A good parody.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I guess I take it too seriously cuz I can't laugh at either of these.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I thought it was funny, but very silly. You aren't going to get the message through to people that gay marriage is cool by insulting them and mocking them.
This video makes everyone who is anti-gay marriage paints a lot of people with the brush of ignorance, stupidity and prejudice. As if there is no real argument against gay marriage. So is this video a moral booster for people who already support gay marriage? Or is it meant to convince people?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
There is no real secular argument against gay marriage.
Both the original video and the mocking versions are not going to convince anyone worth convincing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Okay, seriously? I hadn't seen the original that these were parodies of. Here it is. Honestly, I think it's as wildly over-the-top as the parodies. In fact, had I not known that it was for real, I would have thought that it was also a parody of same-sex marriage opponents.
The parodies were totally unnecessary. The original parodied itself.
(But my favorite comment was "OM NOM NOM OM NOM NOM!")
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Didn't Steven Colbert do one as well?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: There is no real secular argument against gay marriage.
These are secular arguments and they look "real" to me. Unless by real you mean "arguments you find compelling" you are over stating your case.
Honestly, if your goal is persuade people to support equal rights for same sex couples, you don't do yourself any favors by overstating the case or mocking the opposition. It may feel good but ultimately it hurts the cause. Most of the people I know who oppose same sex marriage aren't evil or stupid, they aren't hateful or paranoid. The cause would be far better served by making an honest effort to understand where your opponents are coming from than by demonizing them.
[ April 22, 2009, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Seriously? The first one is stating that gay people shouldn't marry because they cannot reproduce in their union, or if they can, that being married has no impact on whether or not they can reproduce.
There are sterile straight people out there. Should we therefore require all heterosexual people to have fertility tests before we allow them to get married? After all, marriage is a costly union with no benefits if the couple in question cannot reproduce.
Or at least that's what the article linked to under "secular arguments" is claiming.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Do the costs of the fertility tests outweigh the cost of extending benefits to a sterile person? With the current infertility drugs and treatments, is it even possible to know for certain that a couple are infertile?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Seriously? The first one is stating that gay people shouldn't marry because they cannot reproduce in their union, or if they can, that being married has no impact on whether or not they can reproduce.
There are sterile straight people out there. Should we therefore require all heterosexual people to have fertility tests before we allow them to get married? After all, marriage is a costly union with no benefits if the couple in question cannot reproduce.
Or at least that's what the article linked to under "secular arguments" is claiming.
I never said I found the arguments compelling, I said they looked real. I didn't post them because I agree with the arguments, I posted them because I thought it would be useful for people to know what the arguments are.
I get the impression that the proponents of same sex marriage have no interest in actually understand the people who oppose the idea.
Its not nearly as fun to understand people as it is to mock them.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Do the costs of the fertility tests outweigh the cost of extending benefits to a sterile person? With the current infertility drugs and treatments, is it even possible to know for certain that a couple are infertile?
Absolutely, there are women who are born with no eggs. This is something that can be determined by testing. If you have no eggs, you cannot reproduce, at least not without outside help just as a gay or lesbian couple would need outside help to get pregnant. Should a woman with no eggs be prevented from marrying in a heterosexual union because her marriage will have no bearing on her ability (or lack thereof) to reproduce? I don't think so. But the articles above are essentially using the inability to reproduce without outside assistance as the reason why gay people shouldn't marry. The same argument can then be made for heterosexual couples.
And I expect that over the lifetime of a marriage and all the tax benefits that go along with it, it would be cheaper to test for fertility beforehand and deny the marriage than it would be to allow a couple who will never have children to get married and get those benefits. I have no data to back up that claim, but I would be willing to expect it would be cheaper in the long run.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Hm. Seems my post didnt go through.
Anyways: I rescind my earlier post. I didnt know it was a parody.
But I do believe there are good reasons against gay marriage. I think I posted them somewhere...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I never said I found the arguments compelling, I said they looked real. I didn't post them because I agree with the arguments, I posted them because I thought it would be useful for people to know what the arguments are.
I get the impression that the proponents of same sex marriage have no interest in actually understand the people who oppose the idea.
Its not nearly as fun to understand people as it is to mock them.
Uh. Rabbit, there's no way you think the true reason why people oppose homosexual rights is because they can't reproduce. I think Jhai does understand these people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Uh. Rabbit, there's no way you think the true reason why people oppose homosexual rights is because they can't reproduce. I think Jhai does understand these people.
Thank you for proving my case by providing a grossly simplistic parody of the arguments being made.
Start with this question: Why should society provide legal status and benefits to people who are married?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Uh. Rabbit, there's no way you think the true reason why people oppose homosexual rights is because they can't reproduce. I think Jhai does understand these people.
Thank you for proving my case.
You're not serious. By extension, opponents of homosexual marriage would have to at least try to deny marriage to old, infertile, and unreproductive couples. Can you name a single example of any of these?
Reproduction's one of the funnier excuses I've heard, and there's no way you think pretending it's a legitimate argument gleans more "understanding" than seeing it for what it is.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
By "real" I mean a logically sound argument - i.e. one where the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises listed.
There isn't a secular argument created that meets the required conditions of a logically sound argument. A series of statements that don't lead to a valid argument are worthless, and every argument that rests on untrue premises - like all of the secular arguments I've ever seen - does not reflect reality, and thus isn't what I consider "real".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: There is no real secular argument against gay marriage.
"[H]omosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation..." Oh, come on! And what kind of socialist tripe was this? People are not game pieces, to be pushed around a board for the "betterment of society".
"Furthermore, there is no prospect of children from such a union..."
So that's a "real argument"? Rabbit, that isn't just a bad argument, it's as ludicrous as "gay married people are going to rain out of the sky". We celebrated my daughter's ninth birthday last Sunday. So how can I even address this piece of tripe seriously? "But, such cases really do not distinguish themselves from the case where a single person adopts a child or a single woman has a child without being married." An assertion is not an argument. This blog entry doesn't give a secular argument against SSM. On the contrary, it's simply a series of baseless assertions against it. In the case of that last one, the assertion is that a child that results from a same-sex union is like a single person having a child. Circular reasoning of the worst kind. As though Tova losing either me or my partner would be any less traumatic than the child of an opposite-sex couple losing one of his parents. Feh.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: same sex marriage.
<blink> A secular argument? From the Catholic Education Resource Center? This was a joke, right?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: These are secular arguments and they look "real" to me. Unless by real you mean "arguments you find compelling" you are over stating your case.
I'll grant you that the first link you gave is an argument, albeit a bad one. The second one is not an argument at all, but only a string of assertions, and the third one isn't secular.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lalo, Thank you once again for proving my case.
Presuming your opponents are lying about their concerns is not a productive and persuasive strategy. Your arguments demonstrate that you have made no attempt to understand the reasoning this people present.
Once again, start with the same question they start with. Why should society grant legal privileges to married people?
If there isn't a good reason, then marriage itself is discriminatory and the solution isn't to let gay people get married it is to do away with marriage benefits.
But If there is a good reason for society to grant benefits to married people and we are considering extending that benefit to others we should be certain that the same reason for granting benefits applies.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Start with this question: Why should society provide legal status and benefits to people who are married?
It shouldn't. But if it does, the reasons why are irrelevant. You can't have the government say, "Okay, you and you and you, you can get married. You? Not so much."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Before this argument gets too heated it might be worth waiting for someone who actually wants to argue against SSM, rather than going after Rabbit who merely pointed out that there are arguments that don't invoke religion (also Rabbit is pro-SSM if memory serves).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Start with this question: Why should society provide legal status and benefits to people who are married?
It shouldn't. But if it does, the reasons why are irrelevant. You can't have the government say, "Okay, you and you and you, you can get married. You? Not so much."
