[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, if you a rich black kid and a poor black kid with the same academic achievements on their application then the affirmative action should be used to help the poor black kid not the rich black kid.

This never happens. There's always a point differentiation, whether it be the essay, extra-curriculars, or even the interview. Sometimes a sterling interview will place you above those who have better qualifications, it happens all the time.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If we are to support affirmative action (say in school admissions) then the recipient of the affirmative action must be someone who would not otherwise qualify. So, if you a rich black kid and a poor black kid with the same academic achievements on their application then the affirmative action should be used to help the poor black kid not the rich black kid.

As stated, that almost never happens. Racial affirmative action normally isn't means tested any farther than being able to meet the most basic criteria of racial composition. White people don't get it, even if they are poorer and the affirmative action would help them more than a wealthy racial minority of the same academic achievement.

It's really too hard to do it any other way. It's no different with marriage affirmative actions. Do we start giving fertility tests, which are often times unreliable? Do we depend on the current plans of those who want marriage affirmative action, despite the fact that those plans often change either from a change of desire or simply a accidental pregnancy?

At this point, the group most in need of the affirmative action is getting it. An argument can be made (though i disagree) that there are benefits to giving this affirmative action to same-sex couples, but it's not one logically based on a "right" to "equality" since we aren't dealing with equal things. No matter how much foot stomping and picketing is done, you aren't aren't going to change that fact - it's based on science.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

At this point, the group most in need of the affirmative action is getting it. An argument can be made (though i disagree) that there are benefits to giving this affirmative action to same-sex couples, but it's not one logically based on a "right" to "equality" since we aren't dealing with equal things. No matter how much foot stomping and picketing is done, you aren't aren't going to change that fact - it's based on science.

Science has nothing to do with two people who happen to be of the same sex wanting to join in a union, and the only reason you keep trumpeting your "non equal" strawman argument is because that's what you want to believe. Your argument is based solely on how you see tradition, not science, and you just don't want to change things, even though life is all about change. We don't live in caves anymore.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Science has nothing to do with two people who happen to be of the same sex wanting to join in a union..

Science does have to do with the rationale as to who and what we've allowed as "married" in the past - without regard to sex. Are you saying that scientific/biological concerns haven't been used as legal justification for disallowing marriage affirmative actions in the past?

...and the only reason you keep trumpeting your "non equal" strawman argument is because that's what you want to believe.

I've shown how the unions in question are different in a substantial way, and how the benefit in question provides incentive for one group that isn't there for the other in regards to that substantial difference. That's pretty much a clear illustration of lack of equality. It doesn't get much clearer. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we are asked to accept "equality" entirely based on the fact that everyone feels and have emotion and ignore everything else.

Your argument is based solely on how you see tradition, not science, and you just don't want to change things, even though life is all about change. We don't live in caves anymore.

We don't have to in order for my argument to stand. As long the norm for men and woman who come together in long-term unions is for them to biologically reproduce, science shows the unions in question to be generally unequal. There is no moral or legal requirement for unequal things to be treated equally.

[besson3c]

stupendousman: I still am having a genuinely hard time understanding your point. Are you saying that because there are institutions in place to monitor the rate and manner in which we reproduce, and have several social programs in place to monitor the upbringing of new members to our population that the purpose of marriage laws are to maintain the preservation of our species?

[subego]

stupendousman.

You seem to support marital affirmative action, can one take this to mean you support racial affirmative action too?

If for some reason you don't, why does affirmative action not work in a racial context, but does in a marital context?


Edit: FWIW I think that in both situations, we'd be talking about a policy that doesn't really accomplish what it sets out to do, and ends up doing more damage than good in the long term.

Note, this is entirely separate from the question of whether there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and whether the government has a role to play in it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you saying that because there are institutions in place to monitor the rate and manner in which we reproduce, and have several social programs in place to monitor the upbringing of new members to our population that the purpose of marriage laws are to maintain the preservation of our species?

No.

Men and women will reproduce when engaged in long-term unions. We don't have to do anything to "maintain preservation" as humans (especially men) have a built-in desire to do what is necessary to keep the human race going. We like sex. The norm is for sex between opposite sex couples to result in reproduction.

Society believes that it's normally in the best interest of these offspring that they are raised by their biological mother and father.

