"They just want the right to marry the person they love!!!"

[erictank]

As far as I can tell, you are speaking backwards.

Being gay can not possibly be genetic because if it was, evolution would have removed it.  Evolution is aggressive enough to remove traits that simply aren't necesary for survival, much less traits that are detrimental to passing on your genes. 

Which is why we no longer have an appendix.

Oh, wait...  Humanity has any number of traits useless or even detrimental to survival, hard-coded into our DNA. And yet we continue to survive to breed and continue the species, despite it.

I wonder why it is a big deal. Joe, Jim, Karen, and Kimberly can already get married to any of the others. (Unless it is Joe, Karen AND Kimberly.) Any persons can get a ceremony and called themselves married. Except in the case of polygamy, the government will not step in.

What you seem to want is to use the force of government to make others recognize marriages. First, that is a very odd position for so-called "libertarians" to be in favor of more government coercion. Secondly, there are very specific reasons for the encouragement of heterosexual marriage through government policy, and none of those reason have to do with the welfare of the two persons engaging in that marriage. Homosexual marriage lacks the positive externalities that a stable heterosexual family has. Why should homosexuals recieve the government "benefits" without even the possibility of providing those externalities?

(Now, if you prefer the government to stop its encouragement of marriage, that is at least consistent with the libertarians' claimed position against the use of force. But, strangely, that's not what libertarians argue. They want more force used on the citizens.)

Nope - in all but a few states, Joe cannot marry Jim, Karen cannot marry Kim; to the best of my knowledge, in a large number of states which will not marry those couples, their marriage in states that WILL permit such ceremonies to be performed will not be considered valid (although there are more that will recognize those marriages than will permit them to be performed, AFAIK). Fedgov, holder of the tax purse, does not recognize the validity of those marriages (again, last I heard), while it DOES recognize my marriage to my wife. So your statement is factually-incorrect.

I have long advocated that government ought to get the hell out of anyone's sex life, to say nothing of their marriage. In fact, if I recall, I explicitly STATED that .gov shouldn't be involved in straight marriages either, in the post you quoted.  Let me check... Huh.  Look at that - "Granted, we need to get the government out of STRAIGHT marriages, too, but if we have to suffer their interference in the one, the other needs to be covered by the same blanket."  Wonder what I meant by that?

Equal coverage of law is important, just as minimizing government interference is.  Right now, our government gives BENEFITS to us straights as a result of marriage, and forbids access to those benefits to gays. THAT'S MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

You're not SERIOUSLY advocating that straights should continue to receive extra benefits under law so that they can continue overbreeding? Couples (or larger groups) would continue to have children regardless - .gov need not, and SHOULD not, be in the business of encouraging it in ANY way. And I would argue that a divorce rate in the 50% range seems to argue... strongly against the notion of the "stable heterosexual family" as something that the government is supporting. And yet, people are still having children  . So... got anything else to offer?

Good luck proving genetic causation WRT homosexuality (or any complex human behavior).  I ran the numbers a while back and the sample size would need to be in the hundreds of billions.

Suffice to sat that barring some great & revolutionary mathematical/statistical breakthrough, no one can say, "homosexuality is caused by genetics" without being either ignorant or a liar.

Granted, I'm no statistician, but why would one need a sample size far in excess of actual existing population? And I'm pretty sure I stated that I was a layman and was expressing my belief about a major contributor (perhaps THE major contributor) to the maintenance of gays in the human population despite the fact that, overall, they don't breed. Could "nuture" result in a fairly-constant gay population in a heavily-majority-straight population without a genetic component?

Dunno.  But I really don't THINK so.  Am I going to sit down and prove it mathematically/statistically?  Nope. I just think they ought to be treated same as me and you, and wonder why so many have a problem with that.

[makattak]

Nope - in all but a few states, Joe cannot marry Jim, Karen cannot marry Kim; to the best of my knowledge, in a large number of states which will not marry those couples, their marriage in states that WILL permit such ceremonies to be performed will not be considered valid (although there are more that will recognize those marriages than will permit them to be performed, AFAIK). Fedgov, holder of the tax purse, does not recognize the validity of those marriages (again, last I heard), while it DOES recognize my marriage to my wife. So your statement is factually-incorrect.

That is completely disingenuous. They most certainly CAN get married, they just can't get the state's blessing. I wasn't aware that nothing counts unless the government tells you it approves of it.

I have long advocated that government ought to get the hell out of anyone's sex life, to say nothing of their marriage. In fact, if I recall, I explicitly STATED that .gov shouldn't be involved in straight marriages either, in the post you quoted.  Let me check... Huh.  Look at that - "Granted, we need to get the government out of STRAIGHT marriages, too, but if we have to suffer their interference in the one, the other needs to be covered by the same blanket."  Wonder what I meant by that?

You meant that although you don't like government coercion, you prefer "fairness" to liberty. Here I thought libertarians were about liberty rather than "fairness".