Why not? If marriage is about incentivizing a certain lifestyle, then of course it is about choice. That is why the government provides benefits to a union of two people instead of giving marriage benefits to an individual (tax stuff, etc.).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Why not? If marriage is about incentivizing a certain lifestyle, then of course it is about choice. That is why the government provides benefits to a union of two people instead of giving marriage benefits to an individual (tax stuff, etc.).
But if marriage is about incentivizing a certain lifestyle, why does it give incentives to people who get married but still don't hold to the lifestyle?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pay attention. The Rabbit didn't say they were good arguments or that she agreed with them. She just said they existed.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
But, as Lisa said, the non-religious arguments are flimsy to the point of sillyness and given that they are almost exclusively advanced by people with religious motives for opposing SSM, their character is more of post-hoc reasoning than genuine secular concern.
Put another way, people aren't against SSM because of these arguments; rather they have created these arguments because they are against SSM.
It's like using a "pigs have parasites" argument to try to ban pork. Oh, and the majority of the people pushing for the ban are Muslim.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I pretty much agree with Jhai. An argument is only "real" if it actually follows logically from true premises.
That said... honestly I didn't think the parodies were that funny (except the Colbert one, which wasn't linked yet).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Start with this question: Why should society provide legal status and benefits to people who are married?
It shouldn't. But if it does, the reasons why are irrelevant. You can't have the government say, "Okay, you and you and you, you can get married. You? Not so much."
To me, it makes no sense to argue that society should not be granting any privileges to married people and then at the same time to argue those privileges should be extended to a larger group. Two wrongs do not make a right. If there you believe that there are no valid reasons for society to grant privileges to married people, then you should be working to do away with those privileges for everyone not trying to expand the privilege.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If there you believe that there are no valid reasons for society to grant privileges to married people, then you should be working to do away with those privileges for everyone not trying to expand the privilege.
I don't see any problem with working towards both goals or focusing on the one that you consider to be the greater injustice or the easier one to address in the near term.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Start with this question: Why should society provide legal status and benefits to people who are married?
It shouldn't. But if it does, the reasons why are irrelevant. You can't have the government say, "Okay, you and you and you, you can get married. You? Not so much."
To me, it makes no sense to argue that society should not be granting any privileges to married people and then at the same time to argue those privileges should be extended to a larger group. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Actually, sometimes two wrongs do make a right. Or at least a lesser wrong. The perks that are being given to opposite sex couples aren't coming out of a vacuum. I pay taxes. Part of those taxes go to "incentivize" people like Britney Spears and Kevin Federline.
If my money is being distributed by the government, then it can damned well be impartial about it so that I can receive part of my own money back. Until sanity prevails and it gets out of the wealth redistribution business altogether.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If there you believe that there are no valid reasons for society to grant privileges to married people, then you should be working to do away with those privileges for everyone not trying to expand the privilege.
Wrong. I am working to get the government out of the meddling business, but I'm not holding my breath, either. I'm not the martyr type, Rabbit. I'm not about to give up what's mine as a matter of principle while I wait for the grabby hands to get out of my bank account. That's not principled; that's dumb.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But If there is a good reason for society to grant benefits to married people and we are considering extending that benefit to others we should be certain that the same reason for granting benefits applies.
To play along, let's say the government has a compelling interest in encouraging stable partnerships and families. How is this, in any way, a concept limited to heterosexuals?
You still haven't answered my question, btw. By extension of the reproduction argument, opponents of homosexual marriage would have to at least try to deny marriage to old, infertile, and unreproductive couples. Can you name a single example of any of these?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: But, as Lisa said, the non-religious arguments are flimsy to the point of sillyness and given that they are almost exclusively advanced by people with religious motives for opposing SSM, their character is more of post-hoc reasoning than genuine secular concern.
Put another way, people aren't against SSM because of these arguments; rather they have created these arguments because they are against SSM.
This is true, of course. But I still think you have to respond to the argument- it's no good saying "but you really mean this..." Just as proponents of evolution successfully shot down CD arguments such as the mouse-trap argument, even though CD is a front.
I also suspect that if one was not a discerning reader familiar with some sophistry one might not find the first argument flimsy (which, of course, it is).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Sometimes you allow exceptions to a rule in the name of the rule itself. It would be humiliating to provide incentives to some and not others on this basis.
Let's say civil marriage is an incentive of a lifestyle that promotes children and families. Coupled with the already existing notion of religious marriage - civil marriage took on a persona that was more than just economic incentive. It became something of a societal recognition. We do not deny societal recognition to the old and infertile.
But it could be argued that homosexual couples are different. That they as a group are not an exception to a rule, but an entirely different category. While I think it is simply unkind for society not to recognize them as a couple, there is an argument against the economic incentives.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Armoth: even though they have children by other means?
Even though, in my straight marriage, we don't have kids?
Gay families are not a different category. Gay families are families. They're families if they have no kids, they're families if they have a dozen kids. Just like straight families.
Adoption, Artificial Insemination, Surrogacy and Custody from previous relationships. Heterosexuals can have kids by mistake (and often do.) Gay people's children are all generally children they had to work for. They're all wanted children. That's the only difference.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Armoth- make the argument so it can be critiqued...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh look. A gay marriage thread. With the usual standards of behavior.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh look. A gay marriage thread. With the usual standards of behavior.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what a helpful contribution looks like.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Mystic - ?
Pixiest -Yes. Even though those things exist.
Personally, I think that a family conceived by natural means, will, on the whole, be more successful than unnatural means. Not because its "unnatural", but because there are ties that bind the family together in both the physical and emotional realms.
And on the whole, most straight marriages produce children. Saying gay families are families too does not erase the obvious distinctions.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh look. A gay marriage thread. With the usual standards of behavior.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what a helpful contribution looks like.
And it's self-referential to boot!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Unnatural? And what does successful mean?
As for those videos, why is gay marriage such a storm when there are issues like domestic violence and abuse that REALLY hurt families and society that they don't even bother to address.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Armoth - I didn't realize you had made your argument. It's not enough simply to say that because gay couples are different they can be denied the economic benefits of marriage; you have to make an argument for why this difference is relevant to whether or not the economic incentives are granted.
"Personally, I think that a family conceived by natural means, will, on the whole, be more successful than unnatural means. Not because its "unnatural", but because there are ties that bind the family together in both the physical and emotional realms." - this is not a secular argument.
"And on the whole, most straight marriages produce children. Saying gay families are families too does not erase the obvious distinctions. " - but is this a relevant distinction? This emphasis on the actual production of children seems overstated; surely the relevant feature is whether the home is a place conducive to the healthy development of a child. I know of no study suggesting that gay families are any less likely to provide this than hetero-families.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Synethesia and Mystic. Sadly, I don't how to link so I will simply cut and paste the link:
Here is where I made my arguments. They are from a secular standpoint. And I have no idea why you think physical and emotional realms are not secular arguments either.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Presuming your opponents are lying about their concerns is not a productive and persuasive strategy.
It's not a presumption, its a conclusion based on evidence.
People who genuinely cared about marriage including non-reproducing couples would be opposing infertile married couples, and would have been doing before gay marriage was even on the radar.
But no one does. Hence, no one is actually motivated by this reasoning.
quote:Your arguments demonstrate that you have made no attempt to understand the reasoning this people present.
The argument is eaily understood, but since ssm opponants show by their actions that they don't actaully find it compelling, what's the point in dealing with it?
Find the argument that ssm-opponants actually buy, as evidenced by their accepting all, or nearly all the conclusions that follow from it, and that's worth adressing. Anything else is just rationalizations.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Synethesia and Mystic. Sadly, I don't how to link so I will simply cut and paste the link:
Here is where I made my arguments. They are from a secular standpoint. And I have no idea why you think physical and emotional realms are not secular arguments either.