Government has an interest in seeing that this is the case due to the negative ramifications that exist when it doesn't.

Government provides an "affirmative action" to those who decide to stay together in their long term unions in a way that will best provide for the offspring that normally occur during these types of unions. People are given special status when they do what will benefit the government, and society. Same-sex couples don't even get to the "starting line" when it comes to the race to keep biological children with their loving, biological parents.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

stupendousman.

You seem to support marital affirmative action, can one take this to mean you support racial affirmative action too?

Ones that don't require quotas or any kind of reverse discrimination, sure. I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage equal opportunity amongst minorities.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No.

Men and women will reproduce when engaged in long-term unions. We don't have to do anything to "maintain preservation" as humans (especially men) have a built-in desire to do what is necessary to keep the human race going. We like sex. The norm is for sex between opposite sex couples to result in reproduction.

Society believes that it's normally in the best interest of these offspring that they are raised by their biological mother and father.

Government has an interest in seeing that this is the case due to the negative ramifications that exist when it doesn't.

Government provides an "affirmative action" to those who decide to stay together in their long term unions in a way that will best provide for the offspring that normally occur during these types of unions. People are given special status when they do what will benefit the government, and society. Same-sex couples don't even get to the "starting line" when it comes to the race to keep biological children with their loving, biological parents.

Okay, but how does gay marriage threaten or prevent reproduction in anyway?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Men and women will reproduce when engaged in long-term unions. We don't have to do anything to "maintain preservation" as humans (especially men) have a built-in desire to do what is necessary to keep the human race going. We like sex. The norm is for sex between opposite sex couples to result in reproduction.

Society believes that it's normally in the best interest of these offspring that they are raised by their biological mother and father.

Government has an interest in seeing that this is the case due to the negative ramifications that exist when it doesn't.

Government provides an "affirmative action" to those who decide to stay together in their long term unions in a way that will best provide for the offspring that normally occur during these types of unions. People are given special status when they do what will benefit the government, and society. Same-sex couples don't even get to the "starting line" when it comes to the race to keep biological children with their loving, biological parents.

You're basically saying marriage encourages couples who reproduce to stay together by supporting their union with certain legal rights associated with marriage. We listed those rights before. Based on your understanding, should we deny marriage rights to couples on the basis of infertility or childbearing age? Should we revoke marriage rights for childless couples who eventually become incapable of procreating? Your rationale disappears in both contexts, so why should we allow them to marry or to continue to be married?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, but how does gay marriage threaten or prevent reproduction in anyway?

It doesn't. No one said it did, and my argument doesn't require that in order to be valid. My claim relies on the fact that reproduction between opposite sex long-term couples will likely occur pretty much no matter what. That is 100% the opposite of what will happen with long-term unions amongst same-sex couples.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

You're basically saying marriage encourages couples who reproduce to stay together by supporting their union with certain legal rights associated with marriage. We listed those rights before. Based on your understanding, should we deny marriage rights to couples on the basis of infertility or childbearing age?

Sometimes, I feel like I'm on a PWL Merry-Go-Round. Look back through this thread. Asked and answered.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sometimes, I feel like I'm on a PWL Merry-Go-Round. Look back through this thread. Asked and answered.

Your "minimum criteria for inclusion in the affirmed group" argument is based on the fact that opposite sex couple are likely to reproduce. But infertile opposite-sex couples (whether through accident/disease or old age) are NOT likely to reproduce. Yet you have said time and again you still think they meet the minimum criteria for inclusion in the affirmed group. How is that? How can inclusion in the affirmed group--defined as being likely to reproduce--also be likely for infertile opposite-sex couples?

From what I can see, there is NO similarity between fertile opposite-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples (whether the infertile couple is that way through accident/disease or old age) other than the fact they are an opposite-sex couple. And if that is the basis for inclusion in the affirmed group--that the couple is opposite sex--then your basis for including members within the affirmed group is made not on likelihood of reproducing but rather on likelihood of having necessary sexual organs for reproduction. So, it seems the real basis your argument that government should provide affirmation to a group is based on members in that group having necessary sexual organs for reproduction whether or not they can or do use them for purposes of reproduction.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't. No one said it did, and my argument doesn't require that in order to be valid. My claim relies on the fact that reproduction between opposite sex long-term couples will likely occur pretty much no matter what. That is 100% the opposite of what will happen with long-term unions amongst same-sex couples.

