NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/hsv/general/3657

Text File | 1992-11-16 | 9.9 KB | 199 lines

Newsgroups: hsv.general
Path: sparky!uunet!infonode!ingr!b11!lhughes
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: Presidential talk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: au contraire
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
References: <[e-mail]> <wiley.721669887@crooks>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:33:37 GMT
Lines: 187

In article <wiley.721669887@crooks>, [e-mail] (Dave Wiley) writes:
> >Jim Mason writes:
>
> >> IMHO, the state has no business in
> >> engaging itself in the marriage business anyway; the social contract
> >> is between the INDIVIDUAL and the state.
>
> Lawrence Hughes writes:
>
> >What does the "social contract" between individuals and the state
> >(...) have
> >to do with the (considerably more real) social contract between a man and a
> >woman who wish to establish a family?
>
> Both being married and having children are covered by the tax laws.  But
> I'm sure you know this.

In my view, the tax laws are not part of the "social contract" between an
individual and the state. I never agreed (nor would I ever agree) to let them
steal such a large percentage of my income for such ignoble purposes. They
are able to do this ONLY because they possess (for now) superior armament.
Again, I am much in the same position as anyone that is the victim of a
protection racket - if I don't pay taxes, they will come rearrange my face.
Some "voluntary contract".

> >> But as long as the state is
> >> going to recognize SOME marriages, it's going to have to recognize ALL
> >> marriages.
>
> >Say, between an Albanian herdsman and his favorite sheep? One involving an 8
> >year old child? Anyone really think there should be NO line drawn ANYWHERE,
> >other than this gentleman?
>
> Who's to say?  Any attempt to draw such a line would be to impose a set
> of morals on people who may not share them.  For the time being, I see
> nothing wrong with any two people who claim to be married being
> considered that way for legal purposes.  Of course, why should marriage
> be restricted to couples?  Better the government just butt out.

OK - we differ on this point. I am willing to draw a line on recognition of
marriage that leave homosexual marriages on the other side. You aren't. I
don't consider this to be any more an intrusion on anyone's rights than are
laws that prevent me from exercising my god-given right to terminate someone
that has tragically and mistakenly voted democratic, or some other crime
against nature... (which god? why Cthulu, of course... I'm a GOOD Cthulic)

Seriously, these tax benefits were designed to encourage the continuation of
the species. Where you argue that the tax benefits YOU (as a DINK) enjoy
should be extended to homosexual couples, I argue that they should not only
be kept from homosexual couples, but probably also terminated for DINKs.
Ideally, NO ONE should be paying any taxes at all, though.

> Far be it from me to phrase the Libertarian perspecitve on this, but I
> will anyway.  I assume youse guys would say that abolishing taxes would
> be best.  But given a choice between having tax laws which respect
> marriage or ignore marriage, wouldn't a Libertarain prefer tax laws
> which ignore marital status?

All taxation is theft - there are NO good tax laws. Period. Would a rape in
which you drive the girl home afterward be better than one where you make her
walk home afterward? There is still a fundamental problem with any tax. No
libertarian would ever condone ANY tax law, but perhaps any tax that attempts
to effect social change by selective application could be considered just a
little more onerous than one that was strictly for collecting revenue. It is
still theft at gunpoint, though, no matter what other evils it accomplishes
in the process.

> >> Admit it, hets hedge when confronted with gay marriages,
> >> etc., because they realize these are areas in which they themselves
> >> enjoy SPECIAL PRIVILEGES!!!!!!
>
> >I don't hedge at all. And yes, we do enjoy a very special priviledge, which is
> >the ability to create new human life. Not real sure how you are planning to
> >get the government to grant that "right" to homosexual couples....
>
> Objection, your honor!  Irrelevant and argumentative.   Move to strike.

Au contraire - this was my first guess as to what these "special privleges"
might be, since these was so little explanation included in the original rant.

> >Now if the "special privileges" you are referring to are tax breaks for "real"
> >married couples, it is not clear if these really exist.
>
> It's very clear that the tax laws are different for married people as are
> inheritance laws and others.  Why should this be?