Your argument, or so it seems to me, isn't so much wrong as it is incomplete.
The heterosexual family unit IS the most successful family unit...at creating more heterosexual family units.
Now you have to justify why the heterosexual family unit is better at anything other than propagating itself.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Personally, I think that a family conceived by natural means, will, on the whole, be more successful than unnatural means. Not because its "unnatural", but because there are ties that bind the family together in both the physical and emotional realms.
That's crazy. Tova was in the emergency room on Sunday. Yesterday, my father called (again) asking, "How is my granddaughter doing." There's absolutely no difference between Tova's status in my family, even my extended family, and the status of any of my nieces and nephews.
I think you want to imagine that ties are weaker in gay families because it would support your argument (not much, but a little). I don't think it's ever actually occurred to you to look at it from the POV of someone in such a family.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And I have no idea why you think physical and emotional realms are not secular arguments either.
I'm assuming that when you say 'emotional' you actually are meaning something more like 'spiritual'. Perhaps it would be helpful if you described these 'ties that bind the family together in both the physical and emotional realms' that are deficient for "unnatural" families.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The heterosexual family unit IS the most successful family unit...at creating more heterosexual family units.
Actually, I don't know about that. I grew up in a heterosexual family unit. Most gay people I know did so as well.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The heterosexual family unit IS the most successful family unit...at creating more heterosexual family units.
Actually, I don't know about that. I grew up in a heterosexual family unit. Most gay people I know did so as well.
Agreed. But the vast majority of family types that come from hetero family units are hetero families.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Getting a bit off-topic - this is an interesting article from the economist about a mystery involving homosexuality and genetics. Basically, given the genetic component in homosexuality and the fact that (presumably) gay people (historically) are less likely to have progeny, one would think that the rate of homosexuality would have declined. Anyway, this is an attempt at answering this mystery: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295 Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa, you are absolutely correct. I have not seen it from the perspective of someone in a homosexual family. My views, and perhaps the views of other Americans would change if this were demonstrated.
I am arguing from theory, and from my exposure to male homosexuals. The gay couples I know would not, in my opinion, raise children as well as heterosexual couples would, on the whole.
(I hope Tova is okay)
Mystic: No. Not spiritual. Emotional. See the posting I referred you to and read the back and forth I had there. It isn't terribly long. I think the gender role of male and female need both be present. (Anyone who reads that sentence and wants to respond to me - please do not until you read the aforementioned post in context)
Javert: I don't follow. If you are asking why I think it is important that a child have both the male and female gender roles in his life, and why that makes a child better prepare for life? It seems logical to me that the balance of the male and female perspectives is a good thing. The strong but kind, physical and emotional, challenging and nurturing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Javert: I don't follow. If you are asking why I think it is important that a child have both the male and female gender roles in his life, and why that makes a child better prepare for life? It seems logical to me that the balance of the male and female perspectives is a good thing. The strong but kind, physical and emotional, challenging and nurturing.
I'm asking why you disagree with scientific studies that show children of homosexual families to have no significant differences, positive or negative, from heterosexual families.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Lisa, you are absolutely correct. I have not seen it from the perspective of someone in a homosexual family. My views, and perhaps the views of other Americans would change if this were demonstrated.
I am arguing from theory, and from my exposure to male homosexuals. The gay couples I know would not, in my opinion, raise children as well as heterosexual couples would, on the whole.
The research that has been done on the physical and psychological health of children of same sex parents shows pretty conclusively that they are doing at least as well as those of opposite sex parents and that both groups are doing much, much better than children of single parents of either sex.
What do you see as the problem with not having parental role models of both sexes?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The heterosexual family unit IS the most successful family unit...at creating more heterosexual family units.
Actually, I don't know about that. I grew up in a heterosexual family unit. Most gay people I know did so as well.
Agreed. But the vast majority of family types that come from hetero family units are hetero families.
Probably. But the vast majority of family types that come from same-sex family units are also hetero families. It'd be interesting to see what the percentages are in the two cases.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: It'd be interesting to see what the percentages are in the two cases.
In the studies, while children of same sex couples report more same sex experiences than children of heterosexual parents, there is not a statistically significant different in their sexual identification. That is, a statistically equal number of them report being straight, gay, or bi.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I never saw any studies. Could someone show me?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Mystic: No. Not spiritual. Emotional. See the posting I referred you to and read the back and forth I had there. It isn't terribly long. I think the gender role of male and female need both be present. (Anyone who reads that sentence and wants to respond to me - please do not until you read the aforementioned post in context)
I read your opinion about the need for these roles, with no supporting evidence. Even if I grant you that there is some advantage to having parents filling these roles (I don't grant this, btw), it is still not clear why one would think that the potential detriment to kids outweighs the detriment accrued to gay couples by not being permitted to marry.
Btw, your argument can be easily adapted to argue against people of different cultures being permitted to marry. Hopefully that gives you pause.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It seems logical to me that the balance of the male and female perspectives is a good thing. The strong but kind, physical and emotional, challenging and nurturing.
It seems here that you are identifying gender stereotypes that don't always fit. Some men are kinder and more nurturing and more emotional than some women and some women are stronger, more physical, more challenging than some men. Are you going to legislate that hetero people who marry must fit into traditional stereotypes as well?
We do not have a good parenting test for marriage. We don't have a parenting test at all for marriage. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think Gays can "marry" - i just don't think that society should provide incentives. That's very different.
We as a society decide together what we want to provide incentives for and what not. I don't think it is reasonable not to provide incentives for people of different cultures to marry. I don't think society believes that these marriages or their children will be any less successful. Maybe more successful for their cultural diversity. And yes, I think we should decide who to provide incentive to and who not. Once we are already providing incentives. Either that, or don't provide incentives at all.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why don't you think society should provide incentives to same-sex couples? Surely we want more stable homes capable of raising children well, and the research shows same sex couples provide that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, we do not have a good parenting test for providing incentives to marry. We do not have parenting tests at all for providing incentives to marry. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It seems logical to me that the balance of the male and female perspectives is a good thing. The strong but kind, physical and emotional, challenging and nurturing.
It seems here that you are identifying gender stereotypes that don't always fit. Some men are kinder and more nurturing and more emotional than some women and some women are stronger, more physical, more challenging than some men. Are you going to legislate that hetero people who marry must fit into traditional stereotypes as well?
We do not have a good parenting test for marriage. We don't have a parenting test at all for marriage. Are you suggesting that we should?
I addressed your first point in the context of my original post. I said that these stereotypes are true on the whole, even if the male is female and the female male. My argument is that this is often not the case with homosexual couples. And to be clear, I have been exposed to many MALE homosexual couples, and to very few female couples.
My perspectives are based on theory and experience, as I stated above. I am not a bible thumping bigot, so please read my views patiently. But there IS truth to the stereotype of the homosexual personality. That, plus the my view on the gender roles = my position. Undermine any of those and I'm happy to change my beliefs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've given a lists and discussed them in detail in a bunch of other threads. Don't really have the time to go into detail now, but you can look for the other threads.
For references, you can look at the bibliographies of the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement and/or that of the American Psychological Association.
I also did a quick google search and pulled some results without really looking at them:
edit: I should mention, as I have before, that I started out believing that gay parents would be inferior parents to straight ones largely because of the sex role issue. I've since changed that view because the data does not support it.
[ April 22, 2009, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, your stereotypes may be true "on the whole" but we do not insist on people fitting into those stereotypes in order to marry. We allow two nurturing, emotional, kind people to marry each other. We do not insist on a balance.
Should we prevent a strong, challenging woman from marrying a strong, challenging man?
