*zips lips shut despite the temptation to stuff my foot in my mouth*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, that one. I had forgotten about it. I don't think anyone seriously thinks Lincoln made any statements on the matter, and as such it should be construed as someone saying what they think Lincoln would say. Of course, they're probably (though not necessarily, Lincoln was an odd sort of person) wrong, but I'm willing to attribute it to overexuberance. Also, I'd bet that Lincoln very well might say it if he were still alive today (that is, he had lived through modern developments in society).
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Man, that's beautiful. I don't usually get emotionally involved in weddings, but what these people are going through so their love won't be legally persecuted... They're heroes. San Francisco's going to be famous for this, as will Massachusetts.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Methinks especially since 9/11 the word 'Hero' has been thrown around like toilet paper the night before Halloween.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
As do I, but unlike false instances -- say, Bush -- these people are heroes. At least, they are if you consider Rosa Parks to be a heroine.
It really comes down to how much you revere the civil rights movement, really. If Rosa Parks was just another nigger woman acting uppity to someone, sure, they're unlikely to consider her a woman. If you look at the symbolism of her defiance, well, she turns out to be a bit more.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: but what these people are going through so their love won't be legally persecuted... They're heroes.
Yes, but if you're referring to the people pictured in this thread - they're celebrating in the immediate aftermath of the victory. Well, we can get married now, so quick, lets do it before they law gets changed.
That would be like if (hypothetically) some mayor decided that in the town of Macon, Georgia 18 year olds could now buy Alcohol. It's pretty obvious that the law will probably be repealed soon, but there is a slight chance that it won't. So the 18 year olds who go out victoriously to legally purchase beer while they can - are they heroes too? Sure, they could always drink the beer before, but now they could do it LEGALLY! They're celebrating their newfound and long-deserved RIGHT!
They're Heroes...right?
---
I know it's not a perfect analogy. Yes, they'll 'eventually' be to the age where the right is given to them. But it is the first thing that came to mind. I don't think it renders the analogy moot.
[ February 20, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
A couple friends of mine got married on the big day. They're very happy about all this!! Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Love of alcohol isn't the same as love between two people (and I'm not talking eros, either).
And the alcohol is consumed while a marriage is more permanent (in theory, for either homosexual or heterosexual couples).
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: At least, they are if you consider Rosa Parks to be a heroine.
These people got married after the law-waysiding decision was made, in an open window. There was no law protecting Rosa Parks. She was resisting an unjust system - these are basking in a temporary victory.
There's a difference between those who fight, and who revel in the victory once it's already won.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So you'd be willing to call the mayor of San Francisco a hero?
edit: also, I think you'll find that several of these people will sign on for the legal battle of keeping recognition of their marriages.
[ February 20, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Love of alcohol isn't the same as love between two people
That isn't the point I'm discussing... I'm discussing what constitutes a hero - a fighter, or a reveler.
But then again, Lalo is known for throwing words around. Anyone who disagrees with him is a 'bigot', afterall.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: So you'd be willing to call the mayor San Francisco a hero?
Let's put it this way - I'd have less of a problem with you or Lalo calling the Mayor a hero, because you agree with what he did actually fight and circumvent legal channels for. So I would fully understand, from your personal point of view, him being seen as a hero.
Put another way, for those fighting for this legal right - yes. He is a hero.
How's that?
[ February 20, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I know this isn't really a homosexual marriage thread, but I just want someone to tell me exactly why homosexual couples need legal marriages. No that's not a statment that really means that they in fact don't need them and will not benefit from them, it's an actual question, or request anyways.
Hobbes Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
By that definition he certainly is.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
One person's hero is always someone else's enemy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*cough*
Now you're going to make me write a Cousin Hobbes thread! The agony!
That list is not exhaustive, it completely leaves asides many rights wrt children. Also, it is a list of rights which cannot be replicated at all; other rights can be replicated in certain situations, for instance with court approval. For instance, if one member of a lesbian couple were to get pregnant through artificial insemination the other member of the couple would not be a parent under the law without a court order granting them guardianship, which can be hard or impossible to get depending on state. In a marriage, the partner would get those rights immediately, without having to go through the ordeal of court proceedings to give them rights to be their child's parent.
Then there's things like social security and veteran's benefits -- in particular the inability of a member of a gay couple who has lived their life with their partner to receive any benefits from their partner having risked his or her life in service of this country appalls me.
And then there's the ability to help a foreign born spouse get citizenship -- if a homosexual person and someone from another country wish to live their lives together in the US, the US says get in line with everybody else, but when heterosexual people make the same decision they get moved to the front of the line.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Is there anything there that's not legal rights? Meaning, is the desire to have a marriage recognizied by the goverment come from any non-legal issues?
Hobbes Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Hobbes, are you referring to the natural desire to have equal rights? If not that, I'm at a loss at what you're trying to suggest -- unless, of course, you mean that homosexual people want the same rights as heterosexual people so they can marry the person they love. Which is a pretty damn important non-legal reason to get married nowadays, or so I hear.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What I'm asking Lalo, is if the desire to have a goverment recognizied marriage is strictly so that they will have all the (strictly) legal benifits that any other married couple has. If doing so would satisfy them even if it weren't called marriage.
In other words, if they could get all those rights handed to them on a platter but nothing else with it (no titles and what-not) would that satisfy the homosexual community or is there something else they're after?
Hobbes Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Hmmm. I wonder when the mayor of Des Moines will close down all the abortuaries in the city. I guess that would make him a hero, too.
At least that's the closest I can come to understanding how some of you feel about this.
*post edited for unintended snarkiness*
[ February 20, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:In other words, if they could get all those rights handed to them on a platter but nothing else with it (no titles and what-not) would that satisfy the homosexual community or is there something else they're after?