Okay, I was thinking there was intended to be some connection between this and the notion that gays should not marry. Do you agree that there is no particular reason why gays should not be allowed to marry? If the object is to maximize reproduction, more people getting married increases these chances in the case of lesbian couples, right? How do you feel about adoption? If marriage increases the probability of a long lasting relationship through commitment, would you be against an upstanding, intelligent, well-grounded, *insert any other positive term of description here* gay couple from adopting a kid?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Your "minimum criteria for inclusion in the affirmed group" argument is based on the fact that opposite sex couple are likely to reproduce. But infertile opposite-sex couples (whether through accident/disease or old age) are NOT likely to reproduce.

How can this be effectively determined? How many times have people thought they were "infertile", only later to find themselves with a child? Even older people. At what point do you set your means test and how do you enact it fairly and with 100% effectiveness? With same-sex couples, you can with 100% assuredness remove them from the sample of eligible participants without any privacy violating tests, intrusive questions or means testing which could very well end up incorrect.

Additionally, a man and a women who wish to have children but later find that they are have trouble doing so provide almost exactly the same normal life experience (man/woman/child in home role modeling) for a child that the biological parents can. As I explained before, allowing them into the affirmative action class provides the same sort of insurance that a normative upbringing can be put into place for children who end up being without parents to the point where often times a child and their peers aren't even aware that the adult male and female legal guardian are not the biological parents of the child in question. Just one more level of assuredness that a child doesn't have to unnecessarily suffer from being labeled "different" or "odd" in comparison to those who are able to benefit from loving mothers and fathers raising their children. Society still benefits almost the exact same way.

Again, you are dealing with the exception in this case and one that doesn't really make much of a difference in the scheme of things. Based on your logic, since some black people are well to do they should be removed from affirmative action programs as well. Let's remove them, and add all the poor white people. That's fair, right?

From what I can see, there is NO similarity between fertile opposite-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples (whether the infertile couple is that way through accident/disease or old age) other than the fact they are an opposite-sex couple.

Which in and of itself provides an exact replica of the normative experience that society values. A boy raised in a home with a mother and father gets a positive in-home role male role model. A boy raised by two women does not get that. A girl raised by two men will not have an in-home female role model to teach her how to be a responsible woman and be able to come from a point of experience on how to deal with woman's issues. Those arrangements provide many of the same stumbling blocks single parenting often times suffers from. Not exactly something to encourage, IMO.

And if that is the basis for inclusion in the affirmed group--that the couple is opposite sex--then your basis for including members within the affirmed group is made not on likelihood of reproducing but rather on likelihood of having necessary sexual organs for reproduction.

No, the class in question generally WILL reproduce. You can pick and choose among the exceptions to the rule, but the vast majority of those who engage in long-term male/female unions WILL reproduce. 100% of the long-term same-sex unions WILL NOT reproduce, as it's biologically impossible.

So, it seems the real basis your argument that government should provide affirmation to a group is based on members in that group having necessary sexual organs for reproduction whether or not they can or do use them for purposes of reproduction.

It's no different than racial affirmative action. People aren't given it because the color of their skin is different (or in my example, because of what their genitals look like). They are given it because it's generally assumed that the majority of the people who have a different skin color will have a harder time achieving due to racism, just as it's assumed that the majority of men and women who enter into long-term unions will reproduce. You can find exemptions to both classes, but for the most part affirmative action programs haven't sought to totally exclude all the exceptions as long as they meet the most basic criteria.

You guys keep going in circles....

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you agree that there is no particular reason why gays should not be allowed to marry?

Gays can do whatever they want.

I don't agree though that there is "no particular reason" why the government wouldn't recognized same-sex unions as a "marriage". I've stated pretty clearly why they shouldn't.

If the object is to maximize reproduction....

Forget it Besson. I've lost hope for you. I've only stated about a hundred times now that the "object" has nothing to do with encouraging reproduction. Reproduction needs no encouragement. It happens even when you don't want it to.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How can this be effectively determined? How many times have people thought they were "infertile", only later to find themselves with a child? Even older people. At what point do you set your means test and how do you enact it fairly and with 100% effectiveness? With same-sex couples, you can with 100% assuredness remove them from the sample of eligible participants without any privacy violating tests, intrusive questions or means testing which could very well end up incorrect.

