[Pants-of-dog]

Have we stopped pretending that the campaign against same sex marriage has anything to do with small government?

[Drlee]

God I hope so.

I would make the distinction that the small government stuff is usually touted by libertarians who want to think of it entirely in economic terms. There is the issue of small government with regard to its intrusiveness into our daily life. For example the war on drugs. We have sacrificed a ton of freedoms and allowed government to be "larger" in our lives over both the drug and terrorism issues.

[hip hop bunny hop]

Absolutely untrue. In case you haven't noticed there is such a thing as the marriage penalty. Many married couples 49% as a matter of fact pay more. Only in the case where the two tax payers earn very different amounts do you see the opposite. There are no other, as far as I can see, financial benefits to being married unless you might include health care and that is no certainty. So wrong as usual.

Eh? 51% have lower taxes because they're married., whereas only 42% would have had their taxes lower had they remained single. LINK. Other benefits refer to Social Security benefits & cheaper insurance.

Nonsense. In 2007 40% of American children were born out of wedlock. So there goes that argument. It is an insignificant difference. In the past the number of children born out of wedlok was lower but in much of the world it has been higher for some time. As to your second homophobic comment typical of your general bigotry, as ECA said, many studies have shown that there is no difference in parenting skills between same-sex and straight couples. It is noteworthy that adoptive couples are evaluated for suitability, financial responsibility and parenting ability prior to being allowed to adopt. All a straight couple needs is a bottle of whiskey, Kenny G. (or if you prefer Merle Haggard) and the backseat of a Ford.

Lets say you've four couples, A & B are heterosexual, and C & D are homosexual. "A" gets married, "B" don't; the fertility rate of "A" increases. If "C" gets married, and "D" does not, there is no change in fertility because homosexual relationships are infertile.

Further, the point I labeled (2), that is, "(2) married couples make superior parents. "; was in reference to the dichotomy of results between children of married parents and those who are not.

Of course your bigoted ideas blind you to the fact that lesbians (who happen to be homosexual but I guess do not frighten you as much as the male variety) are potentially twice as fertile as any heterosexual couple as it is quite possible for them to both be carrying children at the same time! All they need is a few dollars for some frozen doctor sperm (maybe some of mine but then I digress) and they are on their way.

The point, which you're ignoring, is that marriage does not increase lesbian fertility rates.


EDIT:

Why did no one who is pro-gay marriage answer my question about why we should maintain the preferential treatment of married couples?

[Drlee]

The point, which you're ignoring, is that marriage does not increase lesbian fertility rates.

Uh. Do you think you have a point here? You can only assert a point if you are comparing like population groups. You are not. You are inexpert at this. You should leave these kinds of things to people who are expert lest you make yourself look silly.

Further, the point I labeled (2), that is, "(2) married couples make superior parents. "; was in reference to the dichotomy of results between children of married parents and those who are not.

Very true. Thank you for making an argument favoring same sex marriage. How generous of you.

The point, which you're ignoring, is that marriage does not increase lesbian fertility rates.

I have two answers for this both of which will make you look pretty ignorant of the subject. They are:

1. Source?

2. You make an argument that marriage increases what you mistakenly call the "fertility rate" of married people but you assert that this does not happen with lesbian marriages. Source?

Why did no one who is pro-gay marriage answer my question about why we should maintain the preferential treatment of married couples?

I cn't speak for others but I can tell you why I didn't. First it is a stupid question. Try asking about what "preferential treatment" you are referring to. Secondly, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

You appear to be in over your head. You are searching for some lifeline that will allow you to hold on to your homophobic and bigoted ideas. There is no such lifeline. You just keep looking less and less informed and more and more dogmatic in your hate for others.

[EastCoastAmerican]

EDIT:

Why did no one who is pro-gay marriage answer my question about why we should maintain the preferential treatment of married couples?

I didn't have an answer at the time, but I do now.

Basically, almost all societies encourage marriage because married couples are generally more cautious and less likely to engage in risky activities, doubly so if they're raising children. People are less likely to go wild or do dangerous things if they know that their loved ones would suffer without them.

Gay marriage would be positive, then, because gay couples and those who adopted or had children will also be less likely to engage in risky activities. Additionally, marriage licenses are granted by the state, so conservative religious organizations do not need to host gay weddings if they are against it due to their beliefs.

[Xbow]

We have sacrificed a ton of freedoms and allowed government to be "larger" in our lives over both the drug and terrorism issues.

Why that's just plain....................true. Thus far the War On Drugs has cost close to $500,000,000,000.oo since 1972 (If we don't add in the cost of incarceration and court costs). And for what? The greater availability and cheaper cost of street drugs I would imagine because that has been the effect. I wonder what NOW would be like if that money had been spent on education instead? avg 12.5 billion/year; that could have bought a million or so college degrees in the sciences and millions more people trained in industrial arts. Well, its nice to know that the folks up top have their priorities straight.