I doubt homosexual people act as a unit, but speaking as a firm supporter of equal rights -- no, a "seperate but equal" status wouldn't cut it for me. Either everyone gets marriage, or everyone gets civil unions. It's not equality otherwise -- legal endorsement of segregation fifty years ago was just a euphemism for legal recognition that certain classes were inferior, less equal than others, and it works exactly the same way today.
I'm rather curious, Hobbes, how you would feel if the government granted everyone but Mormons marriage, and left the LDS church with a legal contract celebrated by anti-LDS demonstrators as less equal than the marriage contract. If you sign on the dotted line, your partner in this contract will inherit your vehicle(s) and house(s), but the government won't recognize Mormon marriages as equal to everyone else's. Would you really put up with that kind of blatant prejudice?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Sorry, when I try to speak consicley I tend to group things and people. Sorry.
First off, Lalo, I'm trying not to load my questions, so if they sound like an attack, I'm once again, sorry. They weren't supposed to be leading questions.
I'm not sure how good that analogy is Lalo, but I'll go with it. If the goverment did that I would first think that was really werid (what would be the point?) and then I would certainly think it was unfair. But I doubt I'd do much. My marriage is what I (and my spouse) make it, not what words the goverment wrote down on paper to confirm it. I really don't think I would do much about it. Besides which maybe the Church would finally get some sympathy from the liberals for being discriminated against.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Lalo, are you saying homosexuality is a religion?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Interesting...Lalo using a analogy that links Homosexuality with a belief system that is a choice to act upon.
EDIT: Hobbes, I may groan at your engineering jokes, but you're still the man in my book.
[ February 20, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Supporters of equal rights are split on that issue. Some want consider civil unions to be sufficient; they often feel that the fact that they love and have committed to each other takes care of non legal aspects. Others want marriage in name and deed, because they agree that, in the words of the Massachusetts Supreme Court "[t]he history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal", and that civil unions would always amount to second class marriages in the eyes of society as long as they were not real marriages.
The third camp is somewhat of a mixture. They want marriage, but are willing to settle in the short term for civil unions. I'm in this third camp. As far as I'm concerned, two people who choose to live their lives together and want to assume the responsibilities that entails to each other and to society are married, and should be termed as such by society. Saying that their relationship is a civil union amounts to saying it is not special enough to be called marriage, which is an insult to their love and devotion, but good things often only come in small doses, which when taken regularly often lead to much bigger good things. As such, I focus primarily on the legal rights involved; given those, when society doesn't come tumbling down as some people on this very board have predicted, marriage will come with time.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
If the government recognizes inheritance and guardianship rights and all the other legal things, what else is there to recognize about a marriage, in the government's eyes?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Actually, I kind of think that the LDS Church would enjoy the distinction of having our marriage practices singled out for attention Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Anyway, I'm not so sure it's in the interest of marriage sanctity to terminate the marriages that have occured. Much like I wouldn't want the hypothetical Arab who joins the LDS church to have to divorce his 3 additional wives.
But I still think the will of the people in states where gay marriage is restricted should be honored. I supposed if MA and CA don't agree they can secede.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
SO, fugu, how do you feel about common law marriages? Three are lots of legal rights for couples who never officially got married. Are common law marriages second class?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:EDIT: Hobbes, I may groan at your engineering jokes, but you're still the man in my book.
quote:two people who choose to live their lives together and want to assume the responsibilities that entails to each other and to society are married, and should be termed as such by society.
I respect that desire, but I think that trying to enforce it through legal means is doing exactly what the homosexual marriage camp is fighting against. What right does the goverment have to decide what society accepts? (Not saying you thought they do, just pointing out I think they don't ).
Hobbes Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...pooka, how can you possibly draw the belief that homosexuality is a religion out of an analogy between two hypothetical persecution standards?
The same goes for you, too, Taal. As I said above, I compare homosexuality and the LDS church in terms of hypothetical legal persecution, not in terms of their inherent equality. You're really reaching for that one, dude.
Hobbes, good point. So you don't think civil rights activists should've marched against the original American segregation? After all, our lives are what we make them -- regardless of where we sit on the bus or where we use the bathrooms, our lives are our own to rule, and not legitimized by what a government writes down on a piece of paper. Right?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But I support civil unions for heterosexuals. The thread kind of faded away where we were discussing common law marriage, and that kind of struck me as what could be done about that.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- two people who choose to live their lives together and want to assume the responsibilities that entails to each other and to society are married, and should be termed as such by society. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I respect that desire, but I think that trying to enforce it through legal means is doing exactly what the homosexual marriage camp is fighting against. What right does the goverment have to decide what society accepts? (Not saying you thought they do, just pointing out I think they don't ).
You're contradicting yourself, dude. The government is specifically dictating what's acceptable and what's not by dictating seperate-but-equal civil unions for homosexuals. The exact opposite of legislating morality would be the granting of equal rights to all monogamous couples, regardless of popular prejudice. That would be the end of the government deciding what society should find acceptable or not, at least on this issue.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
we're really reaching, and yet Taal and I read that same conclusion from your post.
Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is very pivotal to the ethics of this. But it is in their interest never to have that question answered so they can be offended by everything anyone says as they choose.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't think you understood what I said Lalo, sorry I'll try to be clearer. ... And after typing out a few things I realzied my response will be way too long and I've already written part of it in a cousin Hobbes thread so I'm going to finish that up and post it. Sorry for the cop-out, I promise it isn't permanent!
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess what bothers me is that the sexual revolution was all about calling marriage alternately a prison and a mere piece of paper. But when it's time for gays to marry, it's an enviable and cherished state. It seems some folks only want what they cannot have...