Again, Armoth, we do not have a good parenting test for providing incentives to marry. We do not have parenting tests at all for providing incentives to marry. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Presuming your opponents are lying about their concerns is not a productive and persuasive strategy.
It's not a presumption, its a conclusion based on evidence.
People who genuinely cared about marriage including non-reproducing couples would be opposing infertile married couples, and would have been doing before gay marriage was even on the radar.
But no one does. Hence, no one is actually motivated by this reasoning.
The idea that inconsistency in ones position is evidence of dishonesty is fallacious. One could just as well ask why proponents of same sex marriage aren't fighting to make marriage between cousins, syblings, or parent and adult child legal. All the arguments that can be made for allowing same sex marriage are could also justify incestuous marriage. Does this mean that proponents of same sex marriage are lying about their real reasons -- no it does not. Human beings are rarely 100% logically consistent in what they do.
There are many many problems with your argument. First, I've known quite a few people who've made that argument and I've discussed it with some of them over many years and I am fully convinced they really believe it.
Second, many of the people who I've heard make that argument aren't even coming from a religious background that condemns homosexuality. Some of them have been chinese athiests, thai buddhists or Hindu. None of them have had religious reasons for disapproving of homosexuality. Some of them have even considered homosexuality completely acceptable but have still opposed gay marriage. Many cultures in the world that have a long standing tradition of accepting same gender sex have nonetheless never allowed same sex marriage (Japan for example).
And once again, you are completely missing my point when you argue that the secular arguments against same sex marriage aren't valid or logical or ask me to defend them. I'm not going to defend these arguments. I don't agree with them. But whether or not I agree with them or find them valid has little to do with whether or not the people who oppose same sex marriage really believe these arguments. When you quickly dismiss an argument that has been made by many intelligent people as stupid and dishonest, I don't think you've made an honest attempt to see things from their perspective.
If you made that honest attempt at understanding the opposition rather than the knee jerk response you have presented, you will be much more effective at persuading the opposition or finding compromises that satisfy their concerns.
[ April 22, 2009, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sex role issue? But people are all different and complicated. It seems healthier to be able to switch roles. I want a father for my kids who will be nurturing and compassionate towards them. That would definitely not be a stereotypical sort of fellow...
Anyway, I don't think a family is healthy BECAUSE they are a nuclear heterosexual family but because they are nurturing, non-abusive, patient and compassionate towards their kids, able to discipline their children, but still respect them and treat them with kindness. Any family can do that, whether they are two men, two women, a man and a woman, grandparents, aunts and uncles or single parents. They need to provide a child with the things that make them thrive and grow up healthy. So stating that JUST being a "traditional" family is automatically better isn't really logical, doesn't look at the whole picture and it does nothing to address problems a so-called traditional family can have. It's a deeply limited argument.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Presuming your opponents are lying about their concerns is not a productive and persuasive strategy.
It's not a presumption, its a conclusion based on evidence.
People who genuinely cared about marriage including non-reproducing couples would be opposing infertile married couples, and would have been doing before gay marriage was even on the radar.
But no one does. Hence, no one is actually motivated by this reasoning.
The idea that inconsistency in ones position is evidence of dishonesty is fallacious. One could just as well ask why proponents of same sex marriage aren't fighting to make marriage between cousins, syblings, or parent and adult child legal. All the arguments that can be made for allowing same sex marriage are could also justify incestuous marriage. Does this mean that proponents of same sex marriage are lying about their real reasons -- no it does not. Human beings are rarely 100% logically consistent in what they do.
There are many many problems with your argument. First, I've known quite a few people who've made that argument and I've discussed it with some of them over many years and I am fully convinced they really believe it.
I don't think you're distinguishing between deliberate dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty. A general sense that marriage is for babymaking, and that only heterosexuals are capable of babymaking the right way, is not a valid argument or even a coherent belief. It is, as MattP and swbarnes have pointed out, an after-the-fact explanation for their gut reactions or invidious beliefs.
They're not necessarily liars, but neither are they willing to make these "beliefs" any sort of principled rule. Case in point, my widowed grandmother married her widowed high school sweetheart a decade after both had lost their spouses. it's just about the sweetest thing I've ever seen. However, neither are capable of producing children. I challenge you to find a single one of these people you've cited, Thai Buddhist or Chinese atheist, willing to say they shouldn't be permitted to marry.
It's an intellectually dishonest position, covering for a far less acceptable -- and far stronger -- motivation for denying homosexuals equal rights. It's bullshit, in other words.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships. Do I? I'm not sure why you put such a weak analogy out there. Why not pedophilia or beastiality if we're going nuts?
A far better analogy would be polygamy, which is the logical extension of homosexual marriage. It's the one secular argument against homosexual rights I've heard that makes sense, and it's a good one. I actually offered my law professor to write up a defense of polygamy on legal grounds and submit it for his consideration -- if I do, I'll share it here as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't think you're distinguishing between deliberate dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty.
I don't think you are listening.
quote:A general sense that marriage is for babymaking, and that only heterosexuals are capable of babymaking the right way, is not a valid argument or even a coherent belief.
That is not a fair summary of the argument being made. Until you are capable of recognizing the key differences between the strawman you've constructed and the real arguments people have put forth, all your arguments are bullshit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships.
Why not? Please explain why marriage between consenting adult syblings is fundamentally different from marriage between consenting unrelated adults?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you made that honest attempt at understanding the opposition rather than the knee jerk response you have presented, you will be much more effective at persuading the opposition or finding compromises that satisfy their concerns.
Erm, that may be the disconnect. Many people, myself included, are not looking to find compromises that satisfy 'their' concerns. Their compromises only get about as good as an intent to get a separate but equal institution; most don't even wish to 'compromise' that far.
The pro-SSM side doesn't even need to compromise. How many people under the age of 30 are okay with homosexuality? How many under 20? This is a war that can be won by waiting.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships.
Why not? Please explain why marriage between consenting adult syblings is fundamentally different from marriage between consenting unrelated adults?
These are independent events. If there is an interest group that wants to legalize sibling unions they are welcome to argue for it. However, the question of SSM does not depend on the status of such unions and so should be considered on its own merits. Bringing up these other unions is just a diversion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Erm, that may be the disconnect. Many people, myself included, are not looking to find compromises that satisfy 'their' concerns.
Right, why go for peaceful resolution if you have the guns to win by force. It couldn't possibly be that the people you oppose have any legitimate concerns, they are the enemy. It couldn't possibly be that they are decent human being who deserve respect. Why bother understanding other people at all. If they disagree with you, they are wrong and probably evil to boot. They probably aren't as smart or fully evolved as you are. They probably aren't even really human like you. We could kill them all but why bother when we can just wait for them to go extinct.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Should we prevent a strong, challenging woman from marrying a strong, challenging man?
Eww... that would be so gay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Explains why I am single...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Erm, that may be the disconnect. Many people, myself included, are not looking to find compromises that satisfy 'their' concerns.
Right, why go for peaceful resolution if you have the guns to win by force. It couldn't possibly be that the people you oppose have any legitimate concerns, they are the enemy. It couldn't possibly be that they are decent human being who deserve respect. Why bother understanding other people at all. If they disagree with you, they are wrong and probably evil to boot. They probably aren't as smart or fully evolved as you are. They probably aren't even really human like you. We could kill them all but why bother when we can just wait for them to go extinct.
Rabbit, your debating skills are not very good when you're playing devil's advocate.
I realize you think people are rude to anti-homosexual activists, but quite frankly, I don't think you consider how rude it is to legislate against homosexuals. Heroes like Alan Turing were crudely sterilized by people who supported these beliefs. And you're worried that feelings might be hurt if we point out how stupid these arguments are?
