Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Aequo · Mar 13, 2004, 11:55 am

The government should not endorse abnormality, and homosexuality is abnormal.

No matter what you say, a heterosexual marriage is not the same as a homosexual one, were they to be allowed. I agree homosexuals are capable of accomplishing great things, but that does not change the fact that it is abnormal. If an amendment is needed to prohibit homosexual marriages, then I am for it. Money would be more wisely spent, however, on studying the factors leading to homosexuality, and perhaps cures and/or preventative measures.

I am dealing only within the context of today's society; whether or not the government should be involved in private contracts is therefore irrelevant.

Mia · Mar 13, 2004, 04:25 pm

No, it's not irrelevant. You are not merely working within the current framework - you are advocating expanding it by adding an amendment to a document meant to give rights that specifically takes one away from a segment of the population you have decided is not just abnormal, but negatively so.

It's none of the government's business if they get married and it's none of mine.

Why do you care? I understand your position in terms of your personal feelings about it. But how does it affect you so much that you'd support an amendment to the constitution over it? Do you know what it takes to make that happen? It's reserved for the most important of things and I'd like it explained how this rises to that level.

Aequo · Mar 13, 2004, 05:23 pm

It's relevant due to the fact the government does involve itself in private contracts and rightly so, as it is sometimes needed to enforce them should one party not adhere to the contract. If there were not the case, nothing would stop me from entering into a contract with you to provide ten gallons of waste removal per day in exchange for an up front sum of one hundred dollars. After one day, however, I quit. How will you enforce that contract? If you file a lawsuit, you are involving the government by trying to get them to enforce the terms of the contract. But if the law stipulates the government cannot involve itself on private contracts, then there is no basis for the suit.

It is the governments business because the government is primarily responsible for two things: individuals and society. It is through the government civil rights are enacted and enforced, protecting the individual. It is through the government national defense is provided for, protecting society.

Heterosexual marriage is in interest to the society because it is the method by which society reproduces and continues its existence. It is, in a way, a method of self-preservation.

Why should homosexuals receive the benefits of marriage if they do not contribute to society's reproduction?

Paavo · Mar 13, 2004, 05:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Why should homosexuals receive the benefits of marriage if they do not contribute to society's reproduction?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do you think the US should force married couples to have children?

Aequo · Mar 13, 2004, 05:47 pm

No, but I think they should encourage it. And that is what they do by granting tax and other benefits to married couples.

tusaki · Mar 13, 2004, 06:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Aequo,)
No, but I think they should encourage it. And that is what they do by granting tax and other benefits to married couples.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Although I am in favor of allowing homosexuals to get married, you do raise a valid point: the reason for giving all the benefits, tax reduction etc. Is to encourage people to start families. (Insert moralistic "family is the cornerstone of society" rant here).

But, for homosexuals, the reason to get married is often not a financial one. (As they proved by getting married en masse in San Francisco, with full knowledge it's only for the show and only to make a public statement.) They just want to be accepted as normal human beings. Or at least, tolerated as such.

I don't claim I have a solution... I perceive that all gay couples want, is some document to say they are married, as a form of acceptance. Why not give it? We are not going to change their 'nature' by denying it exists or by saying horrible offensive things about it just because it seems "outrageous". It would make a lot of people happier.

The more I think about it, the more it seems logical to just say: everyone can get married (before the state), but heterosexual couples get breaks etc because we want to encourage family building. I think if you are clear about it, it's not offensive at all to homosexuals.

tusaki · Mar 13, 2004, 06:41 pm

One other idea I would like to add to this thread: In my previous post I said that I didn't think gay couples just want to get married to get the benefits and tax breaks. The same can be said about heterosexual couples. It's a powerfull statement and a commitment towards the world. Now, I think that many people would feel marriage would be less special if just about anyone can get married with anyone. Because many people have fears and bad sentiment towards gay people (I'm not sure if it's true hatred), allowing them to get married would make their own marriage seem less meaningfull somehow.

