Cynical Nation

While rooting for a Dem takeover next week, if they don't and antorum is the sole GOP casualty, it'll still be sweet.

Here's where I disagree with most Liberatrians - "freedom" does not equal license, or "doing whatever pleases us most, so long as we don't harm other people."

America's Founders defined "freedom" very narrowly, as LIBERTY (complete personal responsibility for ourselves and our actions).

Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" was advanced in a specific context, one that posited, "if we truly OWN ourselves, we must demand control over our own lives and that requires that we take on complete responsibility for ourselves - everything we do and anything that happens to us."

This is why none of America's Founders, not even the most federalist of them all, Alexander Hamilton, felt that the government had any right to take (tax) from some in order to benefit others.

I think everyone kind of goes through that stage where that great Libertarian, Leonard Read's thesis Anything That's Peaceful, sounds good, decent and quintessentially "American."

BUT, as much as that "anything" eschews or even shares any responsibility for ourselves with others via the government, it stands squarely against what America's Founders defined as our "guiding principles."

For me, the gay marriage debate can only turn on one standard - what is best for society.

Certainly the government DOES have the "right" to reward behaviors that stabilize society, for instance, in this case, heterosexual marriage and child rearing and punish behaviors that don't, such as murder and pedophilia.

If, as opponents claim, gay marriage reduces marriage rates overall and results in more children being born out of wedlock (it has since Europe acknowledged it), then it's effects are clearly corrosive.

It's been shown that married people tend to have more children and that those who marry and rear children impart what are called Conservative or Traditional values on that section of society, resulting in a growing ideology gap (Conservatives are out reproducing Liberals by something like 42%)...and all of that is almost certainly to the GOOD for society overall.

Should heterosexual marriage get "special consideration" and rewards as being a "net positive" for society?

I'd say yes...who wouldn't?

Same thing with same-sex parenting - if, as studies show, children from same-sex parents have more problems than do those reared by single parents, then the concerns of the child should pre-empt any concerns for the "pursuit of happiness" by those same-sex parents.

My right to "pursue happiness" ends where it adversely impacts anyone else, as does every American citizen's.

> My right to "pursue happiness" ends where it adversely impacts anyone else, as does every American citizen's.

I agree 100%. But two gay people getting married somewhere doesn't negatively affect me, IMO. If you want to argue the contrary, it seems you'd have to do so in some abstract, collective sense about what's best for "society," as you put it. Then before you know it, you're on the slippery slope to banning smoking, trans-fats, and everything else the enlightened class doesn't want us doing.

It's not a matter of whether two gay people getting married effects ME, Barry, for if, as the European experiment seems to show, government's treating "gay unions" the same as hetero-unions, results in fewer marriages and more children being born out of wedlock - THAT impacts all of us quite adversely.

Certainly governmet must retain the right and the will to correctly "promote the general welfare" - and rewarding heterosexual marriage and child-rearing comes down to rewarding a basic stabilizing activity that greatly benefits society, would seem to "promote the general welfare," in myriad ways that gay unions, human-animal unions, and polygamist unions do not.

Gay civil unions being legally accepted?

Yes.

Rewarded, the same as heterosexual marriage due to an incorrect interpretation of "equality before the law?"

Absolutely not.

In that same vein, I support larger tax deductions for dependent children, a greater hetero-marriage tax incentive/reward and even possibly increasing tax advantages to working people who have more children, of course, coupled with restricting people on public assistance from having children and seriously considering a ban on gay adoptions - which I've always opposed and feel do irreparable harm to the children reared in them.

Homosexuality is as value-neutral as is dwarfism. While neither should be criminalized, neither should be promoted or encouraged either, as they do nothing, in and of themselves, to "promote the general welfare."

Heterosexual marriage does indeed promote the general welfare because it's a the most stabilizing social activity there is.

How exactly does one "encourage" homosexuality? By tax abatements? Tax credits? Free groceries? Classes in elementary school? The gov't can try all it can to "encourage" homosexuality, but I'd bet it'd go just as well as the gov't effort at encouraging marriage, which has coincided with a major boost in the divorce rate.
Sorry, live and let live. My gay neighbor doesn't affect me negatively. Him being married wouldn't either. The 2 of them adopting a baby would also have little effect besides having a cute baby in the neighborhood.

