Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage is Bad for the Economy

Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:04:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 5:43:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I'll adapt to arguments.

Assuming your on the affirmative, then you have the burden of proof.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:09:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:04:32 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 5:43:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I'll adapt to arguments.

Assuming your on the affirmative, then you have the burden of proof.

Well these arguments are always different. I want to see how you want to debate this.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:11:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:11:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
Is there any reason to believe that gay marriage is bad for the economy?

There are many, but two main ones and one refutation.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:15:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:09:02 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:04:32 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 5:43:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I'll adapt to arguments.

Assuming your on the affirmative, then you have the burden of proof.

Well these arguments are always different. I want to see how you want to debate this.

Well, generally I would just refute your arguments, point out that there is no reason to think that Gay Marriage hurts the economy, and then remind everyone of the burden of proof. Maybe throw in "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens.

The balls really in your court, I don't see how you could try and argue that someone else must make the first move.

(I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just saying)
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:25:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

Can you justify why this is relevant when the same thing could be said of marriage in it's current state? May as well abolish the practice entirely if such a minimal increase in debt is a factor.

If that wasn't clear, Gay marriage would only account for a fraction of marriage in general. If Gay marriage puts a strain on the economy, then heterosexual marriage puts a larger strain on the economy. If this is a factor, then limiting the practice to one demographic is simply discrimination.

2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

I'm not entirely familiar with how your system works, but if small businesses pay extra to married couples, that would include all married couples.

I understand that you apparently justified it by saying "we might as well prohibit the weird ones first", but once again, that just boils down your argument to plain homophobia.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:28:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:25:30 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

Can you justify why this is relevant when the same thing could be said of marriage in it's current state? May as well abolish the practice entirely if such a minimal increase in debt is a factor.

If that wasn't clear, Gay marriage would only account for a fraction of marriage in general. If Gay marriage puts a strain on the economy, then heterosexual marriage puts a larger strain on the economy. If this is a factor, then limiting the practice to one demographic is simply discrimination.


2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

I'm not entirely familiar with how your system works, but if small businesses pay extra to married couples, that would include all married couples.

I understand that you apparently justified it by saying "we might as well prohibit the weird ones first", but once again, that just boils down your argument to plain homophobia.

Response Point 1: Here, we are eliminating the unncessary marriages.

Response Point 2: Same as RP1
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:31:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:28:27 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:25:30 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

Can you justify why this is relevant when the same thing could be said of marriage in it's current state? May as well abolish the practice entirely if such a minimal increase in debt is a factor.

If that wasn't clear, Gay marriage would only account for a fraction of marriage in general. If Gay marriage puts a strain on the economy, then heterosexual marriage puts a larger strain on the economy. If this is a factor, then limiting the practice to one demographic is simply discrimination.


2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

I'm not entirely familiar with how your system works, but if small businesses pay extra to married couples, that would include all married couples.

I understand that you apparently justified it by saying "we might as well prohibit the weird ones first", but once again, that just boils down your argument to plain homophobia.

Response Point 1: Here, we are eliminating the unncessary marriages.

Response Point 2: Same as RP1

How do you class them as unnecessary? Marriage is an expression of love, to class gays as unnecessary in that respect once again just boils down to plain homophobia.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:34:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:31:27 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:28:27 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:25:30 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

Can you justify why this is relevant when the same thing could be said of marriage in it's current state? May as well abolish the practice entirely if such a minimal increase in debt is a factor.

If that wasn't clear, Gay marriage would only account for a fraction of marriage in general. If Gay marriage puts a strain on the economy, then heterosexual marriage puts a larger strain on the economy. If this is a factor, then limiting the practice to one demographic is simply discrimination.


2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

I'm not entirely familiar with how your system works, but if small businesses pay extra to married couples, that would include all married couples.

I understand that you apparently justified it by saying "we might as well prohibit the weird ones first", but once again, that just boils down your argument to plain homophobia.

Response Point 1: Here, we are eliminating the unncessary marriages.

Response Point 2: Same as RP1

How do you class them as unnecessary? Marriage is an expression of love, to class gays as unnecessary in that respect once again just boils down to plain homophobia.

Marriage is only marriage when the marriage fits what I like to call the "policy of marriage" (which is the property that marriage is defined between a man and a woman). So since they do not fit the property of marriage, they should be excluded from marriage.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:47:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:34:38 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:31:27 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:28:27 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:25:30 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

Can you justify why this is relevant when the same thing could be said of marriage in it's current state? May as well abolish the practice entirely if such a minimal increase in debt is a factor.

If that wasn't clear, Gay marriage would only account for a fraction of marriage in general. If Gay marriage puts a strain on the economy, then heterosexual marriage puts a larger strain on the economy. If this is a factor, then limiting the practice to one demographic is simply discrimination.


2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

I'm not entirely familiar with how your system works, but if small businesses pay extra to married couples, that would include all married couples.

I understand that you apparently justified it by saying "we might as well prohibit the weird ones first", but once again, that just boils down your argument to plain homophobia.

Response Point 1: Here, we are eliminating the unncessary marriages.