Sandy · Mar 13, 2004, 06:50 pm

It makes no difference to me if gays marry or even if heteros marry. I certainly did not marry to breed! I married to be with my best friend for the rest of our lives. I got "caught" twice but only produced girls so my husband took off with his secretary to gave him another girl! The poor fellow is on wife number 5 and had only one son long before we were married. I have to tell you that kid was ignored from day one. I got him along with my divorce.

America is filled to the brim with unwanted babies, give us a break! Women are not brood mares.

tusaki · Mar 13, 2004, 07:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sandy,)
America is filled to the brim with unwanted babies, give us a break! Women are not brood mares.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And neither are men, and as I said, getting married is more of a statement to the world. But it is a fact that governments encourage people to get married and form families because having stable families is desirable. The idea is that when someone is a member of a family, the social pressure that person feels will deter him or her from committing actions which are socially and/or morally undesirable.

Mia · Mar 13, 2004, 07:21 pm

1) It's been a very long time since society needed to worry about enough reproduction. Right now our problem is too much, if anything.

2) There are no marriage incentives that I know of, save measures to correct the prior tax laws that DISADVANTAGED people monetarily when they got married.

3) "The idea is that when someone is a member of a family, the social pressure that person feels will deter him or her from committing actions which are socially and/or morally undesirable".

This can be applied to gays as well. Gay men are supposedly promiscuous, spreading STD's, etc. If two want to make a commitment of fidelity, this is good for society.

4) They shouldn't have to pay taxes if people want to deny them the same benefits as every other taxpayer. Whether they reproduce is irrelevant.

Mia · Mar 13, 2004, 07:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Aequo,)
It's relevant due to the fact the government does involve itself in private contracts and rightly so, as it is sometimes needed to enforce them should one party not adhere to the contract. If there were not the case, nothing would stop me from entering into a contract with you to provide ten gallons of waste removal per day in exchange for an up front sum of one hundred dollars. After one day, however, I quit. How will you enforce that contract? If you file a lawsuit, you are involving the government by trying to get them to enforce the terms of the contract. But if the law stipulates the government cannot involve itself on private contracts, then there is no basis for the suit.

It is the governments business because the government is primarily responsible for two things: individuals and society. It is through the government civil rights are enacted and enforced, protecting the individual. It is through the government national defense is provided for, protecting society.

Heterosexual marriage is in interest to the society because it is the method by which society reproduces and continues its existence. It is, in a way, a method of self-preservation.

Why should homosexuals receive the benefits of marriage if they do not contribute to society's reproduction?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Government enforcing contracts, and deciding for us which ones we can engage in are two very different things, aren't they?

If you think this way, it may be you next for whom the government will decide what is best. If it's not hurting anyone else, I don't see where they have the right.

Can you illustrate how homosexual marriage is a threat to society in any way so that we need protection from it?

tusaki · Mar 13, 2004, 07:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
1) It's been a very long time since society needed to worry about enough reproduction. Right now our problem is too much, if anything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I somewhat agree, but... there has been a sharp decline in the number of children born over the last 2 decades or so. It will become hard to support an aging population. Less children to care for their parents when they get old.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
2) There are no marriage incentives that I know of, save measures to correct the prior tax laws that DISADVANTAGED people monetarily when they got married.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I don't know about the US, but here (in the Netherlands) there are benefits when you get married. I assumed it was the same.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
3) "The idea is that when someone is a member of a family, the social pressure that person feels will deter him or her from committing actions which are socially and/or morally undesirable". This can be applied to gays as well. Gay men are supposedly promiscuous, spreading STD's, etc. If two want to make a commitment of fidelity, this is good for society.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I totally agree, and, now that I read my own post it seems like I was hinting towards sexual behaviour, but I meant -any- behaviour. Having social pressure will motivate a person to do 'good things'.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
4) They shouldn't have to pay taxes if people want to deny them the same benefits as every other taxpayer. Whether they reproduce is irrelevant.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Well, there is no 'every other taxpayer'. I'm not to good on my statistics, but I doubt that 'the rest' is married. And reproducing is relevant for a society, I can image that a goverment would want to encourage it. On the other hand... Having stable 'units' of people is reason enough to encourage marriage, so you can argue that this is something the government should always encourage, regardless if you are reproducing or not.

