Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”
Steele’s argument is utterly correct. More marriages would mean that more benefits would be paid out. However, it’s still ridiculous because the exact same argument could be used against all marriages. And if you think about it, because heterosexual marriages would more likely lead to children, which would lead to more benefits, heterosexual marriages would actually be worse for businesses than gay marriages!
Does Steele and the GOP really want to be against the institution of marriage? Will Steele call for a moratorium on all new marriages until the financial crisis is over?
But wait, it gets even more bizarre, if you continue with Steele’s logic, it necessarily follows that unmarried gay couples are good for small businesses! So not only he is against the institution of marriage, he’s in favor of promiscuous homosexuality!
#115 Mr Fusion stuck his foot in his mouth when he said, “It always sounds good when you plagerize[sic] some garbage from other site and then don’t cite it,” and again when he pontificated, “but it looks as if the original writer put as much thought in writing this list as you did in copying it.”
Site your source if you think this is copied or apologize. The numbering I used was based on the amendments it applied to. There was no number 3 because quartering troops has nothing to do with this.
” #115 Mr. Fusion, “can you show us one person who has been punished for speaking out against gay marriage? Then, please post one preacher who has been punished because he refused to perform ANY wedding.”
It happened in Australia. May happen here.
#115 Mr Fusion also asked, “Can you show us ONE person who has been punished or even just forced to state their opinion on ANY subject?”
Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.
Mr Fusion also said, “All jurisdictions I am aware off define a hate crime as one committed BECAUSE the person was a definable minority. For example, if you beat up someone just because they are homosexual and call him a “fag”, “queer”, and “fudge packer” then you will most likely be charged under a hate crime statute.”
So how is this equal protection under the law such that it would be number 14. Or are some people more equal than others?
#115 Mr. Fusion, “You are a hateful bigot Benjamin.”
And so is that guy sitting in the Oval Office. Barack Obama doesn’t believe in gay marriage either.
In reply to Mr. Fusion, Benjamin wrote “Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.”
Like Mr. Fusion, I was confused by the odd numbering system you used in your earlier list, and never would have guessed that you were associating Miss California’s “forced” pageant answer with the 5th Amendment prohibition against forced self-incrimination. My bad.
However, you may have overlooked that the backlash against her was God’s will. She was obviously displeased with how the Lord had made her, and she compensated for her perceived god-given deficiencies with breast implants. Also, the fact that she was in a beauty pageant and had done prior modeling, including a few topless shots, seems highly indicative that she has serious issues with the sin of vanity.
Obviously, the backlash was entirely God’s will, reminding her that she still has a lot of work to do on the “Christian values” of which she’s so proud.
#116, Scott,
Thank you,
Well said, but why did you bring the Green Bay Fudge Packers into this?
It’s a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.
#121, Benjamin,
The idiocy of the comments plus the weird, undisclosed method of numbering definitely left the impression you had “borrowed” the comments from another list. The amendments you refer to are unknown. If you were referring to the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, please learn how to write them down.
http://tinyurl.com/2al422
It happened in Australia. May happen here.
OK, so it happened in Australia. First, you didn’t provide a link and second, the US operates under a different set of laws and Constitution than does Australia.
“May happen here” is not the same as what you claimed. You wrote:
So show us how someone CAN BE punished and then show us someone who has been punished.
Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.
Again, you are blowing farts. “Miss California”, as well as what Gary added, was not forced to answer any question. She volunteered all comments. A backlash is not punishment.
So how is this equal protection under the law such that it would be number 14. Or are some people more equal than others?
A hate crime is applied, in addition to the regular charge, when a crime of violence is committed solely because of the victim’s minority status.
That person gets no extra “rights” or benefits from the government. If a blind person is beaten up because he is blind, it appears to you that is just fine.
Obama is in favor of Civil Unions. That is not the same as marriage, nor is it the status quo. Most importantly, Obama is not advocating hatred or continued discrimination against homosexuals.
121 – Bennie,
” #115 Mr. Fusion, “can you show us one person who has been punished for speaking out against gay marriage? Then, please post one preacher who has been punished because he refused to perform ANY wedding.”
It happened in Australia. May happen here.
You might at least cite an example of that. And, if you’re going to complain about the typing of others, learn the difference between sight, site, and cite.
#115 Mr Fusion also asked, “Can you show us ONE person who has been punished or even just forced to state their opinion on ANY subject?”
Miss California was asked what she believed and there was backlash against her for what she said.
So, those who provided the backlash are not entitled to their free speech? You didn’t exactly give either a link to back this up or any actual punishment or force she received for this, merely public opinion at odds with hers. This is exactly what we are giving you right now, not punishment, not force, just shame for your view that others are not entitled to the rights you take for granted.