If you think I'm doing a poor job assessing the merits of the marriage-is-for-reproducing-heterosexuals argument, would you mind summarizing it? I'd be interested in hearing what you think I don't understand.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
What The Rabbit is trying to say is that I have a much easier time listening to someone who is willing to have respect to the other side and to present arguments than someone who wants to call my arguments B.S.
It does not help me open the mind to consider different views. I left this thread to go to the gym about an hour ago and I had all the arguments in mind and played them in my head. I reserve further arguments until I look up the research that was earlier presented. But I have to tell you, your particular role (Lalo) in this thread was not pleasant.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships.
Why not? Please explain why marriage between consenting adult syblings is fundamentally different from marriage between consenting unrelated adults?
These are independent events. If there is an interest group that wants to legalize sibling unions they are welcome to argue for it. However, the question of SSM does not depend on the status of such unions and so should be considered on its own merits. Bringing up these other unions is just a diversion.
Did you read the thread leading up to this? Lalo was arguing that if people oppose same sex marriage because same sex partners can't have children, then they should oppose marriage between infertile couples of all kind. His argument was that since they don't do the latter, they can't really believe the former.
I countered with the question of incestuous marriage. It was a rhetorical devise. It wasn't a diversion or an attempt to start a discussion about incestuous marriage. The point was that you can't dismiss peoples arguments as insincere simple because those don't advocate every possible position those arguments might possibly be used to support.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I addressed your first point in the context of my original post. I said that these stereotypes are true on the whole, even if the male is female and the female male. My argument is that this is often not the case with homosexual couples. And to be clear, I have been exposed to many MALE homosexual couples, and to very few female couples.
Not for nothing, but male/female is not the same as masculine/feminine. When I hear people say that children are better off with both male and female role models (assuming, I guess, that only their parents can possibly serve as role models, but that's another flaw in the argument), I always wonder exactly what they're talking about.
Havah kills the spiders (they give me the creeps). I change the lightbulbs (I'm taller). Havah cooks more than I do (I work more hours). Havah does more homework with Tova than I do (she's a teacher). She's also more likely to do sports stuff with her (the only sport I've ever enjoyed is bowling).
I'm trying to find the stereotypes and figure out which ones I tend to fulfill and which ones Havah does. And which ones we both do, or which ones neither of us do. I'm more likely to determine whether I like a song or not based on the music, while Havah is more likely to judge based on the lyrics. Havah taught Tova to ride her bicycle, but I taught her to play chess. Havah won't even play chess with me because she dislikes the game and because I'm better at it, but she rips my head off at MasterMind. I guess she's better at deductive reasoning and I'm better at inductive. Is one of those more male-ish or female-ish? Whether it is or not, the fact remains that Havah and I are about as different as any straight couple I know, and that Tova is definitely getting a broad set of traits shown to her in her life, not even counting male teachers and rabbis and relatives and friends' fathers and all the men she sees in every book she reads and every TV show and movie she watches.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa, I have a lot of respect for you and find you utterly fascinating.
Your argument has been the strongest so far. I am simply not exposed to a gay family. It's likely to drastically change my opinion. But right now, I just look at my gay friends, while some of them are my best friends, I would not want to be raised by them.
Like I said, I will reserve further argument till I read the research.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But right now, I just look at my gay friends, while some of them are my best friends, I would not want to be raised by them.
Might cultural maginalization be a contributor to the behavior of these friends rather than a justified response?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
armoth: I wouldn't want to be raised by anyone other than the people who raised me. I think most kids feel that way (once they stop being kids) and it doesn't matter if they have two daddies or two mommies or a sampler set.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: What The Rabbit is trying to say is that I have a much easier time listening to someone who is willing to have respect to the other side and to present arguments than someone who wants to call my arguments B.S.
It does not help me open the mind to consider different views. I left this thread to go to the gym about an hour ago and I had all the arguments in mind and played them in my head. I reserve further arguments until I look up the research that was earlier presented. But I have to tell you, your particular role (Lalo) in this thread was not pleasant.
This attitude confuses me so much. I don't think I was rude in pointing out how illogical and irrelevant the reproduction argument is. But even if I were, what possible difference can it make? Be a man and back your position with hard evidence or solid reasoning -- and if you're wrong, admit it and move on.
I'm absolutely amazed by people who are perfectly aware their positions and arguments are stupid, and know they're actively harming other people by holding them, but refuse to reconsider because they weren't coddled enough. If I pretend that the reproduction argument is at all intelligent, then you'll feel good enough to give homosexuals equal rights?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Rabbit, I do get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to suggest that one side is not properly listening to another side in a debate. I figure you say your piece and if they're listening, you'll have a good discussion and if they're not, you stop talking.
When it comes to respecting the other side, I do my best in all subjects. SSM is a hard one because of the way I formed my personal views. To oversimplify the matter: I used to be anti-gay, largely because I thought it was gross and unnatural. When I got over that, I stopped being anti-gay. Now, looking back at the anti-gay side, I continue to fail to see valid arguments. Mostly, I hear people's feelings getting hurt because they don't think they're being heard.
If anyone wants to talk, I'm listening.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But right now, I just look at my gay friends, while some of them are my best friends, I would not want to be raised by them. "
Even if its true that , statistically speaking, children raised by gay parents are worse off than children raised by straight parents (and its not. The evidence doesn't support that conclusion), there are other factors that have very strong correlations with bad child outcomes, such as income. Yet we do not legislate against poor people getting married. And we do not perform examinations to determine how much time parents will spend with their children. We do not prevent people with low IQ's from marrying. Or any number of other factors that play into the success of child rearing.
Why should the sex of parents be the one area where ability to raise children successfully determine eligibility for marriage?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right.
Again, Armoth, we do not have a good parenting test for providing incentives to marry. We do not have parenting tests at all for providing incentives to marry. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Did you read the thread leading up to this? Lalo was arguing that if people oppose same sex marriage because same sex partners can't have children, then they should oppose marriage between infertile couples of all kind. His argument was that since they don't do the latter, they can't really believe the former.
I countered with the question of incestuous marriage. It was a rhetorical devise. It wasn't a diversion or an attempt to start a discussion about incestuous marriage. The point was that you can't dismiss peoples arguments as insincere simple because those don't advocate every possible position those arguments might possibly be used to support. [/QB]
To some degree I did just give my canned response to the tactic of acting like allowing SSM would necessitate the enlarging of scope of marriage to other types of unions. To your larger point I think we are in agreement. In this thread I have already agreed that if arguments are presented against SSM, these arguments should be rebutted for what they are and not for what the SSM proponent thinks they really mean.
I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I'm absolutely amazed by people who are perfectly aware their positions and arguments are stupid, and know they're actively harming other people by holding them, but refuse to reconsider because they weren't coddled enough.
I don't even agree with anti-SSM advocates, but if I were one I wouldn't want to talk to you. If you can't see how condescending and dismissive you're being, then you certainly don't have standing to question their intellectual honesty. (Which kind of gets you coming and going, the way you've discussed the topic so far.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Lalo claimed the that the argument that SSM shouldn't be recognized because they couldn't have children was fallacious because people who hold that position aren't trying to ban marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. His argument was if you claim to oppose A because of reason B but you aren't actively opposing C, which could also be supported for reason B, reason B is clear flawed. Its not that simple. The issues are separate even though they are similar in some respects.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
scifi: How can I respect someone who doesn't respect me? The whole anti-SSM side consists of disrespect for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They deny us the basic human right of marriage. They want us to remain second class citizens. Don't you see how insulting and dehumanizing it is?
How can we respect people who feel that way about us?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't even agree with anti-SSM advocates, but if I were one I wouldn't want to talk to you. If you can't see how condescending and dismissive you're being, then you certainly don't have standing to question their intellectual honesty. (Which kind of gets you coming and going, the way you've discussed the topic so far.)