That's easy, the "means test" should be in the actual birth of the child. If legal affirmation of marriage is to be for the benefit of couples raising children then couples should not be able to get married and obtain the benefit until after they have produced an offspring. (Why give a benefit to individuals who may or may not need it. That makes no sense. Give it only to those who need it.) It shouldn't be that hard. Once a couple files the paperwork to register their child's birth they would automatically be registered as married in the eyes of the state at which time they would begin to get the legal advantages that come from marriage.

<edit>
If a couple has only one child and it dies in childhood then they would be given another two years to produce another offspring before being removed from the rolls of those receiving the legal marriage benefit. As membership in the marriage rolls would be for legal purposes only there should be minimal paperwork to do to get added ore removed from the rolls of those receiving this state benefit.
</edit>

This would not prevent couples from having a religious marriage, nor should it as that would get into freedom of religion issues. All this would do is simply not grant recognition of legal marriage to religiously married couples until they produced offspring. The couple that gets married in the church but never has children (either through choice or circumstance) would never be allowed to get a legal marriage and the benefits that go along with it. And couples who choose not to get married in a church could still get legal recognition for their marriage when they produced offspring. The legal recognition of a marriage is in no way contingent upon a religious recognition of the marriage or vice versa.

This sounds like a win-win situation to me: The state gets to continue it affirmative action policies related to ensuring care for offspring (via granting legal rights to married couples who produce offspring) and at the same time making sure only those couples who meet the specific criteria of the legal requirement (actually producing offspring) gets the benefit.

As a man who is not likely to ever have kids, I appreciate this idea. My married friends with children get the extra legal benefits they need to help them raise their children and those of us without kids don't get anything and just go along merrily with our lives. And if someday I do wind up having a child with a woman than the two of us can get married and take advantage of the benefits provided by the state to ensure the best possible environment for raising our children.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Additionally, a man and a women who wish to have children but later find that they are have trouble doing so provide almost exactly the same normal life experience (man/woman/child in home role modeling) for a child that the biological parents can. As I explained before, allowing them into the affirmative action class provides the same sort of insurance that a normative upbringing can be put into place for children who end up being without parents to the point where often times a child and their peers aren't even aware that the adult male and female legal guardian are not the biological parents of the child in question. Just one more level of assuredness that a child doesn't have to unnecessarily suffer from being labeled "different" or "odd" in comparison to those who are able to benefit from loving mothers and fathers raising their children. Society still benefits almost the exact same way.

Just wanted to point out here that you are the one now concerned with feelings and issues of "love" when you talk about children suffering from being labeled different if they don't get raised with both a mother and father. Remember, as you told us repeatedly, the government doesn't care about love, it cares about fostering a two-parent, opposite-sex environment in which to raise children. Whether or not that has an effect on children feeling loved is not important; What is important is the children being raised in a two-parent, opposite-sex environment.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That's easy, the "means test" should be in the actual birth of the child.

Why change what already works? Why wait until a bastard is born to encourage what we should be valuing in the first place? Why turn society upside down to make a change that is unnecessary and that doesn't follow the norms in regards to how we means test other affirmative actions? Do we also wait for racial minorities to actually prove that racism is adversely effecting them directly before we allow them to participate, or is your standard arbitrary and designed simply to try to hurt people who have ALWAYS been able to take part in the affirmative action so as to make that action less widespread in order to spread the misery because you are unhappy that a certain small segment of the population doesn't get to take part in something they don't qualify for where they can easily be excluded and always have been?

If legal affirmation of marriage is to be for the benefit of couples raising children then couples should not be able to get married and obtain the benefit until after they have produced an offspring. (Why give a benefit to individuals who may or may not need it. That makes no sense. Give it only to those who need it.)

Because the implementation of the means test in question is intrusive, unwieldy and unnecessary. You're trying to inconvenience the majority in order to simply reject the minority. It's no different than making a racial minority prove that they themselves have suffered from racism in a way that the affirmative action they are trying to take part in will help before you allow them to take part. It's simply not done that way. You don't throw the "baby out with the bathwater" in order to weed out a minority of participants. You just use what can be easily determined.