Nothing surprises me less than JMK trying to Rove "the pursuit of happiness" and reject any notions of personal freedom in the United States.

That is exactly what Chimp and Shooter believe too.

JMK purports a linear relationship between Gay Marriage to a declining birthrate. This is what he would have our Big Government act on, and so would Chimp and Shooter.

So, is gay marrige legal in Japan? It must be, because they have a very low birth rate, and gay marrige causes low birth rates, therefore making gay marriage JMK's business.

LOL!

You're a fascist.

I guess the notion of the government "rewarding" citizens based on their family/lifestyle choices smacks of social engineering to me. Oh well.

To be honest, I'm still trying to figure out what "rewards" reserved for straight married couples we're talking about here. I've been married for 4 years now, and I'll be damned if I've seen them, unless you consider paying more taxes a "reward."

Exactly, Barry. When I got married, I kept opening closets and looking under couches, expecting to find a boxful of money or something. More taxes, less freedom, increased stress, more noise.

> More taxes, less freedom, increased stress, more noise.

Do gay people know about this? Perhaps we should warn them.

He's such a moron. There's really nothing more I can say about him or this, other than I'm glad I don't live in PA.

Heterosexual marriage IS encouraged Fred and rightly so, though I'd say not nearly enough, through tax abatements (child dependancy deductions, the marriage tax credit for joint returns, etc)...if those things were to be applied to homosexual unions, yes, that would have to be considered "encouraging homosexuality," and homosexual unions, something that, like dwarfism, does nothing to promote the general welfare.

Same for bigamist unions.

I'm against criminalizing them as well. They have a long tradition in Mormonism and Islam, BUT, they are not as stabilizing an influence as is mongamous heterosexual marriage.

Outlaw them?

NO!

But, "promote them," by treating the same as monogamous hetersexual marriage?

Absolutely NOT!

Where did you get the impression I opposed "gay civil unions, Barely???

Nowhere above, that's for certain.

In fact, I said I support legalizing them as I do human-animal unions and bigamist unions, both of which are, wrongly in my view, criminalized in many States around our great country.

Needless to say, you're also wrong with, "JMK purports a linear relationship between Gay Marriage to a declining birthrate. This is what he would have our Big Government act on, and so would Chimp and Shooter,"...again, no such a contention was made by me.

Since I believe you're too naive to try and put words in my mouth, and don't have the malice against me to motivate you to do so, I can only presume you misread, or failed to understand what you read.

I can help with the latter, by trying to put things as simply as possible.

OKAM opposed to calling it "Marriage," as that would, again, as happened in Europe, put various religions at odds with so-called "anti-discrimination laws" for things like merely piously calling homosexual behavior "a sin," and "discriminating" against gays by refusing to Marry them in their Churches.

I am very much in favor of special status (rewards, tax incentives, etc) in favor of heterosexual marriage and child-rearing and would vigorously oppose those same rewards and incentives offered to gays, bigamists, practitioners of bestiality, etc.

I KNOW, I don't guess, that more children born out of wedlock is bad for them individually and even worse for society overall and that's why it's right & just and necessary for the government to support monogamous heterosexual marriage and child-rearing.

There simply isn't any reason to reward any of the other kinds of unions the same way.

> I'm glad I don't live in PA.

Unfortunately, he has as big an impact on our lives as he does Pennsylvanians. We just have less say in the matter.

"I guess the notion of the government "rewarding" citizens based on their family/lifestyle choices smacks of social engineering to me. Oh well. (BNJ)
THAT'S exactly what the "general welfare" clause meant - that government has the right to reward behaviors it sees as beneficial and punish those it sees as harmful.

Of course there are all sorts of dolts who've come to misconstrue that phrase, a phrase written in a very specific context, to mean something perverse - that the individual benefit to citizen A, can be seen as "promoting the general welfare."

Nothing of the kind was ever promted by America's Founders, nor did any of them give any indication that they believed anything other than, we all own our own lives and take full and sole responsibility for them.