But somehow after reading his thread on formal attire, his behavior all makes sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Lalo claimed the that the argument that SSM shouldn't be recognized because they couldn't have children was fallacious because people who hold that position aren't trying to ban marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. His argument was if you claim to oppose A because of reason B but you aren't actively opposing C, which could also be supported for reason B, reason B is clear flawed. Its not that simple. The issues are separate even though they are similar in some respects.
I think the question of sterile siblings is different in a couple of ways. First, siblings are already family, they are not forming a new family. Second and I think the more important point is that the sibling relationship has a distorting impact on the ability to consent to a sexual/romantic relationship.
If sterile siblings have been brought up without that sibling relationship - say, they were separated at birth and didn't know they were siblings until they were already engaged in a romantic relationship - I think that they should be allowed to marry.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
But somehow after reading his thread on formal attire, his behavior all makes sense.
...what?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Lalo claimed the that the argument that SSM shouldn't be recognized because they couldn't have children was fallacious because people who hold that position aren't trying to ban marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. His argument was if you claim to oppose A because of reason B but you aren't actively opposing C, which could also be supported for reason B, reason B is clear flawed. Its not that simple. The issues are separate even though they are similar in some respects.
I would state it like this: SSM antagonists say "all marriages should satisfy X" and then find that a significant subset of uncontroversial marriages do not satisfy X. It is incumbent on them accept that the absence of X is not a disqualifying feature, to enact legislation to make it a disqualifying feature or to make an argument as to why it was not a disqualifying feature for that subset but would be for SSM. So Lalo's treatment omits the third option.
On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds. It's basically saying SSM and IM (incestuous marriage) share property p1 and therefore if SSM is permmited then so too must IM. This of course neglects that SSM and IM differ in a substantial number of ways.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: scifi: How can I respect someone who doesn't respect me? The whole anti-SSM side consists of disrespect for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They deny us the basic human right of marriage. They want us to remain second class citizens. Don't you see how insulting and dehumanizing it is?
How can we respect people who feel that way about us?
I understand how you feel. Truly. Your feelings are valid and the onus is on me to make sure you see I intend you no disrespect.
First, I want to make clear that I view marriage as an incentive, and not as a right (as has been expressed a number of times above).
kmb - Honestly, I'm a fan of the parenting tests and providing greater incentives to higher-scorers. It's like scholarships for parenting. Sounds great.
But even still, we're talking about general rules. And my hypothesis is that the general rule is that heterosexual couples raise children more successfully than homosexual ones.
I understand how that can be taken as disrespectful. But my hypothesis is based on the fact that I think most heterosexual marriages are based on a union of gender roles that I explained above. That does not mean that I disrespect homosexuals or deny them rights. It means that I think that a union of homosexuals will be less likely to have these roles in which I think a child would most benefit from.
Does that mean I want to DENY homosexuals any rights? Heck no. If children aren't being adopted and there are homosexual families willing and able? It'd be a travesty to keep those kids without a home. If homosexual couples want to have kids through artificial insemination and such, that is their right and I do not think anyone should deny them that.
My reasoning and experience tells me that incentives should be provided to the more successful unit.
As a minority member myself, I will tell you that it an arguing tactic where you present yourself as human and humble to the other side is a lot more successful than condescension. As I said, Lisa's argument had the most impact on my way of thinking because she provided a human scenario - one that truly exists, in which my assumptions were undermined.
Pixiest, If I have offended, I am truly sorry. Generally, things get better for minorities and for the persecuted when the veil of ignorance is lifted. When Lisa gave me her example, and I trust Lisa enough to consider her examples, I question my own position. Perhaps ignorance is my problem. There are still people, in this country and all over the world who ask me where my horns are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:scifi: How can I respect someone who doesn't respect me? The whole anti-SSM side consists of disrespect for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They deny us the basic human right of marriage. They want us to remain second class citizens. Don't you see how insulting and dehumanizing it is?
How can we respect people who feel that way about us?
My point is that you are presuming you know how these people feel about you. You don't. You know only that they oppose SSM. Your presumption that their opposition is because they hate, fear or disrespect you is not conducive to doing anything but promote more hatred and fear.
If that is what you want, proceed as you are.
If on the other hand what you want is for people to make an effort to understand and respect you the way you are. If what you want is human dignity for all people, then starting off by demonizing everyone who disagrees with you is the wrong approach.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
armoth: So get in my knees and beg for our rights...
If I thought it would work, I'd do it. Heck, I'd douse myself in gasoline and immolate myself if I thought it would work. (well, if I was SURE it would work...)
But it wouldn't.
I tried the "befriend them" approach too... then my (now former) best friend of 10 years voted for Prop Hate.
So now it's "Wait for the bigots (and y'all are bigots ya know) to kick the bucket" approach. Unfortunately, I'm old and will kick the bucket about the same time most of the bigots do. (if not sooner.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: kmb - Honestly, I'm a fan of the parenting tests and providing greater incentives to higher-scorers. It's like scholarships for parenting. Sounds great.
What kind of parenting tests should we have before we allow people to get married? I would think that the most basic would be the ability to reproduce. Do you want that to be a condition of marriage?
If so, what about income? People above a certain income threshold are scientifically shown to raise more successful children. Should we have an income threshold before people can marry?
If so, what about education? Surely more educated people raise more successful children. Should we require a certain level of education before people get married?
If so, shall I continue?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds
First off, that wasn't my claim. I claimed demonstrating that arguments could equally support legalizing SSM and incestuous marriage does not prove that arguments are invalid. I claimed that even when a person uses a set of arguments to support SSM that could also be used to support legalizing marriage between close relatives, but opposes marriage between close relatives, it does not necessarily imply that person is being intellectually dishonest.
Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
quote:I think the question of sterile siblings is different in a couple of ways. First, siblings are already family, they are not forming a new family. Second and I think the more important point is that the sibling relationship has a distorting impact on the ability to consent to a sexual/romantic relationship.
If sterile siblings have been brought up without that sibling relationship - say, they were separated at birth and didn't know they were siblings until they were already engaged in a romantic relationship - I think that they should be allowed to marry.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Sigh...
KMB - Rights vs. Incentives. Different things.
Pixiest - I'm sorry you feel that way. I myself am getting over the fact that God created people so different from one another. Life's greatest pains come from that very fact.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Arm: so why should one family get incentives while another doesn't? Have you seen how many kids are in foster care? Have you seen how f*cking hard it is to adopt one? I have, first hand (And no, I'm still not ready to talk about it.)
They should PAY gays to get married and give them a free foster kid when they do! Hets will continue to spew out offspring by accident. At least the ones they don't murder in the womb.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Pixiest, Not to point out the obvious but you keep saying "our rights" and imply you are denied the right to marry. Do I remember correctly that you are legally married to a person of the opposite sex?
You haven't been denied the right to marry -- you are married. I think what you are saying is that if you had wanted to marry a woman, you would not have been allowed. You know what, exactly the same thing is true for me. In fact its true for every woman in the US. If I'd wanted to marry another woman, I wouldn't have been allowed to either. But just like you, that's not what I wanted so I was allowed to marry. By your arguments, we are all victims of discrimination, all denied our human rights because if we wanted to do things that the law doesn't allow, we wouldn't be able to. And I don't think the fact that you were more likely to have wanted to marry another woman than you presume I was makes you a victim here.
I'm just saying Pix, that by including yourself, a woman in a heterosexual marriage, as a one of the victims here you are seriously diluting the argument that there are any victims being denied any rights at all.
[ April 22, 2009, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Hets will continue to spew out offspring by accident. At least the ones they don't murder in the womb.