So how is this equal protection under the law such that it would be number 14. Or are some people more equal than others?
All are equally protected against any hate crime committed by anyone who hates them for what they are rather than who they are. All crimes that start because of bigotry are equally prosecuted as hate crimes. Whatever your ethnic heritage or sexuality or religious belief, if someone hurts you for that, they will be prosecuted for hate crime.
119,
No. No one should have their rights removed. But, history has shown that couples that marry often have children. That is what government banks on. Some couples that marry also turn into serial killers, but that generally doesn’t work into the equation of population growth and taxpayers.
118,
I may truly be stupid, but you must also be an idiot to imagine that population growth is a perfectly uniform line without any factors getting in the away… Like war, famine, poverty, etc. No everyone in the world is sitting on their couch watching TV. As for your snipping. That’s great. It also unfortunate that I know your potential off spring will never make the world a better place. Which is truly unfortunate.
#126, Named,
… history has shown that couples that marry often have children. That is what government banks on.
That is a very narrow, simplistic view from an “Us vs Them” mode. The Government is not some creature deigned to reign over us. In America, we elect our government.
I hold rather that it is in society’s interest that we have stable families. The nuclear family is our lowest and most common form of government around which all other governance is created and based. We have diminished the role of the large, extended family in society because of the ease of travel and mobility of the workforce has dispersed most. Yet it is the stability in our society that families provide that we, as a society, need to promote and grow.
While it is true that married people do commit crimes, by far most crimes against society are committed by people in unstable situations; the unemployed, single men, those with no immediate families, etc. Not all, but most.
Remember, just because most families have and raise their children, marriage is not a requirement. There are many single parent families and it is widely recognized that these are less than ideal. Yet we do allow single parent families as they are also recognized as much superior to the alternative of no parenting.
#126, Named,
… to imagine that population growth is a perfectly uniform line without any factors getting in the away… Like war, famine, poverty, etc.
We have experienced wars, famine, disease, and natural disasters throughout history. Each time they take progressively more and more lives. Yet our population continues to grow. Every time, we find new ways to combat our foes and continue to reproduce.
I don’t take Scott as saying we should stop reproducing. Even Scott realizes it will be the younger members in society that continue on with civilization. Instead, I think he is saying we should think a little harder about what the future holds for an unchecked population growth.
127,
We’re going to end up arguing from the same side you realize. My premise was that governments project that population growth = more tax revenue.
Couples do not have to get married. In fact, I don’t think I even used the word marriage. But, couples generally START families. Its pretty rare that a single person will start a family. Not unheard of, but rare.
The rest of your point is pretty valid, so there is no reason to go debate the minutiae.
I will say that population explosions are not in the West. Not by a long shot. There is lots of planet Earth, and there are lots of ideas that can work. What we also have, particularly in the US is a sheer amount of overuse and exploitation of the planet. A significant reduction in consumption in the US would shift things drastically in the world.
Anyhoo… I don’t believe in marriage as a religious institution. It’s more of a partnership of capital: livestock, land, titles, deeds, etc. Which is almost pointless now…
#126
Again, your logic is not sound. If the goal is to increase taxpayers by providing benefits to couples in the hopes they will produce more taxpayers, then it follows that the government should not exclude certain types of couples that might produce taxpayers while providing benefits to many couples that do not. Furthermore, if increased population were truly the goal, there are far more overt means of getting population growth: ban condoms, encourage more promiscuity etc.
#129 & 130,
Named,
It’s more of a partnership of capital: livestock, land, titles, deeds, etc.
That is part of the crux of marriage / partnership / Civil Union or whatever you want to call it. The “legal” marriage part is what holds the couple together through the hard times when you just want to get up and leave. The rest of marriage is being with your best friend.
But the goal shouldn’t be, nor do I think it is, to increase the tax base. The more people in a society, the more resources society must expend. For example, it is easier and cheaper if everyone lived on a farm and grew their own food. Yet more people require cities and now transportation to bring the raw materials to the city to feed them, then the infrastructure to house, employ, etc,
Man is a social animal that prefers to be around its own kind. We care for our own within that and each society or group. As a society we are much more stable and able to care for and defend ourselves against others. It is that stability that government should be supporting.
RE #131,
For some reason, I also addressed that post to #130, which is Thomas. Forgive my brain fart.
#126 – Named,
Thanks for your vote of confidence in my genes. Thus far, they have only gotten as far as blogging for better memes. If one’s genes are so great that they can solve the problems of the world, they should be able to do so in this generation. No need to wait for the next.
As for other methods of population control, certainly war and famine work as does the increased spread of disease from increased population.