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Lalo, if it comes to the government granting equal rights regardless of popular prejudice, then why exclude from official recognition those relationship that are not monogamous or between only two people?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Also....if we live in a democracy, then whatever prejudice is popular is the one that guides in making laws, right?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Well, if two people believe it's not reaching to draw the conclusion that homosexuality's a religion out of an analogy comparing the legal persecution of each, I guess it must not be.
No, choice or genetic imperative have nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality. Regardless of whether or not it's genetic (which is a case supported by virtually everyone with life or lab experience with homosexuality) or a preference (a case supported by those who want to believe homosexuality's a sin), people can marry whomever they love. If I love an Latina, even if her genetic identity's similar to my own and thus less preferable in terms of spreading my gene pool as far apart as possible, I still have the right to marry her. If I love a woman or a man, I should have the right to marry him/her if we both feel we want to commit to a lifelong relationship. Where's the immorality, Pooka?
Christ...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Just because I'm the result of a mixed marriage doesn't mean I think it's the best idea. I used to feel kind of victimized about it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, if it comes to the government granting equal rights regardless of popular prejudice, then why exclude from official recognition those relationship that are not monogamous or between only two people?
Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. While many people on this board have made the argument that we should trust of-age, committed people to choose their own relationships as regarding polygamy -- a philosophy I don't disagree with -- polygamy has no weight in a monogamy issue. Feel free to champion polygamy after we succeed ending the bigoted monogamy laws, but I'm willing to take this a step at a time.
quote:Also....if we live in a democracy, then whatever prejudice is popular is the one that guides in making laws, right?
Sure. Only, you can't have both "majority says so, so you're inferior citizens" and guarantee equal rights under the law for every citizen in the same breath. Treat everyone equally, or at least have the spine to be honest about bigotry and rewrite the Constitution to say that everyone but homosexuals are entitled to equal rights under the law. Consistency's all I'm asking for.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
One of the problems with addressing the idea of homosexual marriage is the fact that none of the analogies work, politically. Or, in some cases, even logically.
We've just seen a comparison to a religion — a consciously chosen set of beliefs. Not attractive to gay advocates.
This also gets compared a lot with the fight for equal civil rights for different races and ethnicities. But homosexuality isn't any of those, either. Whether it has a genetic component in some cases or not, it is an overwhelmingly psychological phenomenon, and the gay community is composed of many separate individuals from vastly different heritages.
Can we compare it to other psychological phenomena that involve an altered self-image or a sexual appetite that contradicts the human breeding process? Not effectively, because most of those are considered overwhelmingly pejorative or absurd. Anorexia, for instance, or pedophilia, or bestiality, are all largely recognized to be harmful or unwell, and if you try to compare homosexuality to them, you're immediately labeled as a bigot.
You've heard the ridicule whenever someone tries to say, "Next, people will be marrying their pets, for crying out loud!" That's unspeakably offensive, right? What, are you saying that gays are like ANIMALS? These are HUMAN BEINGS, you bigoted bastard!
You see why this is so hard? At least the way much of our culture looks at the issue, homosexuality is a completely unique phenomenon with no useful analogies that don't either miss the mark (in the case of race), offend (in the case of other psychological phenomena), or both (in the case of religion).
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
So who decides when the opinion of the majority of citizen can be ignored when it comes to making laws? Or should it only be ignored when you disagree with that opinion?
That doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer on why polygamy can't be recognized under the law.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Just because I'm the result of a mixed marriage doesn't mean I think it's the best idea. I used to feel kind of victimized about it.
Pooka, you can't possibly be blind to the inconsistency you just expressed.
You felt victimized, presumably by popular bigotry, because your parents were of different races. Now you're supporting laws -- laws -- that express the exact same bigotry you grew up with, only this time targeted against homosexual people instead of interracial marriages. This isn't just schoolyard bullying, this is schoolyard bullying taken to Congress. If you had a miserable time growing up because people were too close-minded to consider the marriage between your Phillipino parent and your white parent (presumably?), why are you so eager to inflict bigotry on yet another class of society?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, common law marriages are very much treated as second class. They are not granted in most states, can be very hard to get recognized, particularly if relatives protest after one spouse is deceased, and are generally frowned upon as living in sin.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also....if we live in a democracy, then whatever prejudice is popular is the one that guides in making laws, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. Only, you can't have both "majority says so, so you're inferior citizens" and guarantee equal rights under the law for every citizen in the same breath. Treat everyone equally, or at least have the spine to be honest about bigotry and rewrite the Constitution to say that everyone but homosexuals are entitled to equal rights under the law. Consistency's all I'm asking for.
quote:So who decides when the opinion of the majority of citizen can be ignored when it comes to making laws? Or should it only be ignored when you disagree with that opinion?
That doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer on why polygamy can't be recognized under the law.
The Constitution, when it guarantees equal rights for all citizens, decides when popular bigotry is unConstitutional. Do you honestly not see the inconsistency in guaranteeing equal rights, then limiting marriage to heterosexual orientations only?
As far as polygamy goes, kid, take it or leave it. It's an entirely different kettle of fish -- while polygamy has its vices and virtues, I won't form an official position on it until I see more polygamous relationships in action. I prefer not to pass judgement on something until I have experience and some degree of understanding of it -- I only wish people in the anti-homosexual camp felt the same way.
Though, of course, "understanding" homosexuality means attempting to determine it as a psychological disorder or genetic disease, to far too many people. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And gah, I've repeated myself far too often in this thread. I've got things to see and people to do before the night's done, dudes -- this'll probably be my last post of the night. Geoff, I'll address your post tomorrow.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: So who decides when the opinion of the majority of citizen can be ignored when it comes to making laws?