The idea that gay people never have offspring by accident is absurd. Lots of gay people, in fact the overwhelming majority, have at least experimented with heterosexual sex. Many gay people have been married to someone of the opposite sex. Several of my good friends have one parent who is gay. Its true that a same sex couple can't accidentally get pregnant, but that isn't the same as saying that gay people never accidentally have children.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit: It's less likely.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
But you are now happily married to a person of your choosing. By including your self as a victim here, you are seriously stretching the limits of logic.
And that is coming from someone who supports legalizing SSM. Imagine how it goes over with those who think its a choice you shouldn't be allowed to make.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit: True. I'll try not to say "us" even though the entire issue of gay rights (including gay marriage) has had a huge impact on my life. It would take too long of a story to let people know why.
(edit: maybe I'll save it for a landmark...)
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds
First off, that wasn't my claim. I claimed demonstrating that arguments could equally support legalizing SSM and incestuous marriage does not prove that arguments are invalid. I claimed that even when a person uses a set of arguments to support SSM that could also be used to support legalizing marriage between close relatives, but opposes marriage between close relatives, it does not necessarily imply that person is being intellectually dishonest.
In the absence of some other argument being made, I would say it does.
quote: Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
In principle, I don't have a problem with this. I also not well informed about such relationships. It is irrelevant to the issue of SSM.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Does the government not provide incentives for adoption? That's pretty bad...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:KMB - Rights vs. Incentives. Different things
First of all, several courts have established that marriage *is* a fundamental right, at least legally speaking and this right was recognized before SSM was on the radar.
However, even if marriage were not a right, equality under the law is a right. Gays are making the case that they are "similarly situated" to heterosexuals and the principle of equality under the law, which is an established right, requires that all similarly situated individuals be treated equally by the state.
And if children are your concern, you should know that a large number of gays are already raising children without the benefit of these incentives. If the incentives have a tangible affect on the success of children, then choosing not to grant that same incentive to these families is causing a known harm in exchange for a hypothetical good.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
There is a small tax break for adoption.
Adoption can cost 10s of thousands of dollars. If you adopt from the county, it's much cheaper but they are not an adoption agency. Their goal is to return the children to the birth parent or some other relative. The foster-adoption parents are the *last* *resort*. The process takes years. The child/ren you've raised for 4 years since birth can still be taken away from you. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it's completed sooner. But 2 years would be fast.
Also, being involved with the county means social workers coming to your house multiple times per week and your potential children having visitations with the birth parents who are still in jail/rehab.
Of course, you don't even get the kids until you've done a massive mountain of paperwork, taken classes (that mostly deal with the rules of "the system") and are investigated by the FBI. That process takes 6-12 months.
Going the county route is a massive huge painful mistake. Trust me.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds
First off, that wasn't my claim. I claimed demonstrating that arguments could equally support legalizing SSM and incestuous marriage does not prove that arguments are invalid.
Depends what the arguments are. A simple "The government shouldn't look down my pants before giving my the civil paperwork that is my civil right" doesn't touch on the topic of incestuous marriage.
quote:I claimed that even when a person uses a set of arguments to support SSM that could also be used to support legalizing marriage between close relatives, but opposes marriage between close relatives, it does not necessarily imply that person is being intellectually dishonest.
But consent is at the core of most pro-ssm arguments, so it's not antithetical to support consenting gay people marrying, while worrying that an incestuous couple might not really be consentual, since historically, most aren't. Not many people really want to marry their brothers or uncles.
So I'd say that the argument isn't automatically applicable to incestuous couples.
quote:Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
The reason is that incestuous couples are highly likely to not be truly consenting.
But one can imagine scenarios where consent is beyond question, like where the family memebrs were raised apart, and never met until adults, in which case, there wouldn't by much of a reason, and people have stated that they would be fine with that.
It's all consistant with arguing that consent is the key concept.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Armoth, Did you get a chance to check out any of the information I directed you towards?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I did.
Here's what I gather:
First, most studies were done with female homosexual couples. Turns out they are rocking parents.
Still don't know much about male homosexual couples.
The one thing I DID find was that there was a major difference among the children of homosexual couples. They are more likely to question gender roles. Lesbian women raise less aggressive males and more aggressive females. Female children of Lesbian couples are more sexually active and male children of heterosexual couples are less sexually active.
What does this mean? ::shrug::
One girl of a homosexual couple lamented that she feels like she is out there to prove something to the world, and she resents that feeling. She reported that she feels like family, for her, is a choice, and not a blood-thing. She said that her father risked being disowned by his own family when he came out and thus found his family in his friends. She said that she learned that value from him and sees her straight friends as blinded by blood, and such.
While that is a positive spin on the situation, I wonder if there are any negatives. Personally, I find that a bit disconcerting, but also beautiful.
Either way - in light of the research, I can say that I am now confused about the issue. It seems like there are differences. I don't know that it is a good thing that kids should be more willing to question gender roles, or that there should be a concept of "families of choice." But I can't say that it is a bad thing either.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hey Armoth, would you mind saying "gay" rather than "homosexual"? The repeated use of that medicalized/sexualized term is kind of irksome. It's usually done by people I don't think you'd really want to associate yourself with. If the other meanings of the word are what concerns you, consider the fools who try and claim that anti-semitism includes bias against all Semites, and not just Jews. Words mean what they mean; not what their etymologies might indicate.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Armoth: Maybe she wouldn't see family as a choice if her homophobic grandparents hadn't booted her dad from the family.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Either way - in light of the research, I can say that I am now confused about the issue. It seems like there are differences. I don't know that it is a good thing that kids should be more willing to question gender roles, or that there should be a concept of "families of choice."
I think it is a misdirection to compare children of a gay couple to children of a heterosexual couple. There are no shortages of children needing parents that would take away the opportunity of heterosexual couples to adopt if a substantial base of gay couples started adopting.
A better study, in my opinion, would be to look at the differences in children brought up in foster care, orphanages, or the state versus children brought up in a gay couple's home.
Even tho there are many fantastic foster parents who deserve respect and admiration for what they do, the likelihood of drug, sex, emotional, and physical abuse in a non-stable foster or state environment is much higher then about any other living arrangement.
It is "overall" only better then the worst of the worst scenarios--like kids growing up with meth addicts with no support system.
Financially stable committed adults who are paying for the privilege of having kids, instead of being payed, is a God-Send to any child trapped in the system--no matter the sexuality of the parents.
EDIT and Note: I worked quite a bit with Foster Care and wish MORE families would be foster parents. God bless them!
This is a not a repudiation of foster care providers, just a recognition that it is not a better alternative to adoption--which is why so many of the good foster parents move on to adoption proceedings.
*There is also always a shortage of even foster parents. We need to do everything we can to open doors for the forgotten children to be placed in homes. Think of the horrors of not even being able to make it into foster care.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hey Armoth, would you mind saying "gay" rather than "homosexual"? The repeated use of that medicalized/sexualized term is kind of irksome. It's usually done by people I don't think you'd really want to associate yourself with. If the other meanings of the word are what concerns you, consider the fools who try and claim that anti-semitism includes bias against all Semites, and not just Jews. Words mean what they mean; not what their etymologies might indicate.
Yes ma'am. Didn't know. Sorry.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Either way - in light of the research, I can say that I am now confused about the issue. It seems like there are differences. I don't know that it is a good thing that kids should be more willing to question gender roles, or that there should be a concept of "families of choice." But I can't say that it is a bad thing either.
My impression is that while these differences are statistically significant, they aren't necessarily dramatic and the differences that do exist may be explainable by other factors, such as the fact that gays who partner and raise children are less like to belong to socially conservative religions.
Even the lack of formal marriage could contribute to increased sexuality. "No sex before marriage" is a difficult concept to teach as a parent that is not legally permitted to marry.