To foster and encourage the continuation of our society. I would think that a
commie-lib like you ;-) would be the first to defend general taxation to support
universal public schooling on exactly this basis. But again, I can't justify
any difference in taxation for DINK couples compared with homosexual ones. I
don't dislike or even disapprove of such couples ("some of my best friends...").
My only point was that I can't think of any convincing or logical argument that
could differentiate tax treatment of DINKs and homosexual couples. Where we
differ is that I think that conventional (here I mean one parent of each sex
with one or more offspring of the parents) marriages should get preferential
treatment compared to either. On the other hand, I really do personally
disapprove of homosexual marriages, and most especially of extending tax breaks
to them that are intended to foster conventional reproduction and continuation
of our species.

> >If you are referring to the ability to adopt children, in the event (which has
> >got to be FAIRLY common in homosexual marriages) that you can't make one
> >the "old-fashioned way"... I really feel that it is extremely unfair to any
> >child to be raised by two parents of the same sex, and of a sexual persuasion
> >that the bulk of society considers to be abnormal. Such a child cannot be
> >considered to have a fair chance of fitting into society, or having normal,
> >healthy relationships later in life. Being raised by a single parent of either
> >sex isn't a great deal better. The conventional family is a good solution that
> >has worked well since before recorded history...
>
> I disagree.  The quality and stability of the perspecitive parents is
> far more important than any litmus test for social correctness could be.

And in my opinion (although obviously not yours), a homosexual proclivity is
in itself an instability and directly lowers the quality of the home envioron-
ment, and especially so with respect to raising children.

> >If you really want to live in a sexual relationship with another man, go right
> >ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to consider it to be equivalent in any
> >way with conventional heterosexual child-oriented marriage. Some argument
> >perhaps could be made to equate it with (intentional) DINK (Dual-Income,
> >No-Kids) couples, but not with "conventional" marriage.
>
> Since I did not get married for the purpose of conceiving children, you
> would say that my marriage is not a "conventional" one?

Not in the sense that I am using "conventional" here (see above). Nor was my
first marriage, even though there were existing step children involved. Some
folks thrive in a childless marriage, but others don't. I didn't. I went to
great trouble (going well into the realm of "unconventional" in the sense you
are obviously using) to find myself a wife that would actually ENJOY staying
home and raising children (as opposed to being WILLING to do it as a sacrifice)
I possibly could have eventually found an American wife that WOULD have stayed
home with them, but given the overwhelming programming all American women have
been exposed to for the last 30 years, very few would have been genuinely
HAPPY doing this. I managed to find someone who feels like I do that raising
kids is the MOST important thing our family will do, and I plan to support her
in any way that I can, only one of which is bringing home a paycheck to cover
the expenses of our family.

> I would be
> entertained give those people who you refer to as the "rest of us" the
> details of my courtship/marriage and yours and see which one rated as
> more conventional.

Different connotations of the word "conventional", your honor - move to strike.
In my sense of the word (see above), I have every intention of creating a
conventional family - perhaps we can sell tickets for folks to observe us
("golly - a real MOTHER, and she's even got on an APRON! I wonder if she can,
what did they call it, BAKE?"), as a cultural curiosity.

> Not that I would be proud of such an appellation.

Nor I, given your connotation - how boring.

> I've always prided myself on being a bit eccentric.

And you ARE, Dave. As are MOST interesting and worthwhile folks.

> As a matter of fact
> I count you as a friend partially because of (and paritally in spite
> of :-) your eccentricities.  Perhaps this is something that you, Jim,
> and I have in common.

Sorry, I still consider homosexual proclivity to be a larger departure from
acceptable behaviour than enjoying "far side", or having political opinions
past the 4th standard deviation. In particular, I feel that choosing such a
lifestyle inherently disqualifies one from participation in the raising of
children, or in tax benefits designed to encourage such activity.

> Perhaps even we could agree on the best solution would be for the
> government to butt out of the business of marriage and children.  How
> about it?

Only if they ALSO butt out of ALL aspects of our lives. Now. Which I don't
think you would like at all.

> --
> david wiley              "The American passion for hygiene and dark
> Intergraph Corporation    restaurants had made me start my meal with
> 205-730-6390              an hors-d'oeuvre of hot face towel."
> [e-mail]                                   - Rumpole

Larry "the only sure things in life are death and taxes" Hughes