Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”
Steele’s argument is utterly correct. More marriages would mean that more benefits would be paid out. However, it’s still ridiculous because the exact same argument could be used against all marriages. And if you think about it, because heterosexual marriages would more likely lead to children, which would lead to more benefits, heterosexual marriages would actually be worse for businesses than gay marriages!
Does Steele and the GOP really want to be against the institution of marriage? Will Steele call for a moratorium on all new marriages until the financial crisis is over?
But wait, it gets even more bizarre, if you continue with Steele’s logic, it necessarily follows that unmarried gay couples are good for small businesses! So not only he is against the institution of marriage, he’s in favor of promiscuous homosexuality!
#96 – Patrick,
Scott, why did you support a candidate that is the very definition of hate and intolerance? That’s illogical.
And, you’re an ass. A) His viewpoint on one item is hateful and intolerant. B) Did you see who he was running against? Talk about hateful and intolerant … not to mention war mongering, economy collapsing, I crashed 5 planes through incompetence, borrow and bomb, I can see Russia from my house stooopid, etc.
#102 – Patrick,
There is only a right for men & women to marry, same as throughout our history. A gay man has the same rights as I. We can only marry a woman… No special rights for either… Pretty simple.
Does stupidity hurt?
Straight people can marry their lovers. Gays and Lesbians can marry someone whom they find sexually unattractive or even repulsive.
Nice rights you grant.
Remember pursuit of happiness? How do you address that one? Moran!!
#102 Patrick wrote “A gay man has the same rights as I. We can only marry a woman… No special rights for either… Pretty simple.
False, and as before, it’s because you’re missing the essence. As a heterosexual, you have the right to marry a person to whom you are sexually attracted and with whom you want to spend the rest of your life. Gay people in most states do not have that right (you seem to have conceded that marriage is now a right).
The good news is that homosexuals are NOT fighting for any special rights only for themselves. If they eventually win the debate, you will ALSO be able to legally marry another man. If that seems like a useless right to you because you have no sexual interest in another man, then perhaps you can see how useless the right to marry a woman seems to a gay man.
Try to look for the essence.
# 104 Misanthropic Scott said, “Does stupidity hurt?”
I was going to ask you that. Why do you support a President that is hateful & intolerant?
# 105 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, “False, and as before, it’s because you’re missing the essence. As a heterosexual, you have the right to marry a person to whom you are sexually attracted”
So? If a guy wanted to “marry” a 5 year old then, per you, he would be being discriminated against… Like I said, we all have the same rights under the current laws.
#106 – Patdick,
Answered, reanswered, and rereanswered.
#107 Patrick, now you’re getting further from the essence than even the semantic aspect of the debate.
As I said in my prior comment (#97), the essential element of this debate is what criteria are allowed to determine who can marry, and whether sexual orientation is improperly discriminatory. Save your “5 year old” red herring for another time. ANY criterion discriminates in some fashion, but some are proper and acceptable, although people often disagree on where a specific line should be drawn, especially with age.
People are increasingly reaching the conclusion that sexual orientation isn’t a proper basis for discrimination, even if it means expanding the legal definition of marriage from historical boundaries that failed to recognize lasting same-sex unions. When the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans outlawed homosexuality in 342 AD, it didn’t prevent the Roman empire from eventually falling, and no such prohibitions will save America either, if that is also her fate. You’ll have to find another way to save the country from ruin.
I find that it is a huge problem that dissent is called hate just because there is a disagreement on the subject, especially when they are taking a word marriage and redefining what it historically meant.
Who will stand against the government when the right to free speech means that you don’t have to pay to hear the President speak, instead of having the right to say what one wishes?
The gay McCarthyism is starting.
1.) A person can be punished for speaking out against a policy of the government, such as granting gay marriage. A preacher could be sued for discrimination if he won’t preform a gay wedding or if he preaches against homosexuality.
5.) A person can be questioned regarding their stance on an issue and then be penalized if their answer is the opposite of the questioner’s stance.
14.) If a crime is committed and the victim is in a certain group, it is a hate crime because the person is gay. The sentence is increased by a certain amount. (Aren’t all murders or assaults hate crimes against the victim regardless of race or sexuality?) If I get in a car accident and the other driver dies as a result, would the sentence I get be based on the race or sexuality of the victim?