Parts of Europe are coming around (Italy, Germany and the Ukrane) and rewarding women who have children, in an effort to increase the birthrates in those countries.

We have a very different reason to do the same thing. Sure we could use an increase in the birthrate among "productive" people, as much as we could use a severe decrease in the birthrate of the least productive (the dependant poor"), but we have an even deeper reason to reward and encourage monogamous, heterosexual marriage and child-rearing - to stabilize society and advance "traditional American values."

Everyone should be on board with the "Marriage initiative" championed by most Republicans and many Democrats (like Harold Ford and others), it's supported by such folks because they apparently believe that hetero-Marriage is a very stabilizing influence on society.

I can't honestly see anyone disagreeing on anything but raw emotional grounds.

OK, I'll ask the obvious question myself;

JMK are you saying there's something called the "Marriage Tax Credit?"
Well, yes....Yes I am.
"Mind proving it? Cause I've never seen one."
No, I don't mind at all.
HOUSE VOTES TO ACCELERATE MARRIAGE TAX CREDIT IMPLEMENTATION

May 21, 2002

Congressman Ted Strickland today voted to speed up the implementation of tax cuts for married couples, and supported a cost-of-living increase for disabled veterans.

"The marriage tax credit applies equally to couples in all tax brackets, and is a fair and reasonable way to provide tax relief," said Strickland.

http://www.house.gov/strickland/MarriageTaxAccellerationRel.html

My understanding is that the "general welfare" clause makes such "positive discriminations" possible under tha law, so long as they are enacted in order to advance behaviors that are considered beneficial to society overall.

What it does not seem to make possible is the incredible and costly network of public assistance, or "social programs" that benefit the reckless, the irresponsible, the slothful, at the expense of their more productive (taxpaying) neighbors, especially when we have so many jobs that such institutionalized "disincentives" make even more undesirable to the so-called "poor."

While the former (Marriage tax credits, etc) advance behaviors that are beneficial to society and thus "promoting the general welfare," the latter (the social "safety net") puts individual welfare above that of any "common good," or general welfare, thus turning the "general welfare clause" on its head.

Count me out.
Marriage is not a threat to marriage.
If government "encourages" homesexuality, does that mean my 10-year-old son, who's still of a "girls are icky" mindset, is at risk of being sucked into that lifestyle if government "encourages" things a little too much?

Why doesn't the gov't encourage marriage, period?

Some of the anti-gay marriage yodelings, tinged with outright hate, remind me of the 'blacks and whites dating? NO WAY' and 'marrying between the races?!!!!! God forbid' arguments of several decades ago.

JMK, somehow you missed the glaringly obvious point yet again. If homosexual marriage causes low birthrate, how do you explain Japan?

Oddly enough, we can now revisit our old discussions on outsourcing and out of control corporations. Having three children myself, I know exactly why people don't have so many -- stress. My job was given to a foreigner, and I *still* make less than I did eight years ago.

It wasn't the dotcom bust, I'm in Michigan, so save beating that dead horse. It was the crushing imports, yes, done by first the Repug congress and signed by Clinton, but far worse was the do-nothing Chimp/Shooter duo cheerleading corporations as they exported high-tech jobs until they no longer even needed H1-B, having completely beat down the American programmer.

It is the policies that YOU support that cause all the stress and uncertainty that is the real cause of people having fewer children. It is Chimp's refusal to enforce immigration laws or control corporations in any way that has led to the massive layoff we see everywhere.

No, don't lie. These jobs have NOT been replaced with better jobs, they have been replaced with MORE JOBS, two people working in every household, and longer hours for less pay, no job security, cut benefits, health care contributions coming out of our paychecks.

Those who think as you do, not liberals, are the cause of the declining birthrate.

Bring back *real* conservatism, which you despise, and then there will be domestic security, prosperity, and the birth rate will rise again.

Your neocon Big Government, Big Spending, Big Deficit, Big Brother support is just Fascism.

