Kids of Republicans pull parents to the left on gay marriage

[AggregateDemand]

SSM is the great human catastrophe of our lifetime. The elephant of inequality is sitting in the middle of the room, but people are too self-hating, uneducated, and apathetic to see it.

Half of the country has conferred upon itself a title of nobility, and subsequently helped themselves to whatever they please. Allowing gays to exercise the same right is not a solution to anything.

We are merely keeping with our long-standing American tradition of expanding the problem.

[AggregateDemand]

I don't mean to sound rude, but I find your post near totally incoherent. Sorry about that.

Look at something objective and meaningful, rather than feeding yourself a steady diet of political op-eds and vapid talking points. You'll figure it out soon enough.

[AggregateDemand]

What is the root cause of being a dope, I wonder? Being well-read or not has nothing to do with it... and even if it did, there'd be no concern on that front with Torie. I don't know if I could say the same for you, sadly.

It's just so interesting!

A government requires certain duties of its citizens and recognizes certain inalienable rights, as well as granting some positive rights.

Anyone who doesn't know of the cantankerous, pointless, and unethical system of discrimination and privilege surrounding relationship contracts and filing statuses has yet to achieve the most modest education.

[AggregateDemand]

For the love of Jesus Christ, his mother Mary, and the earthly father Joseph just admit you don't like gays Aggregate Demand!  Nobody is buying this verbose bullshit of yours that you simply don't like the expansion of government power, "it's all a conspiracy against singles" blah blah blah blah arguments.  It is obvious to anyone over a fifth grade reading level and an IQ above room temperature that you just don't like gay marriage and are coming up with every half baked argument in the book to argue why it's not a good thing while trying to sound as non-bigoted as possible.

I pity people who have enough time to hate on someone else for making personal decisions that harm no one.

On the other hand, I have plenty of time and energy to hate the imbeciles who think that our current system only discriminates against single people who are also gay. The assertion is so brain-dead it could only be derived from political discourse.

People wonder why politicians treat them with disdain. Look at the lunacy you're willing to believe. As far as they are concerned, we're all just livestock.

[AggregateDemand]

Who pray tell has ever posted the bolded bit, or any facsimile thereof? Anyway, I stipulate that certain other segments of the population face more real discrimination in real life than single gay men, and that is irrespective of what the law says. The law can only do so much as a practical, and prudential, matter.

Denial and rationalization in one post. Congrats.

[AggregateDemand]

Can you explain your position? I'm apt to defend it and probably agree with you but I haven't understood your points.

My position is that the SSM debate is the symptom of a much larger disease, but I'm not interested in treating symptoms anymore.

There is no equity in our system between married and single. The tax code is FUBAR and graduated rates are inherently flawed. People do not have equality of relationship contract, either. SSM does virtually nothing, other than re-establish stability so the House Ways and Means, Senate Finance Committee, and state legislators can get back to their usual task of designing an arcane system of rights and punishments based upon our relationship status.

To make matters worse, a bunch of numbskulls are running around the country in a fever, legally enslaving people via the remedy of specific performance, which generates incalculable ill-will between various American demographics, while stimulating reactionary backlash.

If we set out to fail, the societal outcome would probably be less damaging.

[AggregateDemand]

#SingleLivesMatter #PrayforAD

Don't pray for me, send money. Courting my fiance has cost tens of thousands in taxes alone. If we had run down to the JP on our first date, the government would have slashed my bill. Our relationship would be no different.

Reminds me of some debauched social custom you'd hear about in a Jane Austen novel. Congrats King. You may not have the wealth of the disgraceful landed aristocracy, but you have the apathy and the disdain for your fellow man.

[AggregateDemand]

It's hilarious to hear you lecture somebody about disdain. You're made of it.

You hate education, and you think receiving an education is a slight against your person. That has nothing to do with me.

You could accuse me of having disdain for people who intentionally cause problems for selfish motivation, but you'd be a hypocrite for saying anything.

[AggregateDemand]

I don't care. You know what the Gestapo was and you know exactly how the gay rights movement is not the Gestapo. I don't care if somebody else used it before. You're a coward if you're trying to hide behind that.

Certain sects of the movement are hellbent on legalized enslavement for wedding cakes and other trivialities. Is that a beneficial manifestation of fascism?

[AggregateDemand]

Dude, just admit you think the gays are yucky and that's what this comes down to.

Dude, acquire an understanding of the nuanced arguments. I'm not going to support an expansion of specific performance for trivial bullsh**t like wedding cakes and flowers.

You can't blame the fascism of the radicalized LGBT community on the detractors of fascism. If the market is willing to supply a product, but you play the discrimination card to enslave someone you don't like, you're an HP is the truest sense of the word. The judge who allowed the remedy of specific performance is also an HP.

If you can't understand the situation, don't suffocate intelligent discourse with your undeveloped moralistic opinion.

[AggregateDemand]

You're the one accusing people who are pursuing legal avenues with which you disagree of being fascists and enslaving people. A world where that constitutes 'nuance' may be in some respects more dramatic and romantic and captivating than the alternative, but it's not the world most people live in.

I also find it disturbing when people use 'moralistic' as an insult in contexts like this, as if, uh, wanting things done or not done based on what's right or wrong is this horrible affront to common sense and decency.

Categorizing specific performance as enslavement is not my opinion, it's just not the politically correct terminology for compelling someone to perform. People in commerce are well aware of what specific performance actually is, and that's part of the reason why so few people sue for specific performance. Regarding SSM, the parties don't even have pre-existing contracts.

The market is perfectly willing to provide for gay customers. The purpose of the lawsuits was to demonstrate that certain minorities can wield power and exert control over other citizens. I find that even more disgusting than the awkward discrimination of religious fundamentalists. 

If you like "moralistic" politics, why do you have a problem with Christian sexual ethics? We live in an age of reason. PC groupthink and religious treachery are equally bad.

[AggregateDemand]

There have been a lot of infractable personal attacks on this thread. Attacking someone as an idiot or unread, or unable to understand text, etc. for holding a personal opinion is a personal attack. I have not reported any of the posts, and don't intend to, but the style of some of the posts really is not acceptable in my opinion. It's pathetic really. I do thank those of you who have shown more personal restraint. Yes, I am not entirely sure that some of it is not trolling. It's just that over the top. The whole thing sucks. Thank you.

Tell us when you plan to crack down on the incessant, baseless claims of bigotry. If ever there was a sign of misunderstanding and lack of proper education, crying "bigotry" is one of the clearest indicators.

[AggregateDemand]

AD, people are exasperated with you because you're totally incoherent.  There may be an idea in your head, but you are not expressing it in a way that other people can understand it.  The burden is on you to make yourself understood.  If you just write in a totally abstruse way and get angry and dismissive when people don't understand you, there's no point.  You think you have some magical insight because you took Econ 101 at community college or something, great.  

People understand arguments that go A to B to C.  If you write like some crazy person on speed and you jump from A to F to Q, you're not some brilliant writer.  You're a crazy person on speed type of writer.

Most of my posts are easy to understand. A group of single people are complaining that marriage is discriminatory. We decide that the system must only be discriminatory against gay single people.

Everyone should be able to see the cult of politically-correct groupthink by now.

We need more money for entitlements so we siphon money out of income-generating productivity and we put more money into deadweight loss. Then we create a grand conspiracy about capitalist robber barons who don't pay their taxes, though corporate taxes would scarcely raise a tiny percentage of the money we need.

The concepts are not difficult to understand. People are willfully ignorant.

The graduated tax system openly discriminates against married people. To correct the situation, we create a separate tax system for married people. Naturally, this separate-but-equal arrangement was a failure from its inception.

The assertion is not vague or difficult to grasp.

[AggregateDemand]

I just don't get the bit that because one favors SSM, one doesn't care about what is in the tax code, and give a damn if it is unfair. How to treat married couples, by they gay or straight, in the tax code, versus the unmarried, is a worthy, and indeed complex, subject of discussion, but has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of SSM that I can see. Ditto with your other listed beefs about the system. Folks who favor SSM marriage can walk and chew gum at the same time, every bit as much as you can, and care about other issues of unfairness. And as many here will tell you, while we may be allies on SSM, we may disagree on some other issues. I cannot fathom why you conflate all of this with sincerity.

While I'm sure that some SSM couples are merely fighting for recognition, the real debate is about the equality of privileges granted to married couples. Many of these privileges are granted via the tax code. For instance, the ability to list a spouse on employer healthcare, which is excluded from income and taxation. Other SSM couples may be interested in receiving the preferential married tax rates, which provide big tax breaks for couples with disparate income between partners. Same-sex couples also want preferential rules for probate and spousal estate planning.

Gay couples are fighting for community property rights, and the right to make medical decisions for a spouse w/o power of attorney, and the right to adopt and list dependents on health insurance, and so on.

It's all connected. The tax system, retirement system, and health insurance system, which vest incredible power in the contract of marriage. Congress is supposed to disarm the situation so we can all live together, but they choose to place more emphasis on the importance of exerting power and cultural control over the minority faction.

Whether or not marriage can be same-sex is basically irrelevant. What is really at stake is whether Congress will act to stabilize a population with much lower incidence of marriage, evolving culture and rapidly increasing disparity of wealth (caused mainly by the culture of educated dual-income married couples).

[AggregateDemand]

The minority faction over which the ruling class is exerting power is... single people??? Lololol

Dude, if you don't want to get married, then Just. Don't. Get. Married.

I was referring to the people who believe marriage is male-female only or the people who believe same-sex couples also qualify for marriage. The minority party depends upon the era in question.