#102
Fundamentally, THE issue is whether the government of the people should be permitted to discriminate based on sexual preference. Right now, the government is permitted to choose on whom it confers benefits and privileges based on sexual preference. The analogy would be the government being allowed to give tax breaks to people with red hair. Arguments about the “meaning of the word marriage” are specious and ignore the core issue. The proof is as follows, suppose we do nothing to change the term “marriage” from referring to a heterosexual couple, the core issue of government sanctioned discrimination would remain. The name you give for the legal concept of a couple on which the government provides benefits is irrelevant compared to the fundamental issue of government sanctioned discrimination.
#110
> I find that it is a huge
> problem that dissent is called
> hate just because there is
> a disagreement on the subject
This is the same argument used to support discrimination against blacks. There are different types of dissent. Arguments about the changing/not changing the meaning of marriage are red herrings. They completely miss the core issue: government sanction discrimination.
> Who will stand against the
> government when the right to
> free speech means that you
> don’t have to pay to hear the
> President speak, instead of
> having the right to say
> what one wishes?
This, like the rest of your post, is another strawman argument. We are not talking about 1984 New-speak. We are talking about the authority of the government to confer benefits and privileges based on sexual preference. If we were to counter that strawman with another, we’d say something akin to “Where will this type of discrimination stop? Why not give tax breaks only to men? How about legally allowing subsidies directly to the President’s closest friends?” Both are equally sophist.
# 108 Misanthropic Scott said, “Answered, reanswered, and rereanswered.”
You’ve got to answer on the board, not in your head… See you ranted on about the other choice being a war monger, etc. LOL. O’Mama is slaughtering civilians, women & children. Collapsing the economy? Oh, you mean supporting the SAME econ policies as O’Mama, except on a smaller scale.
So, why did REALLY you support such a hateful, bigoted person?
#113 – Patdick,
Read posts #103 & #87. So, only answered and reanswered. Good enough? Or are you willing to admit you are a troll?
#110, Benjamin,
The gay McCarthyism is starting.
1.) A person can be punished for speaking out against a policy of the government, such as granting gay marriage. A preacher could be sued for discrimination if he won’t preform a gay wedding or if he preaches against homosexuality.
5.) A person can be questioned regarding their stance on an issue and then be penalized if their answer is the opposite of the questioner’s stance.
14.) If a crime is committed and the victim is in a certain group, it is a hate crime because the person is gay. The sentence is increased by a certain amount. (Aren’t all murders or assaults hate crimes against the victim regardless of race or sexuality?) If I get in a car accident and the other driver dies as a result, would the sentence I get be based on the race or sexuality of the victim?
It always sounds good when you plagerize some garbage from other site and then don’t cite it.
#1, can you show us one person who has been punished for speaking out against gay marriage? Then, please post one preacher who has been punished because he refused to perform ANY wedding.
BTW, I know of several pastors that will not officiate at a wedding if the parishioners don’t attend his church or they haven’t taken a course on marriage etc.
#5, can you show us ONE person who has been punished or even just forced to state their opinion on ANY subject?
#14, All jurisdictions I am aware off define a hate crime as one committed BECAUSE the person was a definable minority. For example, if you beat up someone just because they are homosexual and call him a “fag”, “queer”, and “fudge packer” then you will most likely be charged under a hate crime statute.
*
But it looks as if the original writer put as much thought in writing this list as you did in copying it. And that is the hateful bigoted stance Scott and Gary alluded to above. You are inventing things that the Gay Marriage advocates have never dreamed of. Yet somehow you are taking and posting these fantasies as something already accomplished.
You are a hateful bigot Benjamin.
#115 – Mr. Fusion,
Well said, but why did you bring the Green Bay Fudge Packers into this?
77,
Read my comment again. If you’re lazy, I’ll paraphrase.
“Couples that have children; whether from adoption, kidnapping, birth or whatever.”
I didn’t even mention orientation!
81,
I never said ALL couples have children. What I said is that governments want couples to have children since it makes more taxpayers.
Any idiot that says over-population is the problem: off yourself. If you want to lead, lead by example. I don’t think population is a problem. Humans are notoriously resourceful. If YOU think there are too many people, kill yourself. Make way for the children since they have potential.
#117 – Named,
You are truly stupid if you think that population can increase forever.
As for leading by example, I do.