> I'm glad I don't live in PA.>

>>Unfortunately, he has as big an impact on our lives as he does Pennsylvanians. We just have less say in the matter.>>

Well, there is that. But at least I know that I had nothing to do with that particular festering assboil being in the Senate. And that is some small (very small, but I'll take what I can get) comfort. :p

"JMK, somehow you missed the glaringly obvious point yet again. If homosexual marriage causes low birthrate, how do you explain Japan? (BH)
(BH)


I told you that I never siad, nor implied that "homosexuality causes low birthrates."

Prove to me, or "show us, where I said that.

I didn't read past that first line, because that line was predicated upon your miscomprehension of what I wrote.

Count me out.
Marriage is not a threat to marriage.
If government "encourages" homesexuality, does that mean my 10-year-old son, who's still of a "girls are icky" mindset, is at risk of being sucked into that lifestyle if government "encourages" things a little too much?

Why doesn't the gov't encourage marriage, period?" (Fred)
(Fred)


ALL marriage DOESN'T "promote the general welfare," or result in any quantifiable "greater good," such as children reared in the most stable form of environment.

Bigamist unions DO NOT, nor do homosexual unions.

Heterosexual marriages/unions are a benefit because they generally result in children (homosexual unions and human-animal unions do not)...bigamist unions DO, but they are inherantly unstable.

Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy, same as bestialty or serial adultery, or bigamy, as those things all "deviate" from the accepted norm.

Government certainly DOES have the right to encourage any behaviors it sees as being beneficial to the stability of the country/government.

For those who espouse government sponsored "universal health care," I'd say, "Get used to such intrusions." Even I must fully acknowledge that whoever "PAYS" dictates the terms of that deal.

A government funded health care program certainly could come with some "controls," and I'd absolutely support that sort of deal.

Not just rationing (that's always needed in such programs), but controls - on what recipients can and cannot eat, drink, mandated exercise, etc.

Same as if I pay your rent, the deal spoken or unspoken, written or unwritten is that you're to live by my rules.

The first cost of "free stuff" is one's freedom.

It seems your claiming that there's no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relations, both being equally normal and equally moral, in your view - I've never heard that viewpoint espoused, and given that over two-thirds of the U.S. opposes "gay marriage," it seems a rather "extreme" viewpoint.

"If, as opponents claim, gay marriage reduces marriage rates overall and results in more children being born out of wedlock (it has since Europe acknowledged it), then it's effects are clearly corrosive.

It's been shown that married people tend to have more children and that those who marry and rear children impart what are called Conservative or Traditional values on that section of society, resulting in a growing ideology gap (Conservatives are out reproducing Liberals by something like 42%)...and all of that is almost certainly to the GOOD for society overall. -- JMK"

Are you really this stupid, or do you just depend on spamming so much that people are too bored to dig through your long-winded posts only to prove you dead wrong for the millionth time?

In Europe, birthrates were as low before gay marriage was accepted as they are now, only out of wedlock births have risen.

That is what I wrote, ""If, as opponents claim, gay marriage reduces marriage rates overall and results in MORE children being born out of wedlock..., it turns out you made the claim that "accepting gay marriage reduces birthrates," then argued against the very point you yourself made, claiming I made it!

Again, please show us a post where I said what you purported I did: "Accepting gay marriage reduces birthrates."

You can't find it because it ain't there.

Once again, as you did with H-1B Visas, you point to "evidence" that supports MY contention and refutes yours.

Not a very effective debating technique. It's probably why you wind up in such a bad position in all these exchanges - the same position as a one legged midget in an ass-kicking contest.

You are beyond moron. Let's make a million and one time, shall we?

"If, as opponents claim, gay marriage reduces marriage rates overall and results in more children being born out of wedlock (it has since Europe acknowledged it), then it's effects are clearly corrosive.

It's been shown that married people tend to have more children and that those who marry and rear children impart what are called Conservative or Traditional values on that section of society, resulting in a growing ideology gap (Conservatives are out reproducing Liberals by something like 42%)...and all of that is almost certainly to the GOOD for society overall.
"

There it is, ya mongoloid. Your words. You are EXACTLY saying that there is a causal relationship between gay marriage and declining birthrates. You said that gay marrige reduces marriage rates overall, and point to Europe "acknowledging" this "fact". And then you go on to say that "It's been shown that married people tend to have more children" ... do you see it yet?