Oddly enough, Sachiko, the Republican party was founded on the principle that some things are just wrong no matter how wide support they have. Namely slavery.
Lalo, my dad is chinese and my mother is white. The only people who bullied me were other minorities, which I never understood. But I guess it goes on. Asians have been declared not a minority while gays, who generally are not outwardly identifiable, have been embraced as such. If I were to remain bitter, it would probably be more about that. The powers that seek to protect minorities have shoved Asians out on their own and are now protecting whites who are only minorities in behavior (however it is that they come to be doing it).
But as I said, I decided not to feel a victim about it because I think the sheltering of minorities is anti-empowering. I think gays should understand themselves and look for the advantages in their situation rather than gripe that they aren't just like everyone else. At least if I want to treat them just like me. Isn't it enough to have the intellectual heritage of every great thinker of Western Civilization being gay? What, no one remembers that movement?
[ February 20, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if one can come up with a satisfactory legal way to address it, polygamy is fine. Polygame has a bad rep for a reason that still often applies -- its regularly used (in the US) by a man to control women's lives from an early age. This is not inherent in polygamy, however, and it should be fought whereever it occurs. The legal problems with polygamy are huge, however. Parental rights to children, death benefits, et cetera all become hugely complicated when more than two bodies are involved (sort of like in quantum physics, to use "Hobbesian" analogy).
As far as when what the majority wants gets ignored, I think you'll find that the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. What the majority wants on a specific issue gets ignored when the legally elected or appointed by elected officials officials whom the public elected to make such decisions make them in a way that is upheld under the law by other such officials. Its really quite simple, and I'm not certain why people have a hard time understanding it. This country has never been founded on the idea of majority rule in all things. It was founded on the idea of majority rule in determining who gets to make the rules and how, not on what those rules were except in the most general sense.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Gah, before I go -- Pooka, for once, I more or less agree with you.
If there are any immigrants to the US I'm more proud of than Mexicans, it's the various Asian ethnicities. I pass through Koreatown and Little Tokyo fairly often, and it's stunning how well these people do when they arrive with nothing. I love Mexican immigrants, and they deserve twice every hard-working-cliche they've earned thus far, but I've never seen ethnicities as focused on success and service as the Asian immigrants. I can't be more impressed.
Asians don't get affirmative action because they're the farthest thing from under-represented in colleges as they can be. They're a fraction of the population, but can make up to half of any given college's population -- I think UC Berkeley's Asian student population weighs in the late forties percent or so. Like I said, I've never seen more successful immigrants as a group, excepting possibly the Jewish population as a whole, nor more hardworking. Little Tokyo's earned my respect.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:But as I said, I decided not to feel a victim about it because I think the sheltering of minorities is anti-empowering. I think gays should understand themselves and look for the advantages in their situation rather than gripe that they aren't just like everyone else. At least if I want to treat them just like me. Isn't it enough to have the intellectual heritage of every great thinker of Western Civilization being gay? What, no one remembers that movement?
Oh yeah, go ahead and edit your post so I no longer agree with you.
Pooka, maybe you're not getting it. Homosexuals aren't asking for special rights or sheltering. They're asking for equality. Equal rights. The same as you or I -- nothing more, nothing less. Is it so difficult to understand?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*looks around, sees a bigot tent*
Yup, this is the anti-homosexuality camp. Funny, I HAVE had personal experiences with gay families (that is, gay partnerships and their children) and those experience weren't positive, least of all for the kids. But when I mentioned this experience someone snarked at me for using "anecdotal evidence". Can't win for losing.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
LOL
Pooka, you're a credit to your race! Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Whereas I can produce references to, what was it, 23(?) peer reviewed sociological studies that say otherwise. Note that (at the time a study of these studies was published, only a couple of years ago iirc) these were all the sociological studies done on the subject. Yep, every single sociological study (with certain standard restrictions: they had to be peer reviewed, they had to have subjects, that sort of thing) done on the subject found that children raised by homosexuals were every bit as well adjusted as those not.
That is why I don't consider your experience particularly meaningful on the subject. Furthermore, could you clarify in what ways it was bad for the children? And how this was more bad than the normal problems routinely experienced by children of heterosexuals (questions of identity, problems with authority, that sort of thing)?
edit to clarify what I mean by particularly meaningful: your evidence is anecdotal; I know a couple of children raised by gay parents (different families) and both are well adjusted, therefore homosexual couples should be allowed to raise children -- that's just as much useless BS as your experience, despite the fact that its true. Personal experience is an excellent foundation for forming stupid prejudices, and is all too often the enemy of rational choice. There were many enslaved black people who never met a white person that didn't think himself a superior human being; does this mean that all whites nowadays are highly racist people? Nonsense: context matters. Under what circumstances did you meet these people? Do you also meet similarly badly off heterosexual families in similar circumstances? Et cetera.
[ February 21, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Taalcon wrote: Yes, but if you're referring to the people pictured in this thread - they're celebrating in the immediate aftermath of the victory. Well, we can get married now, so quick, lets do it before they law gets changed.
Um, Taalcon, it isn't legal for same sex couples to get married right now in the state of California. The mayor just decided to rewrite the marriage forms so that the forms were/are gender neutral. In effect, he has indirectly contradicted state law, without doing anything illegal.
The recent spat of gay marriages are illegal, yet allowed by the forms and no one is enforcing the law. So it is a kind of protest.
quote:Pooka wrote: Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is very pivotal to the ethics of this. But it is in their interest never to have that question answered so they can be offended by everything anyone says as they choose.