Response Point 2: Same as RP1

How do you class them as unnecessary? Marriage is an expression of love, to class gays as unnecessary in that respect once again just boils down to plain homophobia.

Marriage is only marriage when the marriage fits what I like to call the "policy of marriage" (which is the property that marriage is defined between a man and a woman). So since they do not fit the property of marriage, they should be excluded from marriage.

Marriage is the ultimate expression of love, by denying it to a couple, you are discriminating against said couple. What you call a "policy of marriage" is irrelevant, when I can just as easily say something along the lines of "policy of gay marriage".

Gay marriage is a practice, exactly like marriage, but one that expands upon itself in an effort to avoid plain bigotry.

All your arguments just dissolve into homophobia.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:49:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:34:38 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:31:27 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:28:27 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:25:30 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

Can you justify why this is relevant when the same thing could be said of marriage in it's current state? May as well abolish the practice entirely if such a minimal increase in debt is a factor.

If that wasn't clear, Gay marriage would only account for a fraction of marriage in general. If Gay marriage puts a strain on the economy, then heterosexual marriage puts a larger strain on the economy. If this is a factor, then limiting the practice to one demographic is simply discrimination.


2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

I'm not entirely familiar with how your system works, but if small businesses pay extra to married couples, that would include all married couples.

I understand that you apparently justified it by saying "we might as well prohibit the weird ones first", but once again, that just boils down your argument to plain homophobia.

Response Point 1: Here, we are eliminating the unncessary marriages.

Response Point 2: Same as RP1

How do you class them as unnecessary? Marriage is an expression of love, to class gays as unnecessary in that respect once again just boils down to plain homophobia.

Marriage is only marriage when the marriage fits what I like to call the "policy of marriage" (which is the property that marriage is defined between a man and a woman). So since they do not fit the property of marriage, they should be excluded from marriage.

And just to be clear, this hasn't addressed my point of why, if Gay marriage hurts the economy, then heterosexual marriage hurts the economy to a larger degree.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:50:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:34:38 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

Marriage is only marriage when the marriage fits what I like to call the "policy of marriage" (which is the property that marriage is defined between a man and a woman). So since they do not fit the property of marriage, they should be excluded from marriage.

You suggest gay marriage is detrimental to the economy but ignore counter-arguments because gay marriage doesn't fit your definition of marriage? What's the point of this thread again?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:54:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:18:32 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Blunt statements first to get the argument into the open. Proof, addition, and refutation will be later.

1. Gay marriage increases Government Debt through tax deductions and Government welfare benefits which far outweigh the costs a couple gives to the Governments. More marriages=more debt. We might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

The money then stays with the gay couple instead of going to the government. I'd say that's actually better for the economy.

2. Gay marriage hurts small business through the small business having to pay extra to the couple, putting more strain onto their budget. Again, we might as well prohibit the weird ones first.

I don't recall any laws on the books stating that married people must be paid more than single people. Why would such a thing exist?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:58:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How does gay marriage hurt the economy differently from straight marriage?

Can we argue against interracial marriage because it would up the number of marriages thus hurting the economy?
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:05:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.

Yes. But homosexual marriage does not fit the policy of marriage.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:15:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
False. Same sex marriages are only different from opposite sex marriages in that they are same sex. If SSM hurts the economy, then OSM does too.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:15:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:05:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.

Yes. But homosexual marriage does not fit the policy of marriage.

According to you, marriage in itself is bad for the economy, regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. You're not providing a reason why gay marriage harms the economy as opposed to heterosexual marriage; and as such it is the practice of marriage, not gay marriage, that you claim hurts the economy.

To affirm the practice to one group while denying it to another is then discrimination. As you claim that marriage hurts the economy, one must therefore assume your position is to abolish marriage entirely.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:15:54 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:05:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.

Yes. But homosexual marriage does not fit the policy of marriage.

According to you, marriage in itself is bad for the economy, regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. You're not providing a reason why gay marriage harms the economy as opposed to heterosexual marriage; and as such it is the practice of marriage, not gay marriage, that you claim hurts the economy.

To affirm the practice to one group while denying it to another is then discrimination. As you claim that marriage hurts the economy, one must therefore assume your position is to abolish marriage entirely.

I find your arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:18:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:15:54 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:05:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.

Yes. But homosexual marriage does not fit the policy of marriage.

According to you, marriage in itself is bad for the economy, regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. You're not providing a reason why gay marriage harms the economy as opposed to heterosexual marriage; and as such it is the practice of marriage, not gay marriage, that you claim hurts the economy.

To affirm the practice to one group while denying it to another is then discrimination. As you claim that marriage hurts the economy, one must therefore assume your position is to abolish marriage entirely.

I find your arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand.

How? Physik was merely dismantling your rubbish rationale for the restriction of equal protection under the law.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:32:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:18:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:15:54 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:05:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.

Yes. But homosexual marriage does not fit the policy of marriage.

According to you, marriage in itself is bad for the economy, regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. You're not providing a reason why gay marriage harms the economy as opposed to heterosexual marriage; and as such it is the practice of marriage, not gay marriage, that you claim hurts the economy.

To affirm the practice to one group while denying it to another is then discrimination. As you claim that marriage hurts the economy, one must therefore assume your position is to abolish marriage entirely.