Mia · Mar 13, 2004, 09:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />[b]Originally Posted by (tusaki[quote=Mia,)[/b]
Well, there is no 'every other taxpayer'. I'm not to good on my statistics, but I doubt that 'the rest' is married. And reproducing is relevant for a society, I can image that a goverment would want to encourage it. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Right - I meant that as an argument against those that think it's unfair for a married gay person to get the same socal security benefits, etc. as straight married couples. I don't see how that is a good argument when they are not exempt from paying in the same ss taxes as straight people.

Not all gays will get married just like not all straights do.

And not all married straights have children.

Mia · Mar 13, 2004, 09:06 pm

What are the laws and attitudes in The Netherlands toward gays?

Leopard · Mar 14, 2004, 12:10 am

Please explain why the government should be 'encouraging' anything? Can't encouragement be done more effectively on a social level? for instance, should the government 'encourage' people wearing their underwear underneath their pants, or does society pretty much take care of this from becoming some sort of rampant problem. The fallacy in granting government the power to 'encourage' OR 'discourage' behavior is that it is assumed that the government will implement 'the best' policy without any regard to other pressures or politicians personal preferences. We probably all agree that perhaps Oat bread is more nutritious than processed White bread, but should we (1) outlaw White bread, (2) 'encourage' Oat Bread, (3) 'discourage' White bread? Ridiculous! People that care about their nutritional state will conduct studies and that information will be desimminated throughout the population (at least amongst those who care) and everyone can make up their own minds.

Here is a fact: if the government 'encourages' a certain type of behavior (right or wrong) by 'giving' monetary incentive, YOU and I, the taxpayers will be funding an increaing of that behavior soley for monetary considerations. Example: If the government gives folks $1000 to get married, and $500 per child concieved - the result will be more folks getting married for financial reasons (not for love or 'hppiness') and having more children for financial reasons (then, perhaps giving up those children afterwards because there is no incentive to bring them up).

why isn't this obvious to people?

michael

Impenitent · Mar 14, 2004, 12:25 am

"Please explain why the government should be 'encouraging' anything?"

because the if the government didn't encourage lawfulness, there would be none... if there was nothing to stop anyone from stealing all your stuff and murdering you'd have nothing and be dead... that is the only "legitimate" purpose of government...

Mia · Mar 14, 2004, 01:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
"Please explain why the government should be 'encouraging' anything?"

because the if the government didn't encourage lawfulness, there would be none... if there was nothing to stop anyone from stealing all your stuff and murdering you'd have nothing and be dead... that is the only "legitimate" purpose of government...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

OK - why does the government need to involve itself in these matters?

Mia · Mar 14, 2004, 01:32 am

I always thought most of agreed that freedom means doing whatever we want as long as it doesn't step on someone ele's freedom.

The Gay Marriage Ban says that is not true. The Gay Marriage Ban says the heterosexual majority must be protected from other people doing what they want because they don't like it.

It's scary, really.

tusaki · Mar 14, 2004, 05:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
What are the laws and attitudes in The Netherlands toward gays?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We were the first country in the world to have a same-sex marriage :). Dutch people are very proud of their 'tolerance'. (although, secretly, many are not as tolerant as they would like others to believe)

And as for government encouraging.. the government encourages and discourages all kinds of behaviour through tax and benefits. Think of the tax on a pack of sigaretes, think of tax breaks for people who are starting their own business. Good behaviour is encouraged, bad behaviour is discouraged. And yes, you can argue that the government has no right to define 'good' and 'bad' behaviour. Although most regulation at this level is done with full consensus of all political parties [here in the Netherlands] and usually only on things everyone agrees on. (Smoking is bad, polution is bad, working is good, eating healthy things is good, marriage is good)

Sandy · Mar 14, 2004, 07:33 am

It's obvious to me! I feel sorry for so many Americans who have never been taught at home, in church or at school how to think for themselves. Society is not the business of the Federal Government.

Contracts come under the authority of the state government. I think these folks never took a civics class in their lives.

Mar 13, 2004, 04:25 pm	#122 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	No, it's not irrelevant. You are not merely working within the current framework - you are advocating expanding it by adding an amendment to a document meant to give rights that specifically takes one away from a segment of the population you have decided is not just abnormal, but negatively so. It's none of the government's business if they get married and it's none of mine. Why do you care? I understand your position in terms of your personal feelings about it. But how does it affect you so much that you'd support an amendment to the constitution over it? Do you know what it takes to make that happen? It's reserved for the most important of things and I'd like it explained how this rises to that level. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 13, 2004, 05:43 pm	#124 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Why should homosexuals receive the benefits of marriage if they do not contribute to society's reproduction?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you think the US should force married couples to have children?

Mar 13, 2004, 06:22 pm	#126 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Aequo,) No, but I think they should encourage it. And that is what they do by granting tax and other benefits to married couples.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Although I am in favor of allowing homosexuals to get married, you do raise a valid point: the reason for giving all the benefits, tax reduction etc. Is to encourage people to start families. (Insert moralistic "family is the cornerstone of society" rant here). But, for homosexuals, the reason to get married is often not a financial one. (As they proved by getting married en masse in San Francisco, with full knowledge it's only for the show and only to make a public statement.) They just want to be accepted as normal human beings. Or at least, tolerated as such. I don't claim I have a solution... I perceive that all gay couples want, is some document to say they are married, as a form of acceptance. Why not give it? We are not going to change their 'nature' by denying it exists or by saying horrible offensive things about it just because it seems "outrageous". It would make a lot of people happier. The more I think about it, the more it seems logical to just say: everyone can get married (before the state), but heterosexual couples get breaks etc because we want to encourage family building. I think if you are clear about it, it's not offensive at all to homosexuals. Hope & Dream

Mar 13, 2004, 06:41 pm	#127 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	One other idea I would like to add to this thread: In my previous post I said that I didn't think gay couples just want to get married to get the benefits and tax breaks. The same can be said about heterosexual couples. It's a powerfull statement and a commitment towards the world. Now, I think that many people would feel marriage would be less special if just about anyone can get married with anyone. Because many people have fears and bad sentiment towards gay people (I'm not sure if it's true hatred), allowing them to get married would make their own marriage seem less meaningfull somehow. Hope & Dream

Mar 13, 2004, 07:08 pm	#129 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sandy,) America is filled to the brim with unwanted babies, give us a break! Women are not brood mares.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And neither are men, and as I said, getting married is more of a statement to the world. But it is a fact that governments encourage people to get married and form families because having stable families is desirable. The idea is that when someone is a member of a family, the social pressure that person feels will deter him or her from committing actions which are socially and/or morally undesirable. Hope & Dream

Mar 13, 2004, 11:55 am	#121 (permalink) (top)
Aequo Igneous Magma Posts: 241	The government should not endorse abnormality, and homosexuality is abnormal. No matter what you say, a heterosexual marriage is not the same as a homosexual one, were they to be allowed. I agree homosexuals are capable of accomplishing great things, but that does not change the fact that it is abnormal. If an amendment is needed to prohibit homosexual marriages, then I am for it. Money would be more wisely spent, however, on studying the factors leading to homosexuality, and perhaps cures and/or preventative measures. I am dealing only within the context of today's society; whether or not the government should be involved in private contracts is therefore irrelevant.

Mar 13, 2004, 05:23 pm	#123 (permalink) (top)
Aequo Igneous Magma Posts: 241	It's relevant due to the fact the government does involve itself in private contracts and rightly so, as it is sometimes needed to enforce them should one party not adhere to the contract. If there were not the case, nothing would stop me from entering into a contract with you to provide ten gallons of waste removal per day in exchange for an up front sum of one hundred dollars. After one day, however, I quit. How will you enforce that contract? If you file a lawsuit, you are involving the government by trying to get them to enforce the terms of the contract. But if the law stipulates the government cannot involve itself on private contracts, then there is no basis for the suit. It is the governments business because the government is primarily responsible for two things: individuals and society. It is through the government civil rights are enacted and enforced, protecting the individual. It is through the government national defense is provided for, protecting society. Heterosexual marriage is in interest to the society because it is the method by which society reproduces and continues its existence. It is, in a way, a method of self-preservation. Why should homosexuals receive the benefits of marriage if they do not contribute to society's reproduction?

Mar 13, 2004, 05:47 pm	#125 (permalink) (top)
Aequo Igneous Magma Posts: 241	No, but I think they should encourage it. And that is what they do by granting tax and other benefits to married couples.

Mar 13, 2004, 06:50 pm	#128 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 257	It makes no difference to me if gays marry or even if heteros marry. I certainly did not marry to breed! I married to be with my best friend for the rest of our lives. I got "caught" twice but only produced girls so my husband took off with his secretary to gave him another girl! The poor fellow is on wife number 5 and had only one son long before we were married. I have to tell you that kid was ignored from day one. I got him along with my divorce. America is filled to the brim with unwanted babies, give us a break! Women are not brood mares.

Mar 13, 2004, 07:21 pm	#130 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	1) It's been a very long time since society needed to worry about enough reproduction. Right now our problem is too much, if anything. 2) There are no marriage incentives that I know of, save measures to correct the prior tax laws that DISADVANTAGED people monetarily when they got married. 3) "The idea is that when someone is a member of a family, the social pressure that person feels will deter him or her from committing actions which are socially and/or morally undesirable". This can be applied to gays as well. Gay men are supposedly promiscuous, spreading STD's, etc. If two want to make a commitment of fidelity, this is good for society. 4) They shouldn't have to pay taxes if people want to deny them the same benefits as every other taxpayer. Whether they reproduce is irrelevant. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 13, 2004, 07:31 pm	#131 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Aequo,) It's relevant due to the fact the government does involve itself in private contracts and rightly so, as it is sometimes needed to enforce them should one party not adhere to the contract. If there were not the case, nothing would stop me from entering into a contract with you to provide ten gallons of waste removal per day in exchange for an up front sum of one hundred dollars. After one day, however, I quit. How will you enforce that contract? If you file a lawsuit, you are involving the government by trying to get them to enforce the terms of the contract. But if the law stipulates the government cannot involve itself on private contracts, then there is no basis for the suit. It is the governments business because the government is primarily responsible for two things: individuals and society. It is through the government civil rights are enacted and enforced, protecting the individual. It is through the government national defense is provided for, protecting society. Heterosexual marriage is in interest to the society because it is the method by which society reproduces and continues its existence. It is, in a way, a method of self-preservation. Why should homosexuals receive the benefits of marriage if they do not contribute to society's reproduction?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Government enforcing contracts, and deciding for us which ones we can engage in are two very different things, aren't they? If you think this way, it may be you next for whom the government will decide what is best. If it's not hurting anyone else, I don't see where they have the right. Can you illustrate how homosexual marriage is a threat to society in any way so that we need protection from it? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 13, 2004, 07:49 pm	#132 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) 1) It's been a very long time since society needed to worry about enough reproduction. Right now our problem is too much, if anything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I somewhat agree, but... there has been a sharp decline in the number of children born over the last 2 decades or so. It will become hard to support an aging population. Less children to care for their parents when they get old. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) 2) There are no marriage incentives that I know of, save measures to correct the prior tax laws that DISADVANTAGED people monetarily when they got married.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't know about the US, but here (in the Netherlands) there are benefits when you get married. I assumed it was the same. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) 3) "The idea is that when someone is a member of a family, the social pressure that person feels will deter him or her from committing actions which are socially and/or morally undesirable". This can be applied to gays as well. Gay men are supposedly promiscuous, spreading STD's, etc. If two want to make a commitment of fidelity, this is good for society.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I totally agree, and, now that I read my own post it seems like I was hinting towards sexual behaviour, but I meant -any- behaviour. Having social pressure will motivate a person to do 'good things'. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) 4) They shouldn't have to pay taxes if people want to deny them the same benefits as every other taxpayer. Whether they reproduce is irrelevant.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, there is no 'every other taxpayer'. I'm not to good on my statistics, but I doubt that 'the rest' is married. And reproducing is relevant for a society, I can image that a goverment would want to encourage it. On the other hand... Having stable 'units' of people is reason enough to encourage marriage, so you can argue that this is something the government should always encourage, regardless if you are reproducing or not. Hope & Dream