I would totally disagree with this. Maybe you can explain this point to me. This is merely about two people who love each other wanting to get married. Maybe they want to get married for certain rights like wills, kids, DNR orders, etc. Maybe they just want to get married so it's seen as a legitimate union and they don't feel as ashamed anymore. Maybe it's more about commitment. They want to get married for the same reasons that hetrosexual couples want to get married.
It's not about morality, because it is legal for same sex couples to be together. Sodomy is not illegal. Same sex couples can legally adopt children. If society had deemed homosexuality immoral, then it would be illegal to commit homosexual acts. But instead, the law has legally recognized homosexuality and some homosexual rights (right not to be harassed, right not to be fired for being homosexual, etc.), as well. The law simply has not recognized the marriage of homosexuals. Yet. It does not say homosexuals can't get married. It has just redefined marriage, so that the marriage of homosexuals is not included.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Hey, just because you're a gay man doesn't mean you can't marry a woman. Same with women. they have the right to marry a guy. They HAVE a right to marriage. They just think Marriage should be something different than it is. They're rights aren't being held back, it's their idea of what they SHOULD BE.
So can homosexuals marry? Sure. They just can't marry a member of their same gender, because that's not what marriage IS.
That's like saying I want to eat the sound a flute makes. That just isn't possible, no matter how much you want to. You'd have to change the definition of 'eat' to mean 'ingesting all forms of sensory perception' in order to allow someone to Eat a sound.
So gays aren't fighting for the right to Marry. They're fighting for the right to change the definition of what marriage is. That's an important distinction to make.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
JNSB -- the mayor's position is that homosexual marriage is protected by the state(? maybe federal) constitution, and as such any law against it is invalid.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I can also produce peer reviewed articles on the impact on children on having gay parents.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Waves Mackillian towards Cousin Hobbes thread. They'll want that study there.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Marriage can also committing your life to the one you love in a partnership. It just so happens that people give a definitive answer that in order to have a marriage, you can't marry out of love if you love someone of the same sex. That's inequality.
Like anti-interracial marriage laws. A black man has a right to marriage, but only if he chooses to exercise that right with a black woman.
Separate but equal is not equal at all.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Taalcon -- no, that's what you say marriage is. I say marriage is a commitment between two loving people, and between them and society. Is the heterosexual nature how its been historically used? Sure, but in america for a long time it was also historically used as only taking place between couples of the same race. Historical definition is not the same as what is essential to something. I'm pretty confident that what's essential is the love, the bond, and the commitment, not the genders of the participants.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
The issues that concerned them where the usual issues children of divorced parents work through, in addition to issues over their parent's new sexual orientation and gender identity issues.
I don't think it would have been very nice of me to have told them, "But 23 peer-reviewed sociological studies all say you're just fine!"
I imagine that the things that bothered they may or may not qualify as sexual abuse per se ; if they do, then you'd probably just rebut that hetero parents abuse their kids the same way.
A lot of the problems one of the friends had was with their parents being very, very open about public affection and sex with their partner; I mean open to the point of "toys" left out in more public areas of the house, or walking in on them repeatedly in various areas of the house.
Not to mention just plain missing having a dad around, and feeling like she wasn't supposed to like him. I think that's common to children of divorce, but it seemed to have more impact on her because of her's mother's attitude towards men after becoming a lesbian.
I'm just pointing out that I DO have personal experience on the subject. Although I suppose, now, the complaint is that I haven't had enough personal experience, or experience of the quality of sociologists conducting a study.
I wonder why I even bother posting an opinion at all, sometimes. First I'm prejudiced because I lack real experience; now I'm prejudiced because I lack proper experience. So, if I read scientific studies, suddenly I'll be enlightened?
I think that, no matter what my personal experiences or bases for personal opinion, someone will call it BS simply because I don't agree with them.
[ February 21, 2004, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And hobbes just said in the other thread that "Marriage is a sacred bond between two people."
PEOPLE.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Personal observation isn't a high enough statistical sampling to validate a generalization over an entire population of people.
And of COURSE you wouldn't tell someone that "23 sociological studies say you're fine!"
That's cruel, insensitive and invalidating a person's real emotions.
However. That person's experience cannot be generalized over an entire population. I had a bad childhood with abusive parents who stayed married, engaged in PDA and left out sexual toys. Do I generalize over the entire population of married, heterosexual parents that it is sociologically bad for children who come from a home with married, heterosexual parents?
Of course not.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Just wondering, and I'm not even pressing forth my own opinion on the matter, but does everyone think women should be required to register for the draft just the same as men are?
[ February 21, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, the studies say that children of homosexual people are no worse off on average than children of heterosexual people, not that those children are fine. Don't sneer at science because you aren't willing to understand what a statistical generalization is.
Also, you're talking about children who are finding out that a parent is homosexual at a particularly traumatic time in their lives. It doesn't even remotely speak to a child raised in a loving atmosphere by an openly gay couple.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I call it BS because it is BS. Notice that I also called BS me saying that homosexual couples are all fine at raising kids because all the children raised by homosexuals that I knew were so. Please read what I write.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*sigh*
I gave one example of problems one of my friends struggled with.
Not all my friends struggled with the same thing.
But when they all struggle, and all struggle significantly more than the friends I had who were dealing with hetero divorced and remarried parents, what am I supposed to think? If that has been the extent of my personal experience?
I pay attention to what studies say, too. But when what I've personally seen contradicts what studies have proven, what should I think?
Am I obligated to keep telling myself that if Columbia University doesn't agree with my findings, then obviously I'm wrong, even if what I've seen contradicts the findings more often than not?