Equal coverage of law is important, just as minimizing government interference is.  Right now, our government gives BENEFITS to us straights as a result of marriage, and forbids access to those benefits to gays. THAT'S MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

Gay people have the same access to benefits if they engage in the behaviour the government wishes to promote. It is completely defensible. Simply because you cannot grasp that there are significant differences between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual family doesn't make those differences disappear.

You're not SERIOUSLY advocating that straights should continue to receive extra benefits under law so that they can continue overbreeding? Couples (or larger groups) would continue to have children regardless - .gov need not, and SHOULD not, be in the business of encouraging it in ANY way. And I would argue that a divorce rate in the 50% range seems to argue... strongly against the notion of the "stable heterosexual family" as something that the government is supporting. And yet, people are still having children  . So... got anything else to offer?

Yes, I am arguing that. "Overbreeding?" Wow, Thomas Malthus is alive and well, it seems. Replacement fertility rate for an industrialized country (like the United States) is 2.1 births per female. Current fertility rate in the United States is around 2.08. Yep, overbreeding, most definitely...

As for the massive number of divirces, that is a result of recklessly changing centuries old law because we felt like it wasn't "fair." No fault divorce and the social acceptance of it is quite simply one of the worst mistakes of the previous century. Now we are pressing forward with making things "fair" without concern for the consequences. Or, rather, while dismissing the consequences just as was done with no-fault divorce.

[Ron]

Government is good at making words mean the opposite of their definitions.

The word marriage has content and meaning derived over thousands of years.

Now even so called proponents of liberty are in favor of using government fiat to change the definition of the word.

Even when all the benefits of marriage are bestowed upon same sex couples relationship it isn't good enough.

They are looking for societal approval and moral sanctioning of their behavior, encoded in the law.

Once they get government to "normalize" their behavior in statute they will use the law to beat religious institutions to death (metaphorically). It has already happened in Europe, this isn't being done in secret. 

[MicroBalrog]

Gay people have the same access to benefits if they engage in the behaviour the government wishes to promote. It is completely defensible

So, government benefits for marriage are on the same moral level of farm subsidies?

[MillCreek]

Every time we have a thread on gay-related subjects, I always wonder if people think that the beliefs or opinion of anyone already here on APS is going to be changed. 

[AJ Dual]

Every time we have a thread on gay-related subjects, I always wonder if people think that the beliefs or opinion of anyone already here on APS is going to be changed. 

Well, if they've never tried it, how can they know? 


 

[makattak]

So, government benefits for marriage are on the same moral level of farm subsidies?

No. I would argue they are far more moral as the aim is fostering a stable social structure as opposed to supporting preferred economic activity. Unless you can argue that influencing produce prices has significant positive externalities benefitting the future of society.

[MicroBalrog]

No. I would argue they are far more moral as the aim is fostering a stable social structure as opposed to supporting preferred economic activity. Unless you can argue that influencing produce prices has significant positive externalities benefitting the future of society.

Is "promoting stable social structures" a proper use of Federal power under the Constitution? [assuming even that you're correct].

[Ron]

Is "promoting stable social structures" a proper use of Federal power under the Constitution? [assuming even that you're correct].

If you want less of something, tax it.

If you do not give tax breaks to families who produce little ones that grow up to pay taxes, you will have fewer tax payers eventually. See most of Europe.

The family unit is the foundation of society.

It can and has taken many forms over the years, but ultimately the foundation of the family unit is a man and a woman who will bring children into the world.






 

[mtnbkr]

If you do not give tax breaks to families who produce little ones that grow up to pay taxes, you will have fewer tax payers eventually. See most of Europe.

A family with kids is an awful expensive way to get a 1k/year/kid tax break.  Dunno about other families, but each of my kids cost me well over 1k per year, so I'm on the losing end of that financial transaction. 

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

If you want less of something, tax it.

If you do not give tax breaks to families who produce little ones that grow up to pay taxes, you will have fewer tax payers eventually. See most of Europe.

The family unit is the foundation of society.

It can and has taken many forms over the years, but ultimately the foundation of the family unit is a man and a woman who will bring children into the world.

Do you mean to state that the purposde of the state is to maximize tax income?

[makattak]

Is "promoting stable social structures" a proper use of Federal power under the Constitution? [assuming even that you're correct].

No it is not. However, most of the "benefits" that are demanded by the gay rights crowd come from states rather than the federal government.

But, if you would like to repeal the 16th amendment to prevent the Federal government's use of the tax code for social engineering, I am in complete agreement with you.

[Ron]

Do you mean to state that the purposde of the state is to maximize tax income?

I'm sure that maximizing tax receipts to pay for (more) programs never enters the federal bureaucrats head.

[MicroBalrog]

No it is not. However, most of the "benefits" that are demanded by the gay rights crowd come from states rather than the federal government.

But, if you would like to repeal the 16th amendment to prevent the Federal government's use of the tax code for social engineering, I am in complete agreement with you.

I believe that we're never going to go anywhere unless we repeal the graduated income tax.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm sure that maximizing tax receipts to pay for (more) programs never enters the federal bureaucrats head.

This seems to be like a justification to fire more bureaucrats.