Gays reduce marriage according to your warped mind, and since married people have more children, less people marrying would obviously mean less childre, or A LOWERED BIRTHRATE.

So you said, EXACTLY, that allowing gay marriage reduces birthrate.

You are just too stupid to realize what you said.

"Gays reduce marriage according to your warped mind, and since married people have more children, less people marrying would obviously mean less childre, or A LOWERED BIRTHRATE. (BH)
Marriage rates have declined dramatically and yet birth rates (which I never directly addressed) remained constant, as illegitimacy INCREASED.

By the way that is NOT my opinion.

My opinion doesn't matter, but for the record, my opinion (until reading three reports that documented those marriage declines in Europe) was "How can the mere acceptance of gay marriage reduce heterosexual marriage? I don't believe they can.", but being as open-minded as I am, the report's facts convinced me otherwise.

But back to the "birthrate question," which seems the source of your confusion - how does a decline in marriage rates NOT equal a decline in birthrate?

An easy answer Barely. OK, easy for me, apparently difficult for you.

In short, the same number of childrten were born (birthrate = same, to simplufy that for you), but more of those children were born out of wedlock (illegitimacy INCREASED), after gay marriage was put on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage.

That's terrible for all those children, as they're being born into less secure environs and being "victimized" by an arbitrary stance in society. Let's think of the children 's rights ahead of a few (2%...maybe 5%?) adult's LICENSE.

Other studies have shown that children raised by two same-sex parents have far more emotional problems and adjustment issues than even those reared by single parents.

Again BAD for the kids.

Heterosexual marriage is a stabilizing institution for society and "promotes the general welfare," thus our government has the Constitutional authority (even duty) to give heterosexual marriage special (positive) considerations and rewards that it will not bestow upon bigamist unions, human-animal unions (there are an estimated 80,000 of those worldwide) or homosexual unions as none of those offer the stabilizing effect that heterosexual marriage offers society.

If you have facts that will rebut the assertions I've made, by all means offer them and I'll seriously consider them, but I've looked and couldn't find and reputable, non-biased studies (ie studies NOT done by GLAD) that rebut the assertions of the studies I've read.

On a positive note, it looks like we got to the source of your confusion. Always a good thing.

Got it?

LOWER marriage rates + MORE ILLEGITIMACY = MORE children born out of wedlock.

Thus the birthrate remained the same, but more children were born into less stable environs.

See? I knew you weren't trying to put words in my mouth, you just honestly didn't understand...and that's OK. TOLERANCE - it's what allows people like me, to put up with people like you.

LOL! Rove would be proud, you stump-stupid clown.

Which of these facts you represented to be true is actually a lie:

"gay marriage reduces marriage rates overall" -- JMK

"married people tend to have more children" -- JMK

If neither of them is a lie, my doltish little friend, then it does in fact logically follow that gay marriage MUST lower birthrate.

Remember that "having children" and "birthrate" are synonymous, and that synonymous means "the same".

Are there any more big words you need explained to you? Do you want me to give you a quick primer in logic?

Remember, wingnut radio hosts are not really known for being very bright, so repeating their flawed logic only works around the other firemen.

Barely, I schooled ya good, but you just refuse ta learn!

WHY??? Why Barely, WHY?

"Gay Marriage DOES NOT reduce marriage rates overall."

First off, I NEVER said that.

What I said was, "The acceptance, in Europe, of gay marriage on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage resulted in lower marriage rates overall."

BIG DIFFERENCE.

If you don't understand the difference between my actual statement and your dumbed down statement, please email me for special tutoring.

Seriously, I'll take some time to help you understand.

I further carefully explained that in Europe, as marriage rates overall declined, ILLEGITAMCY rates INCREASED.

Ergo, marriage rates declined, illegitmacy rates increased, while the overall birthrate remained constant (it was already low).

You're like a fighter who's already out on his feet, trying to flail away despite the fight being long over.

I showed you your error, as I've done in virtually every one of our exchanges and you stubbornly refuse to understand, no matter how clear, no matter how simple I make it.