Talk about dogmatic.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The world will never be filled with perfect couples. Children who are harmed by homosexual parents are just as badly off as children harmed by heterosexual parents. However, if the rate of harm in both populations is equal, no more children are being harmed than if those couples were heterosexual, and it is absurd to deny homosexuals the right to raise children under the criteria that "well, heterosexuals harm children at the same rate your type of person does, but since you're homosexual you don't get to raise any".
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:And hobbes just said in the other thread that "Marriage is a sacred bond between two people."
Please don't hold one person's words to mean what an entire opposition camp believes. Otherwise, Lalo has completely destroyed a lot of his own camps.
quote:JNSB -- the mayor's position is that homosexual marriage is protected by the state(? maybe federal) constitution, and as such any law against it is invalid.
I agree, fugu. Yet the interpretation of the constitution can be taken many ways. What the law literally and explicitly says and recognizes is something else. The same sex marriages aren't legally marriages since marriage is so strictly defined. I can say the constitution gives me the right to expose myself in public, but that doesn't mean it's legal to do so (public decency laws). (No, I'm not saying same sex marriages are immoral like exposing yourself - I should find a better analogy but the pace of the thread won't allow me to)
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
The first time I had ever posted about what I'd seen, I wan't sneering at science. I was mentioning that what I'd personally seen didn't agree with the conclusions drawn by the sociologists.
And I certianly didn't intend to have my personal experiences be a replacement for in-depth studies.
I was just mentioning what I'd seen as food for thought, as a discussion topic, etc., etc.
I wasn't aware that simply mentioning different findings would be considered "sneering at science". You seem awfully protective of those studies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Based on your account it was my impression that the child had been born to a couple who had since split due to one member being homosexual -- that certainly sounds like the more general type of situation you described.
Its not just that all these studies found that, its that no study (at that time) found anything but. Can you point to one, much less, say, three studies that suggest children raised by homosexual parents are less well adjusted?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
What about the basic fact that a majority of California voter passed Proposition 22 in 2000, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman?
I don't care whether it's just or unjust, but right now it's the law.
When you want to change the law, you do so through proper legislative channels. You don't start willfully disobeying state law and performing acts out of your jurisdiction until the courts change their minds.
Do we live in a democracy or not? Did the people of California vote against this or not?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I wasn't aware I had ever even mentioned denying homosexual couples the right to raise children.
My intention in my post was to mention that it isn't always easy for the children of homosexual couples to deal with the additional issues present by being raised by a homosexual couple.
Nothing more. I also wasn't attacking the sanctity of scientific studies.
Again, I was just mentioning that my personal experiences have been to the contrary.
I don't undestand why that makes you so upset.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Then, Sachiko, what is the purpose of the anecdoctal data? To say that we should offer them more support? That they should take special classes in raising their children and dealing with emotional problems?
That they shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Or nothing at all? That it's simply a curiosity, a story to share?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Those make me smile. How can anyone want to deny them that happiness?
I haven't heard anyone claim they want that - unless, of course, you think the only way two people can love eachother is if the government officially labels them "married."
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Perhaps feeling just a bit more like society will accept them will add to their happiness.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
If I wanted to attack science, I would ask why a legitimate opinion requires a scientific study as a basis.
Maybe it's heretical of me, but "a study has been done about it, and it said this" seems to be our generation's version of "well, the village priest said THIS, and that's how we'll think".
What is the point of a study like that? If, say, the children of homosexual couples were found to have greater problems or suffer higher incidence of abuse, would you consider that a reason to take away their right to raise their own biological children?
Heck, studies show that more child abuse happens in areas of lower socioeconomic status, right? That doesn't mean we automatically revoke parenthood for poor Mexicans.
Or, if a study showed that Christians are generally happier and more well-adjusted than atheists, would you pressure families to convert?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
This same democracy also had legal slavery and legal segregation and didn't allow blacks and women to vote.
And yes, women SHOULD have to register for the draft.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And if a study shows that having homosexual parents screws you up the same as heterosexual parents, do we just take aways kids from ALL parents?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Annie, read mack's post about civil disobedience on Hobbes' thread on this matter. It's really great and might answer your question about why these people should do this. I agree that it is against California state law right now.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Right, Suneun. A curiousity. Statistically insignificant, though, so not worth thinking about.
*sigh*
My point is, even based on MY negative experiences, I wouldn't revoke the rights of gay parents, even if I had the power, even if it were possible.
For one thing, based on my BS experiences, I did think that not having those gay parents at ALL would have been worse for my friends, despite the difficulties they had with their parents' orientation. A parent you're uncomfortable with is better than no parent at all, or an unfamiliar foster parent.
I think some of youse are being slaves to scientific studies.
I think studies are a good yardstick but they can't and shouldn't be the only basis for the formation of opinion and ethics.
[ February 21, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Oh I certainly don't intend to dismiss your experience, Sachiko. I just wanted to make sure you weren't using it to draft policy.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*snicker*
That would be cool, if I could draft policy. First item of business: better recognition for National Talk Like A Pirate Day!
Muahahah! Ar!
[ February 21, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Depends on what the discomfort is. If that parent makes you uncomfortable because of verbal, emotional, physical or sexual abuse, you're better off with a foster parent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:*looks around, sees a bigot tent*
Yup, this is the anti-homosexuality camp.
I certainly too that to mean you were, well, anti-homosexuality. As for why I'm getting upset about it, I'm upset with you making snarky comments which clearly misrepresent what I'm saying, such as:
quote:I don't think it would have been very nice of me to have told them, "But 23 peer-reviewed sociological studies all say you're just fine!"
and
quote:I think that, no matter what my personal experiences or bases for personal opinion, someone will call it BS simply because I don't agree with them.
despite, in particular, my explicit contradiction of that second statement -- its not because you disagree, its because personal experience isn't scientific at all. There have been several studies done in the not so distant past, for instance, which find two things: that nurses generally agree runs of babies occur more often at full moons, and that no such runs happen. Pre ingrained superstition led them to notice more when the runs happened at the full moon.