Golden Snip Award 2001
#117
To reiterate your claim, you are saying that marriage, from the perspective of the state, ought (as opposed to is) about procreation. Therefore, it follows that you must also agree that those that do not procreate should have their benefits and privileges removed, right?
HOW about this..
A nation that Acknowledges ALL groups and religions, BANNING the cultural differences that EAch OF THESE GROUPS brings..for Christian Foibles.
#115 Mr Fusion stuck his foot in his mouth when he said, “It always sounds good when you plagerize[sic] some garbage from other site and then don’t cite it,” and again when he pontificated, “but it looks as if the original writer put as much thought in writing this list as you did in copying it.”
Site your source if you think this is copied or apologize. The numbering I used was based on the amendments it applied to. There was no number 3 because quartering troops has nothing to do with this.
” #115 Mr. Fusion, “can you show us one person who has been punished for speaking out against gay marriage? Then, please post one preacher who has been punished because he refused to perform ANY wedding.”
It happened in Australia. May happen here.
#115 Mr Fusion also asked, “Can you show us ONE person who has been punished or even just forced to state their opinion on ANY subject?”
Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.
Mr Fusion also said, “All jurisdictions I am aware off define a hate crime as one committed BECAUSE the person was a definable minority. For example, if you beat up someone just because they are homosexual and call him a “fag”, “queer”, and “fudge packer” then you will most likely be charged under a hate crime statute.”
So how is this equal protection under the law such that it would be number 14. Or are some people more equal than others?
#115 Mr. Fusion, “You are a hateful bigot Benjamin.”
And so is that guy sitting in the Oval Office. Barack Obama doesn’t believe in gay marriage either.
In reply to Mr. Fusion, Benjamin wrote “Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.”
Like Mr. Fusion, I was confused by the odd numbering system you used in your earlier list, and never would have guessed that you were associating Miss California’s “forced” pageant answer with the 5th Amendment prohibition against forced self-incrimination. My bad.
However, you may have overlooked that the backlash against her was God’s will. She was obviously displeased with how the Lord had made her, and she compensated for her perceived god-given deficiencies with breast implants. Also, the fact that she was in a beauty pageant and had done prior modeling, including a few topless shots, seems highly indicative that she has serious issues with the sin of vanity.
Obviously, the backlash was entirely God’s will, reminding her that she still has a lot of work to do on the “Christian values” of which she’s so proud.
#116, Scott,
Thank you,
Well said, but why did you bring the Green Bay Fudge Packers into this?
It’s a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.
😉
#121, Benjamin,
The idiocy of the comments plus the weird, undisclosed method of numbering definitely left the impression you had “borrowed” the comments from another list. The amendments you refer to are unknown. If you were referring to the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, please learn how to write them down.
http://tinyurl.com/2al422
It happened in Australia. May happen here.
OK, so it happened in Australia. First, you didn’t provide a link and second, the US operates under a different set of laws and Constitution than does Australia.
“May happen here” is not the same as what you claimed. You wrote:
So show us how someone CAN BE punished and then show us someone who has been punished.
Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.
Again, you are blowing farts. “Miss California”, as well as what Gary added, was not forced to answer any question. She volunteered all comments. A backlash is not punishment.
So how is this equal protection under the law such that it would be number 14. Or are some people more equal than others?
A hate crime is applied, in addition to the regular charge, when a crime of violence is committed solely because of the victim’s minority status.
That person gets no extra “rights” or benefits from the government. If a blind person is beaten up because he is blind, it appears to you that is just fine.
Obama is in favor of Civil Unions. That is not the same as marriage, nor is it the status quo. Most importantly, Obama is not advocating hatred or continued discrimination against homosexuals.
121 – Bennie,
” #115 Mr. Fusion, “can you show us one person who has been punished for speaking out against gay marriage? Then, please post one preacher who has been punished because he refused to perform ANY wedding.”
It happened in Australia. May happen here.
You might at least cite an example of that. And, if you’re going to complain about the typing of others, learn the difference between sight, site, and cite.
#115 Mr Fusion also asked, “Can you show us ONE person who has been punished or even just forced to state their opinion on ANY subject?”
Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.
So, those who provided the backlash are not entitled to their free speech? You didn’t exactly give either a link to back this up or any actual punishment or force she received for this, merely public opinion at odds with hers. This is exactly what we are giving you right now, not punishment, not force, just shame for your view that others are not entitled to the rights you take for granted.
