directly. A loaf of bread costs the same for me as it does a 6 person family whether or not I eat the entire loaf. The waste is not a drain on the economy. The food, resources, and space I waste are paid for by me. Higher taxes and lack of control over my assets does not offset that waste.

Besides, I don't know how it is in your country, but here people don't pay into the system according to some projected cost/risk analysis, if they did the poor would pay nearly 100% of what they make in a lifetime to offset their drain on society. People pay according to what the government determines they can afford. For example, rich people are taxed at a higher rate because the gov assumes they have enough and more to spare, not that they need to pay more than others to offset some ethereal cost to society for their lifestyle. They are donors, they pay more to the system than they take out. The assumption is that unmarried people don't need the money as much as married because they must just be supporting themselves, which is not always the case. Even if it were, and it is in my situation, why should those who abstain from marriage pay to support the married couples lifestyle? So the government can control our behavior? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a scary president to set? Why, if the govt placed a sufficient tax burden on the public they could compel them to do pretty much anything! Maybe even buy health insurance, who knows.

Black people are a statistical drain on society, would it be acceptable for the government to encourage black/white crossbreeding with tax incentives/penalties to solve that little issue? If it is, just let me know. The gov already taxes cigarettes and alcohol, and likely soon fatty foods; I don't support any of that. Not only does it seem wrong to let the govt meddle in free society, it also appears as though they're vice profiteering. Now, you may say the government needs to curb those trends or healthcare costs will rise, but that's only true if you plan on paying their healthcare. There's something to be said for natural selection. If they're going to die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population.

javert wrote:This is definitely possible, as two single people living independently may each buy a vacuum cleaner whereas a couple may buy only one vacuum cleaner to share between them. But is the goal to sell more vacuum cleaners? Maybe it is. Or maybe it's to save on the cost of producing vacuum cleaners so that some other widget can be produced with those resources instead?

I see, so incentivizing marriage is the governments way of encouraging microcosms of communism throughout the country. Maybe I should form a commune with my neighbors, we could all share a lawnmower and decrease the ethereal cost to society that way too.

It comes down to what you and I value differently (presupposing you're not merely playing devils advocate). You value the state of society over the individual, I value the state of the individual over society. But it's not worth it to argue with me. According to The American Journal of Psychotherapy we overt schizoids tend to have idiosyncratic moral and political beliefs. I am well aware I'm in the minority.

Solitarian wrote:The gov already taxes cigarettes and alcohol, and likely soon fatty foods; I don't support any of that. Not only does it seem wrong to let the govt meddle in free society, it also appears as though they're vice profiteering. Now, you may say the government needs to curb those trends or healthcare costs will rise, but that's only true if you plan on paying their healthcare. There's something to be said for natural selection. If they're going to die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population.

I don't know where you live in the country, or if you're aware that the mayor of New York City is banning soft drinks over 16 ounces.. and also taxing the sh!t out of everything. I don't live there, but I know people who do and they're not too happy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/jon-stewart-bloomberg-soda-ban-video_n_1562011.html

I do support equality though. Either let gay people get married or don't let anybody get married. I opt for the latter, so that preachy Christians can stfu about premarital sex and the like. I didn't read this whole thread because I saw it too late and don't really care that much.

cthulhucakes wrote:I don't know where you live in the country, or if you're aware that the mayor of New York City is banning soft drinks over 16 ounces.. and also taxing the sh!t out of everything. I don't live there, but I know people who do and they're not too happy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/jon-stewart-bloomberg-soda-ban-video_n_1562011.html

Yeah, I did hear about that, though I try to know as little as possible about politics and society and junk. I prefer to live within my own realm of influence and not worry about what I can't control. I can always leave, legally or otherwise.

cthulhucakes wrote:I do support equality though. Either let gay people get married or don't let anybody get married. I opt for the latter, so that preachy Christians can stfu about premarital sex and the like. I didn't read this whole thread because I saw it too late and don't really care that much.

If I thought for an instant that the Christians would shut up once gay marriage was allowed, I'd back it's passing all the way to Texas.

Solitarian wrote: Now, you may say the government needs to curb those trends or healthcare costs will rise, but that's only true if you plan on paying their healthcare. There's something to be said for natural selection. If they're going to die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population.

You are assuming that all those people who will not get healthcare will just die without bothering anybody about it, that isn't how society works. You also need enough people to work, and if there will be too many sick people then it will influence you in indirect way economically anyway even if you will not pay for they healthcare. There is also a problem with costs of healtcare being the biggest in USA so the system that you have now doesn't work, despite not having to pay for others you must pay more yourself anyway. The other problem is that we can already read some predisposition for diseases from DNA that will allow for cheap preventive actions, so soon you will not be able have modern healthcare with people hiding this information.

Solitarian wrote:It comes down to what you and I value differently (presupposing you're not merely playing devils advocate). You value the state of society over the individual, I value the state of the individual over society. But it's not worth it to argue with me. According to The American Journal of Psychotherapy we overt schizoids tend to have idiosyncratic moral and political beliefs. I am well aware I'm in the minority.

I think that it is more about valuing your fantasy that you are disconnected from society despite being fully depended on it economically. (not that I agree with everything that government does, and I rather have less policies that add extra taxes to something or regulate how big soda you can buy but it isn't true that you are disconnected from the consequences that society will have)