Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 100

Thread: If we legalize gay marridge, who is going to pay for their tax reliefs?

  1. #51
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    The evidence you're asking for is in the link from the evangelical society I provided earlier, you just ignored it because most of it was about children. The first reason provided is that couples are more stable when married than when simply in a common-law relationship.
    did you not read my rebutle? that isn't any inherent proof. That is proof that married couples, are more stable, but that statistic doesn't account for the fact that married couples have children, and i am saying CHILDREN CAUSE THE STABILITY NOT JUST THE MARRIAGE
    and you are saying MARRIAGE causes the stability.

    THEREFORE WE NEED A STATISTIC that shows married couples with childrens stability, married couples without childrens stability, and non married couples stability.
    All for the same ammounts of times, then compare the relative differences and that will show you which one has more or less or the same relevance in the argument.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  2. #52
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    So if the whole US legalizes marijuana and prostitution, it has a huge economic boost from tourism, same thing with gay marriage.
    How does gay marriage cause tourism? (from outside the U.S.) (or atleast enough tourism to outweigh the tax shelters we pay for them who don't raise a child)
    Also your not considering the fact other countries might not want to tour in the U.S. if gay marriage IS okay federally
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  3. #53
    Defenestration is imminent pichubro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kaleidoscope Of Mathematics
    Posts
    18,232

    Default

    If you marry for the children you are doing it wrong.

  4. #54
    bye felicia stiles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    How does gay marriage cause tourism? (from outside the U.S.) (or atleast enough tourism to outweigh the tax shelters we pay for them who don't raise a child)
    Also your not considering the fact other countries might not want to tour in the U.S. if gay marriage IS okay federally
    stop being such an idiot. just because some iranian wouldn't want to come to america because some guys can get together, means we don't do it? are you this stupid?

  5. #55
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    13,889

    Default

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...rriage-couples - not statistical but well backed

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1941...-to-bliss.html - an expert argues that having children actually worsens the stability of marriage

    http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...g-without-kids - here's something a little more statistical

    I hope this helps elijah

  6. #56
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stiles View Post
    stop being such an idiot. just because some iranian wouldn't want to come to america because some guys can get together, means we don't do it? are you this stupid?
    No, its about the same tiny increase that would be made from people coming to the u.s. SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL.
    He said we would gain increased tourism due to gay marriage, and i said it would be muted out by the opposite effect happening.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  7. #57
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    13,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    How does gay marriage cause tourism? (from outside the U.S.) (or atleast enough tourism to outweigh the tax shelters we pay for them who don't raise a child)
    Also your not considering the fact other countries might not want to tour in the U.S. if gay marriage IS okay federally
    not sure if trolling

  8. #58
    bye felicia stiles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    No, its about the same tiny increase that would be made from people coming to the u.s. SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL.
    He said we would gain increased tourism due to gay marriage, and i said it would be muted out by the opposite effect happening.
    who cares. you brought this argument up in the first place. it's stupid. we don't base our decisions off of other country's or whether or not somebody is having kids. having kids isn't an inherent benefit to humanity anymore. if anything gay people are a good thing for society, they can adopt kids who don't already have family's while not contributing to wasting resources on a child of their own that didn't already exist. we aren't having a shortage of kids, if you didn't realize.

  9. #59
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...rriage-couples - not statistical but well backed

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1941...-to-bliss.html - an expert argues that having children actually worsens the stability of marriage

    http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...g-without-kids - here's something a little more statistical

    I hope this helps elijah
    solly, lets just stop arguing, because the statics either of us needs do not exist. None of these have any statistical proof of anything we are talking about, they are just arguing their own opinions about the stuff we are saying.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  10. #60
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stiles View Post
    who cares. you brought this argument up in the first place. it's stupid. we don't base our decisions off of other country's or whether or not somebody is having kids. having kids isn't an inherent benefit to humanity anymore. if anything gay people are a good thing for society, they can adopt kids who don't already have family's while not contributing to wasting resources on a child of their own that didn't already exist. we aren't having a shortage of kids, if you didn't realize.
    No your right, when gay people adopt children they do far more good than when straight people make another child. And the same goes for straight people who adopt children,
    So we should give increased tax shelters to those who adopt children.
    End of story, doesn't make my argument mute though.
    And infact, the more children people have the better off a society is, wether you think so or not.
    It used to be the more kids a country had the better off they were for warfaring.

