[Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Fri Aug 31 07:14:45 PDT 2007
"I simply am trying to understand your reasons behind your sudden about face from "we need less government" to now wanting government to actively step in to deny these benefits."
The government would have "to actively step in" to allow those benefits not he other way around. As I have said many times before I would greatly prefer that the state had no involvement in marriage what so ever. There should be tax credits for the raising of children irrespective of marital status.
That said, the evidence seems to indicate that the best template for a prosperous, stable, and healthy community is the traditional man and wife raising up the next generation of Americans. (and golden retrievers and gold fish)
If the tax inequities that you use as justification for homosexual marriage are the major sticking point a far simpler solution is to eliminate the death tax altogether. Allowing same sex couple to avoid this tax by "virtue" of their marital status simply sets up a myriad of additional possibilities for scamming the government out of revenue, to say nothing of health care providers, employers, and insurance company's.
So far, all the arguments I'm hearing have nothing to do with marriage as such and everything to do with money. Why do you not attempt to address the money issues instead? Could it be that to do it through the alteration of traditional marriage provides the validation this group finds so sorely lacking as well as opening the doors for further societal changes that will be detrimental to the common good?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Dredge" <sdredge at yahoo.com>
To: "viz" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree
> Gary,
>
> Most of the time I find your posts quite logical, but on this issue same sex marriage I see you posting wild inconsistencies and I'm wondering if you can logically defend your stance or if you have nothing else in your arsenal other than "it is not good for the community or the country as whole" without providing something for me to try and see your point. For what it's worth, I also want what's best for the community / country as a whole and for me that starts with everyone being allowed equal rights and equal opportunity to pursue their life, liberty, and happiness. My take is that equality is something you agree on as well to an extent. You want to see all crimes prosecuted equally - and I don't believe you and I disagree on this - even though you and I have come down on opposite sides of hate crime legislation with me interpreting hate crime law to protect every person equally and you believing that it creates inequities and that it should be
> struck off the books. Ultimately, if I'm reading you right, we still both believe in equality for everyone and maybe we can discuss hate crime legislation in more detail later.
>
> Now getting back to the topic of same sex marriage, this is where I see a huge inequality and when I point out exactly what this inequality is in terms of partner benefits and surviving partner benefits you accuse me of "tak[ing] a demographic that already skews higher on the affluence scale and provide them with a few extra tax dodges". The "tax dodges" as you deem them, exist for married couples and I agree with those tax dodges because without them, a surviving spouse would be faced with huge tax liabilities upon receiving property from the deceased spouse. Applying the identical scenario to the same sex couple living next door (ie, same demographic), now suddenly - and quite puzzling to me - the big bad government that you have so much disdain for doesn't look so bad to you as it sticks it to the surviving same sex partner with heavy tax hits. You go on to claim that you don't want special benefits for same sex partners. I agree with that
> hypothetical statement although you would need to explain what you mean by "special benefits". When you use phrases like "special benefits" my interpretation of this is that same sex couples would be getting some benefit that heterosexual couples would not be getting. If you mean that you don't want same sex couples to have equal already existing benefits that are granted to married couples, then I simply am trying to understand your reasons behind your sudden about face from "we need less government" to now wanting government to actively step in to deny these benefits.
>
> I'm truly interested in hearing your reasons why keeping this inequality is good for the community and country. Knock yourself out!
>
> -Scott
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> To: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:42:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree
>
> Oh my, once again Mr. Campbell just can't seem to avoid trying to set up a
> pissing contest and a fairly lame one at that. The answer to the question:
>
> We are justified in preventing gays from marrying because _________.
>
> Is we are not. Homosexuals can run off and find any mail order minister they
> like to perform whatever solemn ceremony that makes their little hearts go
> pitty-pat. They can emotionally swear life long fealty to one another till
> they are blue in the face and I will do nothing but wish them the best. What
> I will not do is recognize that their little performance is in some way good
> for the community or the country as a whole.
>
> For the record, what I suggested with my remark about mothers was that your
> assertion regarding your having "the right to marry any adult person of your
> choice" was, like many of your bold proclamations, incorrect. Using it as
> the counterpoint for your silly little game I suppose is probably the best
> you could do.
>
> Save the vote in this goofy little for someone who cares. What's right isn't
> decided by a show of hands. Please try to remember (assuming you ever really
> grasped the concept at all) that good and right are distinct concepts from
> some vague, squishy, personnel notion of "fair."
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:23 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree
>
>
>> Crabtree suggests that if folks have a right to gay marriage, then they
>> have
>> (a) a right to marry their mothers, and (b) a right to marry multiple
>> partners.
>>
>> I say that this is just crap that that some people bring up because they
>> have
>> no argument and the best that they can do is appeal to emotion.
>>
>> I challenge Gary to fill in the blank:
>>
>> We are justified in preventing gays from marrying because _________.
>>
>> If he does so, I will fill in this blank:
>>
>> We are justified in preventing people from marrying their mothers because
>> _________.
>>
>> Then we'll let the people of Moscow vote as to which response is better!
>>
>> --
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070831/98c73d51/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list