[Ron]

A family with kids is an awful expensive way to get a 1k/year/kid tax break.  Dunno about other families, but each of my kids cost me well over 1k per year, so I'm on the losing end of that financial transaction. 

Chris

You aren't losing anything, you are getting a tax break I don't qualify for as I have no children.

You are on the winning end of that transaction compared to my tax return.

 

[mtnbkr]

You aren't losing anything, you are getting a tax break I don't qualify for as I have no children.

You are on the winning end of that transaction compared to my tax return.

My point is that anyone motivated by the tax break alone to have children is not paying attention to the total costs.  The tax break is not enough to be of any financial benefit at all compared to the reduced expenses of not having children in the first place.  Therefore, it isn't much of a motivator.  The tax break didn't factor into our decision to have a child at all.

Chris

[Ron]

This seems to be like a justification to fire more bureaucrats.

Squeezing more money out of families, the 1%, multinationals, small business, big business, none of that is the answer obviously. Spending less is the answer.

It would be nice if tax rates were so low that no deductions were necessary to even the playing field.

Maybe the focus should be that if tax rates are so high they impact the ability to provide for a family (without deductions) then lowering tax rates should be the answer, not deductions.

[Ron]

My point is that anyone motivated by the tax break alone to have children is not paying attention to the total costs.  The tax break is not enough to be of any financial benefit at all compared to the reduced expenses of not having children in the first place.  Therefore, it isn't much of a motivator.  The tax break didn't factor into our decision to have a child at all.

Chris

I'm sure there are plenty of folks if not most that would say the same. Bringing children into the world isn't exactly a financial windfall under any circumstances is it?

On the other hand there probably is an income level where that deduction makes a world of difference in the household budget.

[mtnbkr]

Maybe the focus should be that if tax rates are so high they impact the ability to provide for a family (without deductions) then lowering tax rates should be the answer, not deductions.

Works for me.  I just as soon not deal with deductions and such if the rate was low enough. 

Chris

[mtnbkr]

On the other hand there probably is an income level where that deduction makes a world of difference in the household budget.

Agreed, assuming the family in question was going to have children regardless.  However, your statement seemed to indicate that the tax breaks were motivating people to have families. 

If you do not give tax breaks to families who produce little ones that grow up to pay taxes, you will have fewer tax payers eventually. See most of Europe.

Chris

[roo_ster]

A family with kids is an awful expensive way to get a 1k/year/kid tax break.  Dunno about other families, but each of my kids cost me well over 1k per year, so I'm on the losing end of that financial transaction. 

Chris

My point is that anyone motivated by the tax break alone to have children is not paying attention to the total costs.  The tax break is not enough to be of any financial benefit at all compared to the reduced expenses of not having children in the first place.  Therefore, it isn't much of a motivator.  The tax break didn't factor into our decision to have a child at all.

Chris

Agreed, assuming the family in question was going to have children regardless.  However, your statement seemed to indicate that the tax breaks were motivating people to have families. 
Chris

Almost all economic change is at the margins. 

So, yes, reducing the tax burden on families does, indeed result in more families having more children...at the margins.  And increasing the tax burden on families decreases the number of children produced...at the margins.

No different from a price/demand curve.  Increase the price a smidge via taxes and demand for the produce slips a bit to the left.

For my own part, our tax burden had a large impact on the number of children we had.  We stopped at two, contributing to the population decline.  We wanted 4 or 5, but stopped because we could not support them.  FTR, our #1 largest household expense is income taxes.  #2 is interest/principle/insurance for the house.  #3 is sales taxes.  #4 is school tuition.  #5 is property taxes.  So, 4/5 of our top household expenses are taxes.

My income taxes alone would cover tuition for two more children at their school.  The sales taxes I pay could pay for another.  Property taxes another half year of tuition.

So, yeah, the tax burden has quite an impact on how people who pay their own way decide when & how many children to have.  Folks may not have quantified it, but they sure feel how costly it is to have a child and generally act accordingly.

[mtnbkr]

If you're referring to the tax burden overall, then yes, reducing taxes will allow families to have more children.  I was responding to Ron's assertion that the child tax credit *alone* induced families to breed.  That's only $1k per child per year.  Hardly enough to offset the cost of another child anywhere but the 3rd world (which doesn't qualify for the credit anyway).

Chris

[De Selby]

There is an unreasonable assumption here, which is that legal discrimination against gays has anything to do with the birth rate.   

How rational is it to believe that prohibiting gay marriage alone encourages anyone to choose a different sexual orientation? 

Now, maintaining a culture that despises gay folk and ostracizes them might do that, but that's barbaric, and it's the sort of thing some of us deny even exists.  So absent being an element of overall hating of gays to the point that they're shamed into hetero relationships, this policy on gay marriage can't have any shred of a rational connection to the birth rate.

Seems to me that if we are going to deny the legal right to marry to a class of people, we ought to have some actual justification for doing so, not this fantasy land business about family size.

[Perd Hapley]

Seems to me that if we are going to deny the legal right to marry to a class of people, we ought to have some actual justification for doing so...

   'Cause now we need to provide a reason why irrational ideas about marriage aren't recognized.