    It shifted into the more children we have the more smart people we have meaning the more scientific advances we can make and the more application for such we can have. People don't understand this.... because its alot less obvious than simply more people = more strength militarily.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  11. #61
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    13,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    solly, lets just stop arguing, because the statics either of us needs do not exist. None of these have any statistical proof of anything we are talking about, they are just arguing their own opinions about the stuff we are saying.
    So in other words, it is pointless to argue over the benefits of tax reliefs to gay couples because the statistics are either so minor they're moot in the grander scheme of social policy, or nobody knows so there's no point in the tax relief argument because there's no conclusion.

  12. #62
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    So in other words, it is pointless to argue over the benefits of tax reliefs to gay couples because the statistics are either so minor they're moot in the grander scheme of social policy, or nobody knows so there's no point in the tax relief argument because there's no conclusion.
    Right. There are only two theories that we have threshed out to full understanding. And i cannot find the statistics and you cannot either that we need to draw a direct conclusion about which theory is in better standing.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  13. #63
    bye felicia stiles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    Right. There are only two theories that we have threshed out to full understanding. And i cannot find the statistics and you cannot either that we need to draw a direct conclusion about which theory is in better standing.
    how can you say right, when that's what you were arguing in the first place?

  14. #64
    Defenestration is imminent pichubro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kaleidoscope Of Mathematics
    Posts
    18,232

    Default

    It's not a good thing to have more children if you cannot already support the children being born. The world has over 7 billion people, that is more than enough for the planet already...

  15. #65
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    The world does not equal the U.S.
    That is a completely different argument pichubro. The U.S. can support many more people than we have now, and we were talking about specifically the U.S.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  16. #66
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stiles View Post
    how can you say right, when that's what you were arguing in the first place?
    because i did not realize the argument was pointless untill we threshed it out to the point we need emperical evidence to decide which competing theory is more relevant

    Edit: Also, both theories have some relevance, meaning niether of us is wrong, but that there is no way outisde of statistical proof to show which one of us has more relevance in current times.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  17. #67
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    13,889

    Default

    Elijah, you're arguing from this vague utilitarian standpoint of "More people = Better economy = better off people". Historically, this has been true on and off (China had huge problems with it, hence the one child policy), but we're in an age where limited resources and a booming population thanks to medical advancements means that there is no longer enough to go around, and while manufacturing and jobs may be at an all time high, population is at an all-time high-er. A high population is no longer the key to the success of a country, the key is now better education and healthcare, cooperation with other countries, and a satisfied middle class. Globalization and technology like the internet is increasingly trivializing concepts like nationalism and "my country is better than yours", as we become a global community. America, and the rest of the world, should focus on working together, not trying to "beat" other countries.

  18. #68
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    No denying that that is true, but for the U.S. who has more room than it knows what to do with, more children can easily be a good thing. A country runs more effiecently when closer to its capacity, scientifcally speaking. More intelligent people = more oppurtunity for scientific advancement.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  19. #69
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    13,889

    Default

    But with more people there is less to go around and people become more unhappy, causing things like the Occupy movement, which severely stints advancement. I'm pretty sure America is already past a self-sustaining capacity, judging by the amount of import it gets from other countries.

  20. #70
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    But with more people there is less to go around and people become more unhappy, causing things like the Occupy movement, which severely stints advancement. I'm pretty sure America is already past a self-sustaining capacity, judging by the amount of import it gets from other countries.
    There is plenty to go around, the rich hog it all though, that is an entirely seperate issue.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  21. #71
    Defenestration is imminent pichubro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kaleidoscope Of Mathematics
    Posts
    18,232

    Default

    America does not "have more space than it knows what to do with" much of the unihabited land is either owned by the government or the natives and thus IS being used. The ideal population for a self-sustaining country like America is probably at most 100 million (though less people is ideal), and we are three times that that number.

    It's not a matter of the rich hogging stuff, it's a matter of jobs vs unemployment, salaries vs inflation, and exports vs imports.

  22. #72
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Okay, i believe you think thats true.
    "As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"

  23. #73
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    13,889

    Default

    I think you believe pichubro thinks that's true

  24. #74
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    49,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    But with more people there is less to go around and people become more unhappy, causing things like the Occupy movement, which severely stints advancement. I'm pretty sure America is already past a self-sustaining capacity, judging by the amount of import it gets from other countries.
    this is not really the way to look at it.

    america could rather easily be self sustaining but economies these days aren't looking toward being 'self sustaining.' america is still the biggest exporter in the world. its not so much a lack of resources making america 'import was it needs' or anything, but market forces making consumer goods much cheaper to import than produce. besides many of those goods are still produced with american capital.

  25. #75
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    49,683

    Default

    most industrial countries do need a bigger future population than it currently looks like they will get

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •