[Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree

[Scott Dredge]

Gary,

Most of the time I find your posts quite logical, but on this issue same sex marriage I see you posting wild inconsistencies and I'm wondering if you can logically defend your stance or if you have nothing else in your arsenal other than "it is not good for the community or the country as whole" without providing something for me to try and see your point.  For what it's worth, I also want what's best for the community / country as a whole and for me that starts with everyone being allowed equal rights and equal opportunity to pursue their life, liberty, and happiness.  My take is that equality is something you agree on as well to an extent.  You want to see all crimes prosecuted equally - and I don't believe you and I disagree on this - even though you and I have come down on opposite sides of hate crime legislation with me interpreting hate crime law to protect every person equally and you believing that it creates inequities and that it should be
 struck off the books.  Ultimately, if I'm reading you right, we still both believe in equality for everyone and maybe we can discuss hate crime legislation in more detail later.

Now getting back to the topic of same sex marriage, this is where I see a huge inequality and when I point out exactly what this inequality is in terms of partner benefits and surviving partner benefits you accuse me of "tak[ing] a demographic that already skews higher on the affluence scale and provide them with a few extra tax dodges".  The "tax dodges" as you deem them, exist for married couples and I agree with those tax dodges because without them, a surviving spouse would be faced with huge tax liabilities upon receiving property from the deceased spouse.  Applying the identical scenario to the same sex couple living next door (ie, same demographic), now suddenly - and quite puzzling to me - the big bad government that you have so much disdain for doesn't look so bad to you as it sticks it to the surviving same sex partner with heavy tax hits.  You go on to claim that you don't want special benefits for same sex partners.  I agree with that
 hypothetical statement although you would need to explain what you mean by "special benefits".  When you use phrases like "special benefits" my interpretation of this is that same sex couples would be getting some benefit that heterosexual couples would not be getting. If you mean that you don't want same sex couples to have equal already existing benefits that are granted to married couples, then I simply am trying to understand your reasons behind your sudden about face from "we need less government" to now wanting government to actively step in to deny these benefits.

I'm truly interested in hearing your reasons why keeping this inequality is good for the community and country.  Knock yourself out!

-Scott

----- Original Message ----
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
To: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:42:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree

Oh my, once again Mr. Campbell just can't seem to avoid trying to set up a 
pissing contest and a fairly lame one at that. The answer to the question:

We are justified in preventing gays from marrying because _________.

Is we are not. Homosexuals can run off and find any mail order minister they 
like to perform whatever solemn ceremony that makes their little hearts go 
pitty-pat. They can emotionally swear life long fealty to one another till 
they are blue in the face and I will do nothing but wish them the best. What 
I will not do is recognize that their little performance is in some way good 
for the community or the country as a whole.

For the record, what I suggested with my remark about mothers was that your 
assertion regarding your having "the right to marry any adult person of your 
choice" was, like many of your bold proclamations, incorrect. Using it as 
the counterpoint for your silly little game I suppose is probably the best 
you could do.

Save the vote in this goofy little for someone who cares. What's right isn't 
decided by a show of hands. Please try to remember (assuming you ever really 
grasped the concept at all) that good and right are distinct concepts from 
some vague, squishy, personnel notion of "fair."

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:23 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Challenge to Crabtree


> Crabtree suggests that if folks have a right to gay marriage, then they 
> have
> (a) a right to marry their mothers, and (b) a right to marry multiple 
> partners.
>
> I say that this is just crap that that some people bring up because they 
> have
> no argument and the best that they can do is appeal to emotion.
>
> I challenge Gary to fill in the blank:
>
> We are justified in preventing gays from marrying because _________.
>
> If he does so, I will fill in this blank:
>
> We are justified in preventing people from marrying their mothers because
> _________.
>
> Then we'll let the people of Moscow vote as to which response is better!
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 


=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================