Mar 13, 2004, 09:05 pm	#133 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />[b]Originally Posted by (tusaki[quote=Mia,)[/b] Well, there is no 'every other taxpayer'. I'm not to good on my statistics, but I doubt that 'the rest' is married. And reproducing is relevant for a society, I can image that a goverment would want to encourage it. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Right - I meant that as an argument against those that think it's unfair for a married gay person to get the same socal security benefits, etc. as straight married couples. I don't see how that is a good argument when they are not exempt from paying in the same ss taxes as straight people. Not all gays will get married just like not all straights do. And not all married straights have children. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 13, 2004, 09:06 pm	#134 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	What are the laws and attitudes in The Netherlands toward gays? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 14, 2004, 12:10 am	#135 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Please explain why the government should be 'encouraging' anything? Can't encouragement be done more effectively on a social level? for instance, should the government 'encourage' people wearing their underwear underneath their pants, or does society pretty much take care of this from becoming some sort of rampant problem. The fallacy in granting government the power to 'encourage' OR 'discourage' behavior is that it is assumed that the government will implement 'the best' policy without any regard to other pressures or politicians personal preferences. We probably all agree that perhaps Oat bread is more nutritious than processed White bread, but should we (1) outlaw White bread, (2) 'encourage' Oat Bread, (3) 'discourage' White bread? Ridiculous! People that care about their nutritional state will conduct studies and that information will be desimminated throughout the population (at least amongst those who care) and everyone can make up their own minds. Here is a fact: if the government 'encourages' a certain type of behavior (right or wrong) by 'giving' monetary incentive, YOU and I, the taxpayers will be funding an increaing of that behavior soley for monetary considerations. Example: If the government gives folks $1000 to get married, and $500 per child concieved - the result will be more folks getting married for financial reasons (not for love or 'hppiness') and having more children for financial reasons (then, perhaps giving up those children afterwards because there is no incentive to bring them up). why isn't this obvious to people? michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 14, 2004, 12:25 am	#136 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"Please explain why the government should be 'encouraging' anything?" because the if the government didn't encourage lawfulness, there would be none... if there was nothing to stop anyone from stealing all your stuff and murdering you'd have nothing and be dead... that is the only "legitimate" purpose of government... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 14, 2004, 01:19 am	#137 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) "Please explain why the government should be 'encouraging' anything?" because the if the government didn't encourage lawfulness, there would be none... if there was nothing to stop anyone from stealing all your stuff and murdering you'd have nothing and be dead... that is the only "legitimate" purpose of government...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> OK - why does the government need to involve itself in these matters? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 14, 2004, 01:32 am	#138 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	I always thought most of agreed that freedom means doing whatever we want as long as it doesn't step on someone ele's freedom. The Gay Marriage Ban says that is not true. The Gay Marriage Ban says the heterosexual majority must be protected from other people doing what they want because they don't like it. It's scary, really. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 14, 2004, 05:50 am	#139 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) What are the laws and attitudes in The Netherlands toward gays?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We were the first country in the world to have a same-sex marriage :). Dutch people are very proud of their 'tolerance'. (although, secretly, many are not as tolerant as they would like others to believe) And as for government encouraging.. the government encourages and discourages all kinds of behaviour through tax and benefits. Think of the tax on a pack of sigaretes, think of tax breaks for people who are starting their own business. Good behaviour is encouraged, bad behaviour is discouraged. And yes, you can argue that the government has no right to define 'good' and 'bad' behaviour. Although most regulation at this level is done with full consensus of all political parties [here in the Netherlands] and usually only on things everyone agrees on. (Smoking is bad, polution is bad, working is good, eating healthy things is good, marriage is good) Hope & Dream

Mar 14, 2004, 07:33 am	#140 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 257	It's obvious to me! I feel sorry for so many Americans who have never been taught at home, in church or at school how to think for themselves. Society is not the business of the Federal Government. Contracts come under the authority of the state government. I think these folks never took a civics class in their lives.