And yes, if you're ignoring scientific studies which are relevant to the matter in formulating your opinion, your opinion doesn't particularly matter. As I've said before, I can make an excellent argument for just about anything. Its all a matter of the premises.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Well, then, fugu, what is your response to my friends' negative experiences?
There were at least 5 of them, out of the 8 kids in that particular situation that were in that class in school. For my experience, that's a fairly high number; in fact, the majority, right?
So when those studies are mentioned, I think that the majority of kids I knew in that situation didn't like that situation, and that, relative to the very large number of families studied, maybe that groupings like those I saw aren't so rare and constitue a small but significant minority.
And if they don't, if the studies show that every child in every gay family is dong fine, then at least my experience is an interesting anomoly.
Goodness me. I really thought I could just mention it, and that it might be of some interest to those who care very much about sociologists' findings on the subject.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Eight people is still not statistically significant.
The experience for each of those people is valid for them, but it cannot be generalized over an entire population.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Here's a random question, no real weight in any direction, far as I can tell. Are there any studies that say whether there is a higher or lower incidence of homosexuality among children raised by homosexual couples?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:In terms of the effects on children who have same-sex parents, they are indistinguishable from their peers who have heterosexual parents. Another finding was that divorce has a more damaging effect on children than does having gay parents. (Gomes, 2003). To determine if children of same-sex parents had a higher incidence of being homosexual, Carlos Ball and Janice Farrell Pea surveyed a series of studies from 1978 to 1996 and found that “the percentage of children of gays and lesbians who were identified as gay or lesbian ranged from zero to nine.” (Gomes, 2003). Another study done by Carole Jenny determined that 94 percent of molested girls and 86 percent of molested boys were abused by men. Of those, 74 percent were abused by an adult male in a heterosexual relationship with the mother. However, these statistics are not taken into account in custody battles where a father is seeking the physical custody of the child. (Gomes, 2003).
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Geoff: The studies I linked to a while ago (no, I removed the article, I thought we were done talking about this!) (i can find it again) checked that. In fact, Mackillian's essay in the Cousin Hobbes thread addresses it.
From my remembering, there was no statistically different percent of children identifying has gay compared to the population. However, daughters felt more open to "experimenting" with the idea of being attracted to women*.
* This could be due to any number of reasons, which weren't answered. Maybe daughters of straight parents would lie more about not doing that sort of thing. Maybe daughters of lesbian parents would lie more about trying it. Maybe daughters of gay parents find it more acceptable to consider homosexuality before rejecting it. Who knows.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
here is the article again. It's named differently than before, just so you know.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Oh.
No, the "anti-homosexuality camp" statement was made in response to something Lalo posted, which I found childish. I think I can disagree with homosexuality without being anti-homosexual.
And as to your opinion of my personal experience as a basis for my opinion on the matter...well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think you're being insultingly dismissive of what I think; you probably think I'm willfully ignorant.
I am aware that 8 people is a "statistically insignificant" number for a study; I also agree that a few personal experiences does not a study make.
I wasn't trying to do my own study, though.
SO what is wrong here?
I'm not doing a study, nor am I disproving ones already done; I'm not trying to formulate policy (though it's flattering you think I could! ), I'm not lobbying for gay parents to have their children taken away.
[ February 21, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I'm not doing a study, nor am I disproving ones already done; I'm not trying to formulate policy (though it's flattering you think I could! ), I'm not lobbying for gay parents to have their children taken away.
No, you're just saying that they should not be afforded the same amount of rights as heterosexuals.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I am?
Amazing, how I can type a post and not even be aware of what I'm saying. Thank you for clarifying that.
No, what I was saying was that, based on my personal experiences, children being raised by gay parents may suffer more than other children because of the issues concomitant with their parent's sexual orientation.
And I brought this up because it contradicts the studies cited by others here.
That's all. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm dismissive of any attempt to use personal experience as evidence for anything other than disproof of a complete generalization (such as "all x do y").
And you aren't trying to make a study, certainly. What are you advocating with regard to homosexuals and children?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Well, the attitude seems to be that, since studies have shown gay families to be A-OK, then they must all be A-OK.
I knew several families that weren't, and part of the reason they werent' was becase of issues the children had with their parent's sexuality. Not to mention other things that I think may have been connected to parental gay identity but that I wasn't sure about.
I (how many times do I have to repeat this) do agree that my experiences were, based on your studies, statistically insignificant.
I imagine I would think along the same lines you are if presented with anecdotal evidence in favor of stem-cell research. ("If you don't let scientists experiment on embryos, then my mother will die of diabetes.")
But I wouldn't insultingly dismiss them; I would understand why that person had formed the opinion they had.
I didn't bring it up to introduce my grand plan for policy. I wanted to toss it out to see what you thought of it. I didn't think that it would upset you so, or that it would be such a big deal. I certainly would have kept it to myself had I known I would have to post so much about it.
*edit* sorry, I'm tired and I point tends to get lost. Studies aren't always right. And they aren't always the best basis, and not the only basis, on which policy should be formed. People's opinions, especially voters' opinions, matter, however they were formed. And it's important to know how they were formed.
[ February 21, 2004, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, the studies have shown children raised by homosexual parents to be as well adjusted, on average, as those raised by heterosexual parents. This is a very different thing. I certainly don't think (having expressly denied it at least two or three times in this thread it would be hard to see how anyone would think I did think) that children raised by homosexuals are all going to be fine.