Just wanted to point out here that you are the one now concerned with feelings and issues of "love" when you talk about children suffering from being labeled different if they don't get raised with both a mother and father.

Not "love", and we are talking about helpless children, not adults who have control over their own lives. I'd say the government has an interest in child welfare and happiness, and not with the latter. You're dealing with apples and oranges.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why change what already works?

Huh?!? It doesn't already "work" if there are large number of couples getting the benefit of marriage without having produced offspring.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why wait until a bastard is born to encourage what we should be valuing in the first place? Why turn society upside down to make a change that is unnecessary and that doesn't follow the norms in regards to how we means test other affirmative actions? Do we also wait for racial minorities to actually prove that racism is adversely effecting them directly before we allow them to participate, or is your standard arbitrary and designed simply to try to hurt people who have ALWAYS been able to take part in the affirmative action so as to make that action less widespread in order to spread the misery because you are unhappy that a certain small segment of the population doesn't get to take part in something they don't qualify for where they can easily be excluded and always have been?.

This is not about bastards or changing our values. You've made the point repeatedly that the only reason government should have any involvement in marriage is to provide incentives to those that get married to take the best care of their children possible. It's about recognizing that times change and that an opposite-sex couple coming together does not automatically mean producing offspring anymore. So, the laws related to recognition of marriage need to change to reflect that societal change. So, instead of the law assuming every opposite-sex couple that comes together will automatically produce offspring so they automatically get the legal recognition that comes with producing offspring by granting them a marriage before offspring are produced, the law waits until actual offspring have been produced before granting that legal recognition. Nothing much changes really except people don't get a legal marriage until after they produce an offspring and a law is better focused to serve its purposes.

I mean, do you really want the government giving major tax breaks to opposite-sex couples who don't have kids? I don't and I fall into that category. There are huge sums of money being lost by the government to couples who currently get the tax breaks of marriage without having actually produced an offspring; Those couples shouldn't get that benefit and shouldn't get that recognition (from the government) until they do produce offspring.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not "love", and we are talking about helpless children, not adults who have control over their own lives. I'd say the government has an interest in child welfare and happiness, and not with the latter. You're dealing with apples and oranges.

You discount the phrase "love" and in the very next sentence talk about actions designed to benefit children and their "happiness". How can you honestly say that is not an emotional response to the matter? The government's job is not to make children happy, nor their parents. Its job is to provide incentives to parents so as to encourage the parents to do their very best in raising the child and not making it become a burden of the state. Those incentives are delivered via legal recognition of the parent's union and the provision of tax benefits to lessen the financial burden on the parents that come from raising a child. The child's happiness has NOTHING to do with that and I don't want the government to concern itself with the happiness of children. That is the job of the parents.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

There are huge sums of money being lost by the government to couples who currently get the tax breaks of marriage

What tax breaks?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What tax breaks?

What is the income tax deduction rate for married persons versus single persons? Think about all those married couples with no children getting a higher deduction on their taxes (assuming they file jointly) than their peers who are single with no children. That shouldn't be allowed. If the government's reason to be involved in marriage has to do with providing parents with benefits to raising children those benefits should accrue only to those couples who have actually produced a child.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What is the income tax deduction rate for married persons versus single persons?

Um, the same? I certainly didn't know you could claim a deduction for your marriage. Is that true?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, the same?

Correct. The dollar figure is the same (i.e.: two-person deduction = exactly 2 x single-person deduction)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I certainly didn't know you could claim a deduction for your marriage. Is that true?

Not for being married per se. But the cumulative deduction a married couple gets usually has a better net effect on the couple's net income than if you were to calculate their net incomes as two separate individuals. In other words, the some of the whole is (usually) better than the sum of the parts.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You guys keep going in circles....

No, it isn't us going around in circles and grasping at straws. You're not going to change your mind, and neither am I, nor people who see your stance for what it is; irrational fear of the different.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Ones that don't require quotas or any kind of reverse discrimination, sure. I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage equal opportunity amongst minorities.

Isn't a (if not the) primary danger of a racial quota going to be that it can deny beneficial circumstances (like a job) to someone who would otherwise deserve it?

Isn't the worst example of this danger a denial based solely on that person not belonging to the affirmed class?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Science does have to do with the rationale as to who and what we've allowed as "married" in the past - without regard to sex.

What does science have to do with an emotional decision?