I find your arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The topic is "does gay marriage hurt the economy". If it does, then by your own logic, heterosexual marriage does as well. However, as your position is to abolish gay marriage, and not heterosexual marriage, your argument is based on homophobia rather than any desire to preserve the economy.

As your position is to abolish only gay marriage, one must therefore assume that it is not because you claim that gay marriage is bad for the economy, but because of plain discrimination.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:32:54 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:18:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:15:54 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:05:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.

Yes. But homosexual marriage does not fit the policy of marriage.

According to you, marriage in itself is bad for the economy, regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. You're not providing a reason why gay marriage harms the economy as opposed to heterosexual marriage; and as such it is the practice of marriage, not gay marriage, that you claim hurts the economy.

To affirm the practice to one group while denying it to another is then discrimination. As you claim that marriage hurts the economy, one must therefore assume your position is to abolish marriage entirely.

I find your arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The topic is "does gay marriage hurt the economy". If it does, then by your own logic, heterosexual marriage does as well. However, as your position is to abolish gay marriage, and not heterosexual marriage, your argument is based on homophobia rather than any desire to preserve the economy.

As your position is to abolish only gay marriage, one must therefore assume that it is not because you claim that gay marriage is bad for the economy, but because of plain discrimination.

First of all, we are talking about homosexual marriage, not heterosexual marriage, and two, you still haven't cleared up the policy of marriage.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:51:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:39:39 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:32:54 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:18:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:15:54 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:05:45 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:00:18 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

If gay marriage does these things, then heterosexual marriage does them to a larger extent. Assuming your argument isn't going to deteriorate into outright homophobia, your position should be to abolish marriage in its entirety.

Yes. But homosexual marriage does not fit the policy of marriage.

According to you, marriage in itself is bad for the economy, regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. You're not providing a reason why gay marriage harms the economy as opposed to heterosexual marriage; and as such it is the practice of marriage, not gay marriage, that you claim hurts the economy.

To affirm the practice to one group while denying it to another is then discrimination. As you claim that marriage hurts the economy, one must therefore assume your position is to abolish marriage entirely.

I find your arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The topic is "does gay marriage hurt the economy". If it does, then by your own logic, heterosexual marriage does as well. However, as your position is to abolish gay marriage, and not heterosexual marriage, your argument is based on homophobia rather than any desire to preserve the economy.

As your position is to abolish only gay marriage, one must therefore assume that it is not because you claim that gay marriage is bad for the economy, but because of plain discrimination.

First of all, we are talking about homosexual marriage, not heterosexual marriage

Your argument applies to both, yet your position does not match your argument. This invariably leads to the conclusion that something is inherently flawed.

and two, you still haven't cleared up the policy of marriage.

I don't have to. I've cast irrefutable doubt on the relationship between your argument and your position.

But just for good measure. Gay marriage is marriage between two members of the same sex. Marriage is between two members of the opposite sex. They are separate terms, do not confuse the issue.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 10:36:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

It also leaves more money with consumers to spend in the economy. I believe the people spending their own money helps the economy more than the government doing the same.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

Except that I already pointed out that there isn't any policy that demands that married people be paid extra when employed by a business, so your contention doesn't even exist.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 10:42:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 10:36:17 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:55:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
1. This increases Government debt.

It also leaves more money with consumers to spend in the economy. I believe the people spending their own money helps the economy more than the government doing the same.

2. This increases Small Business debt.

Except that I already pointed out that there isn't any policy that demands that married people be paid extra when employed by a business, so your contention doesn't even exist.

That, on top of everything I said.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The cost to the economy of any marriage depends upon the benefits paid to the couple at the expense of society as a whole. If gay marriage gets the same benefits as gay civil unions then it's a wash. Assuming civil unions are not in the picture, if one of the partners makes substantially less than the other, then there is a tax benefit to being married. If they make about the same there is a tax penalty to being married, that's inherent in progressive taxation. The question is then whether collecting more taxes is good or bad for the economy. Generally, taxes move money from more productive to less productive uses, so it's bad.

There is one really obscure case where gay marriage benefits are bad for the economy. Government workers get large family benefits, like health care, paid by taxes. Gay marriage adds to the cost of government, and a higher cost of government is bad for the economy. Since the gay population is only about 4.5% of the total, it's generally not going to be significant, but as a debate topic it's technically "bad for the economy." Paying government benefits to people whose names start with letters in the first half of the alphabet is also bad for the economy. The issue is not whether it's fair, it's about the economy.

San Francisco has a large gay population, so their paying benefits to gay partners had a significant fiscal impact on the city.

The numbers are such that I doubt that there would be any significant affect on the economy one way or the other. Polygamy, on the other hand, could be a financial disaster. It could convey lavish government benefits to very large numbers of people.
Teafood
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:56:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 5:43:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I'll adapt to arguments.

Actually gay marriage is good for the economy. Allowing gays to marry and have the same rights lowers health care cost for gays meaning allowing gays to marry will reduce wasteful health care costs. For example legalizing gay marrage results in a 13% drop in health costs for gay people
http://www.bbc.co.uk...