Its worth pointing out that several of the studies did find children of homosexual parents were more likely to be open about their sexuality -- but it was both a statistically small difference and one that did not seem to translate into differences in common measures of well adjusted-ness and happiness.
Also, its quite possible for your experiences to be fully in line with the studies. Many children go through emotionally stressful times in their lives. They react to what they perceive as the big issues in their lives. A parent being homosexual, especially if earlier perceived as heterosexual, is certainly a big issue. So the child has issues about that. Similarly how a child who has a parent thats in the military and always moving the family about might have issues with moving and making friends.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I must be a very mean person, because your civil reply to mine would have been great a while ago, but now just feels patronizing. I wonder why.
Well, anyways, thanks. I have to go to bed now. Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Thanks, though, for spending time and thought on your posts. I really didn't think this post was worth this kind of hullabaloo. Nice of you guys to think so. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have to say Fugu, I take studies that measure "well-adjusted" in children as being BS. Adjusted to what? By whose standereds? When it comes to sociology, I try to listen to what others have to say and found out, but in the end I go on my experience, because it's the only one from which I already know the biasis that led to those opinions.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Regarding sociological studies, you presumably saw the thread. There were at least 4 or 5 different measures of well adjusted and happiness being used and every single one of them agreed.
Plus, its kind of hard to argue with results if one can't find many, or even any, results (not experiences, but results, and from a peer reviewed journal) which disagree. I somehow doubt there's any vast conspiracy to prevent their publishing, and there certainly are enough anti-homosexuality people out there to fund a legion of studies.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You've got to understand Fugu, I respect the use of socialogy studies, and I see why they're important (especially because you can't make them any better if you don't keep trying) but, and I assume many others, feel that most sociology tests, and certainly ones trying to determine happieness, are very unreliable. People are not objects whose happieness can be measured like a velocity. It is insanley difficult to quantify emotion, and that's even if you've known someone for years. When I have both energy and time (hopefully as a break tomorrow between doing homework) I will look at these studies and tell you what I think, but fundementally I do not trust quantifying human emotion.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think I was being particularly snarky in my replies to you. I answered the first several questions of yours (ignoring the still snarky one about "abortuaries") quite civilly, and then you rolled your eyes at your experience being dismissed as anecdotal evidence. The thing is, anecdotal evidence should be dismissed in most cases. I pointed out that not merely many studies but every study (meeting certain basic criteria) on the subject agreed. That's a very sound reason for dismissing anecdotal evidence, particularly when (as I also pointed out) not everybody's anecdotal evidence agrees.
I never denied you had personal experience on the subject at all, despite further snarky comments such as
quote:I'm just pointing out that I DO have personal experience on the subject. Although I suppose, now, the complaint is that I haven't had enough personal experience, or experience of the quality of sociologists conducting a study.
That statement doesn't jive with
quote:I wanted to toss it out to see what you thought of it.
To be fair, I think you are more like the person in your latest post. But first you ignored my responses to your initial questions (re: common law marriage and popular voting), then came up with a string of posts that seem to be saying "well, I've seen it, so you're wrong" -- with regard to
quote:Well, the attitude seems to be that, since studies have shown gay families to be A-OK, then they must all be A-OK.
, which I think you'll find isn't present in any of my or other posts on the subject. The very first post I mention it in (which, I might point out, is after you made it explicit when it had only been discussed peripherally as per children raised in multiracial marriages) I say:
quote:Yep, every single sociological study (with certain standard restrictions: they had to be peer reviewed, they had to have subjects, that sort of thing) done on the subject found that children raised by homosexuals were every bit as well adjusted as those not. . . .And how this was more bad than the normal problems routinely experienced by children of heterosexuals (questions of identity, problems with authority, that sort of thing)?
It certainly doesn't seem like I'm denying children raised by homosexuals have problems to me.
I debated posting this, but your last post decided me:
quote:I must be a very mean person, because your civil reply to mine would have been great a while ago, but now just feels patronizing. I wonder why.
I don't think I was particularly uncivil; certainly no more so than yourself, though I don't believe in reciprocity of rudeness. Moreso, I think I have been fairly consistent in how I have discussed with you.
My initial post about the studies could likely have been tempered a bit more; it was brought on partly because it was only one or two weeks ago that we had quite a long thread on the subject, in which we discussed such studies. I do feel, however, that I clarified myself sufficiently in the note I made that this was not an attack on you, but on the general idea of using anecdotal evidence as a means of deciding any public policy, much less that which regards something so central to the human being as raising children.
I feel I have already adequately addressed the idea of popular opinion deciding issues in my response to your first question on the subject.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To make the implication in my last post more explicit, if its so easy to manipulate measures of happiness and well adjusted-ness, where are the studies showing the children of homosexual parents are not generally speaking as happy and well adjusted as those of heterosexual parents? I predict at least one has happened in the past couple years, but I haven't run into it.
Also, I think you misunderstand sociology. Its common wisdom among the sociologists I know that one must get to know someone to judge his or her happiness/well adjusted-ness fully accurately. But it is also common wisdom that some indicators can be used to, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, judge happiness/well adjusted-ness in aggregate across a population. For instance, if one person tells you he thinks lower taxes are good it doesn't necessarily mean he supports a specific tax cut. However, if seventy five percent of the people in a decent sized group tell you that they think lower taxes are good, you can be pretty sure most of the people in that decent sized group are going to support any specific tax cut that's not in the realm of absurdity.
Plus, when you read the study, note that several of the studies included in depth interviews of the sort involved in getting to know someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), I'm not lobbying for gay parents to have their children taken away.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
).![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)