So how is this equal protection under the law such that it would be number 14. Or are some people more equal than others?
All are equally protected against any hate crime committed by anyone who hates them for what they are rather than who they are. All crimes that start because of bigotry are equally prosecuted as hate crimes. Whatever your ethnic heritage or sexuality or religious belief, if someone hurts you for that, they will be prosecuted for hate crime.
119,
No. No one should have their rights removed. But, history has shown that couples that marry often have children. That is what government banks on. Some couples that marry also turn into serial killers, but that generally doesn’t work into the equation of population growth and taxpayers.
118,
I may truly be stupid, but you must also be an idiot to imagine that population growth is a perfectly uniform line without any factors getting in the away… Like war, famine, poverty, etc. No everyone in the world is sitting on their couch watching TV. As for your snipping. That’s great. It also unfortunate that I know your potential off spring will never make the world a better place. Which is truly unfortunate.
#126, Named,
… history has shown that couples that marry often have children. That is what government banks on.
That is a very narrow, simplistic view from an “Us vs Them” mode. The Government is not some creature deigned to reign over us. In America, we elect our government.
I hold rather that it is in society’s interest that we have stable families. The nuclear family is our lowest and most common form of government around which all other governance is created and based. We have diminished the role of the large, extended family in society because of the ease of travel and mobility of the workforce has dispersed most. Yet it is the stability in our society that families provide that we, as a society, need to promote and grow.
While it is true that married people do commit crimes, by far most crimes against society are committed by people in unstable situations; the unemployed, single men, those with no immediate families, etc. Not all, but most.
Remember, just because most families have and raise their children, marriage is not a requirement. There are many single parent families and it is widely recognized that these are less than ideal. Yet we do allow single parent families as they are also recognized as much superior to the alternative of no parenting.
#126, Named,
… to imagine that population growth is a perfectly uniform line without any factors getting in the away… Like war, famine, poverty, etc.
We have experienced wars, famine, disease, and natural disasters throughout history. Each time they take progressively more and more lives. Yet our population continues to grow. Every time, we find new ways to combat our foes and continue to reproduce.
I don’t take Scott as saying we should stop reproducing. Even Scott realizes it will be the younger members in society that continue on with civilization. Instead, I think he is saying we should think a little harder about what the future holds for an unchecked population growth.
127,
We’re going to end up arguing from the same side you realize. My premise was that governments project that population growth = more tax revenue.
Couples do not have to get married. In fact, I don’t think I even used the word marriage. But, couples generally START families. Its pretty rare that a single person will start a family. Not unheard of, but rare.
The rest of your point is pretty valid, so there is no reason to go debate the minutiae.
I will say that population explosions are not in the West. Not by a long shot. There is lots of planet Earth, and there are lots of ideas that can work. What we also have, particularly in the US is a sheer amount of overuse and exploitation of the planet. A significant reduction in consumption in the US would shift things drastically in the world.
Anyhoo… I don’t believe in marriage as a religious institution. It’s more of a partnership of capital: livestock, land, titles, deeds, etc. Which is almost pointless now…
#126
Again, your logic is not sound. If the goal is to increase taxpayers by providing benefits to couples in the hopes they will produce more taxpayers, then it follows that the government should not exclude certain types of couples that might produce taxpayers while providing benefits to many couples that do not. Furthermore, if increased population were truly the goal, there are far more overt means of getting population growth: ban condoms, encourage more promiscuity etc.
#129 & 130,
Named,
It’s more of a partnership of capital: livestock, land, titles, deeds, etc.
That is part of the crux of marriage / partnership / Civil Union or whatever you want to call it. The “legal” marriage part is what holds the couple together through the hard times when you just want to get up and leave. The rest of marriage is being with your best friend.
But the goal shouldn’t be, nor do I think it is, to increase the tax base. The more people in a society, the more resources society must expend. For example, it is easier and cheaper if everyone lived on a farm and grew their own food. Yet more people require cities and now transportation to bring the raw materials to the city to feed them, then the infrastructure to house, employ, etc,
Man is a social animal that prefers to be around its own kind. We care for our own within that and each society or group. As a society we are much more stable and able to care for and defend ourselves against others. It is that stability that government should be supporting.
RE #131,
For some reason, I also addressed that post to #130, which is Thomas. Forgive my brain fart.