I think that not breeding might accomplish the job with a lot less pain and suffering though, no?
Mr. Fusion,
Actually, I think a sustainable human population on this planet would be fewer than 300 million people, possibly far fewer. And, I would not be opposed to peaceful and voluntary removal of our species from the planet. I am actually a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, emphasis on voluntary.
130,
When did I say government should exclude certain types of couples? Oh yeah… never.
Increase in population / taxpayers is a good thing for governments. Your government generally encourages a liberal style of freedom. You can bone your wife without getting her pregnant legally since you’re not a theocratic nation (yet!).
I’m thinking you’re confused about my intents here… Governments live on taxes, nothing more. Nothing makes more taxpayers like couples starting families. I don’t care WHAT kind of couples and HOW they get children. The other way governments get taxpayers is immigration. Governments really like tax revenues. Did I mention that? Encouraging couples to have children is good for the tax base. No idea why this fails the “logic” test.
#131
Actually, it is not cheaper to society to have everyone grow their own food. Specialization creates efficiencies in production. The opportunity cost of having a nuclear physicist plowing a field is enormous.
Yes, the more people in society the more resources that are consumed, however it is also the case that the more resources that are produced. As long as the output of each additional person exceeds the benefit of the resources they consume, in general, it is still a net gain for society (Marginal benefit over marginal cost). I’m saying this from a general economic standpoint not a specific policy standpoint. I don’t know that anyone is willing to allow any government to decide when we’ve past that point and frankly economics really manages this problem for us. As societies increase their standard of living, the cost to have children goes up and people have less children. In poorer societies, the benefit of children far exceeds their cost especially if that society is providing quite a bit of welfare.
#133
I disagree that 300 million is the cap of sustainability. It ignores advances in technology and thus our ability to live off less. NY shouldn’t be able to sustain 18 million people in the greater Manhattan area and yet it does. It is difficult to even consider a cap across the entire globe as some areas are able to sustain more people, some less and for different periods of time. The number of people that can be sustained at the North Pole is obviously different than the number that be sustained in Mexico City.
You last statement reminds me of the TOS Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon” where two societies were fighting their war by computer. When a hit was registered, people would voluntarily walk into disintegration chambers. If you are all for VHE, then you should love what we’ve done in Iraq. ;->
#134
> When did I say government
> should exclude certain
> types of couples? Oh yeah…
> never.
Then by that statement, I conclude that you endorse gay marriage for the same reason you endorse conferring benefits on any other type of couple: it encourages the creation of more taxpayers. If that is the case, then yes your logic is sound. I was under the impression that you were arguing against gay marriage but for government benefits to heterosexual couples. My apologies.
#135 – Thomas,
Economics would cure a lot of ills for us if it actually accounted for the costs of natural resources. Since it doesn’t, we can’t rely on economics for anything. Top soil has no value. Underground aquifers have no value. Even forests have no value.
They have value only when we put a fence around them, cut them down, dig them up, or otherwise produce a product from them. This is a failed system. The only result can be tragedy of the commons.
NYC does not support 18 million people. It does so for the moment because we are stealing from our children to feed ourselves. We are not living sustainably now by any measure.
We are depleting our topsoil. We are depleting our underground aquifers. We are depleting the ocean of its fish. We’re eating petroleum, literally, and it is a limited non-renewable resource. *
Advances in technology will not replace the ocean fish, the topsoil, or the ground water.
Already, we have been getting less fish out of the ocean year over year since the 1980s, despite improved fishing technology.
Already, we are producing a lower and lower surplus of grain year over year to the point that we now have shorter than a 90 day supply as of the last article I read on the subject.
Already, huge tracts of land have become deserts because we have depleted their topsoil and water supply.
Our lifestyle is already far from sustainable at this point, partially because our economics is based on the GDP that does not count natural resources as assets.
Malthus made two mistakes, IMHO. One, he overestimated the number of people the planet could sustain. Two, he underestimated the degree to which we would be willing to steal our children’s food.
* We literally eat petroleum in that our industrial fertilizer is petroleum based. We literally eat petroleum in our corn and wheat. In addition, we use petroleum to transport all of the food.
Named,
I think you were asked what you think governments ought to encourage, as representatives of their people.
You have repeatedly responded with what governments actually do based on the selfish motives of politicians.
Do you believe that politicians should have their own selfish profit motives above the interests of the people they claim to represent?
I agree that they do have their own profit incentive above our well-being. I do not believe they should.
What do you believe?
136,
Glad I cleared that up for you. I’m all for inter-species “marriage”.
138
“I agree that they do have their own profit incentive above our well-being. I do not believe they should.”
I agree with that.