I'd also guess that the variance between the average child of gays and the average child of non-gays is significantly smaller than the variance within those two populations.
So, even if you draw the conclusion that increased gender identity issues are definitely a bad thing, I don't think that can be considered sufficient reason to object to that family structure without similarly objecting to, say, black marriages on the basis that black children are statistically more likely than whites to commit crimes, fail to graduate from high school, or live in poverty. Consistency requires that minor or even moderate deviations from the mean be ignored.
[ April 23, 2009, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hey Armoth, would you mind saying "gay" rather than "homosexual"? The repeated use of that medicalized/sexualized term is kind of irksome. It's usually done by people I don't think you'd really want to associate yourself with. If the other meanings of the word are what concerns you, consider the fools who try and claim that anti-semitism includes bias against all Semites, and not just Jews. Words mean what they mean; not what their etymologies might indicate.
Yes ma'am. Didn't know. Sorry.
I hope you weren't offended by the way I asked.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Female children of Lesbian couples are more sexually active
I suspect this distinction might go away if social rejection of lesbians were to go away. That rejection results in an enormous number of lesbians gravitating to the far left, politically. And there's a lot of licentious behavior that goes with that; not just sexual.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: That rejection results in an enormous number of lesbians gravitating to the far left, politically. And there's a lot of licentious behavior that goes with that; not just sexual.
HA. Just a guess, you've never been to a frat party. Or really any suburban house party.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
To Pixiest, or anyone else who's caught up in this struggle, read this:
quote:There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
We've already reached the peak. We just need to wait for the dead weight to fall away. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we're free at last.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
But you are now happily married to a person of your choosing. By including your self as a victim here, you are seriously stretching the limits of logic.
Personally, I'll give this one to Pixie. We like to throw the word "logic" around on this site a lot but when it comes to matters of the heart, it stretches the limits of logic to try to apply that term. I'm glad Pixie is happy with her husband, but this very fact makes her an interesting middle ground case that I would not silence. We often talk about homosexuality only in cases where there is no choice, and then continue to argue whether or not that's true (that we don't choose our sexual orientation). But also in the mix are people who could swing either way and I wonder if these people might scare anti-SSM people the most. I don't know; I still fail to really understand their arguments and I wouldn't want to speak for them, but if you allow SSM then suddenly it makes it ok to be gay. People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Even bisexuals can't choose who we fall in love with. I wasn't looking for a man when I found my husband, but I love him and he loves me.
The mere fact that hets outnumber us so badly make one more likely to find an opposite sex partner than a same sex one, all other things being equal. And making SSM legal won't change that.
There's more I want to say on this topic but it's too personal to post on hatrack.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
But you are now happily married to a person of your choosing. By including your self as a victim here, you are seriously stretching the limits of logic.
Personally, I'll give this one to Pixie. We like to throw the word "logic" around on this site a lot but when it comes to matters of the heart, it stretches the limits of logic to try to apply that term. I'm glad Pixie is happy with her husband, but this very fact makes her an interesting middle ground case that I would not silence. We often talk about homosexuality only in cases where there is no choice, and then continue to argue whether or not that's true (that we don't choose our sexual orientation). But also in the mix are people who could swing either way and I wonder if these people might scare anti-SSM people the most. I don't know; I still fail to really understand their arguments and I wouldn't want to speak for them, but if you allow SSM then suddenly it makes it ok to be gay. People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
And that's a bad thing because...? Folks can't settle down with someone of the same sex and have a happy life too?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Thinking about this issue and listening to people, I think that a lot of the anti-ssm response is illogical, but in a different way then most pro-ssm people realize. I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action. So, all the helplessness over the rising divorce rate, teen pregnancy and "shacking up" come out in this fight over ssm. They can't do anything to stop all that other stuff, but they can fight this battle and so this has become the line. It isn't really logical and it is out of desperation, but it is the only fight they can fight.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish they'd focus on domestic violence and abuse. Now THOSE hurt a family, not a gay couple down the street adopting 4 kids.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But domestic violence and abuse are not so simple to solve.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Armoth, To some extent, I'm with you on the gender roles issue. It's not so much that I'm about strict gender roles - that seems outdated and doesn't match how things actually are - but I'm concerned that we're losing important things in losing aspects of the stereotypical male role. The increasing feminization of our culture and our boys concerns me more than a little bit.
But, even if that is a problem, it's one orthogonal to the question of same sex marriage. It would be an issue with the wider culture and would need to be addressed at that level. In this way, it's like marriage, which I think is extremely important and is in terrible shape in our culture.
The facts I can see is that same sex marriages/long term relationships and families work in most of the same ways that opposite sex ones do. The people in them are (on average) better off because of them and society as whole gets good benefits because of them.
As a strong believer and supporter of families and marriages, I can't see why this would be a bad thing to increase.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I wish they'd focus on domestic violence and abuse.
The last time they did that we got prohibition. I haven't seen much effectiveness in dealing with domestic abuse.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: But domestic violence and abuse are not so simple to solve.
They probably would be easier to solve if abusers were held accountable for starters.
What does feminization MEAN and why is it such a bad thing?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
Of course, that's already happening. CNN had a story on it just the other day:
quote: I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action. So, all the helplessness over the rising divorce rate, teen pregnancy and "shacking up" come out in this fight over ssm. They can't do anything to stop all that other stuff, but they can fight this battle and so this has become the line. It isn't really logical and it is out of desperation, but it is the only fight they can fight.
Part of the irony is that one of the biggest things anti-ssm people could do to deal with the rising divorce rate is to stop getting divorced (although I'd prefer if they didn't get into bad marriages in the first place). Many of the religious groups that oppose ssm the strongest, especially evangelical Christians, get divorced at a much higher rate than the average population. Likewise, many of the areas of the country with the highest support for anti-ssm measures have the highest rates of spousal and child abuse.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What does feminization MEAN and why is it such a bad thing?
Sanction/discouragement of many aspects of the traditional stereotypical male behavior/drives and encouragement of traditional stereotypical female behavior/drives. I already covered why I think it is a bad idea. A lot of those things have a lot of value. Also, I think our culture is increasingly treating boys as "bad" for doing what is natural and in many cases, when done properly, healthy for them while encouraging stereotypical female behavior beyond what is healthy or productive.
[ April 24, 2009, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action.
Squicky already addressed this well, but it's also worth pointing out that marriage has never meant the Beaver Cleaver dreams so many people imagine.
It's sort of pointless lamenting the decline of marriage when domestic violence, rape, and other offenses are down across the board. I'd say younger generations are having much healthier relationships, much later in life, with much less societal baggage, than ever before. Nobody cares if you date someone of a different race or the same gender, nobody expects you to wait until marriage for sex, and birth control is commonplace. I think we're doing pretty well.
The alternative, of course, is Bristol Palin.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action.
Squicky already addressed this well, but it's also worth pointing out that marriage has never meant the Beaver Cleaver dreams so many people imagine.
It's sort of pointless lamenting the decline of marriage when domestic violence, rape, and other offenses are down across the board. I'd say younger generations are having much healthier relationships, much later in life, with much less societal baggage, than ever before. Nobody cares if you date someone of a different race or the same gender, nobody expects you to wait until marriage for sex, and birth control is commonplace. I think we're doing pretty well.
The alternative, of course, is Bristol Palin.
I don't think it is logical, but it is emotionally where a lot of people are coming from. Somehow, all these issues have become condensed into the ssm argument. Which is why they are willing to devote so much time and attention to something which really is not going to affect their lives nearly as much as so many other things. And I would disagree about whether or not things are better. I think that depends a great deal on which socioeconomic group you are looking at. But my husband spent two years at an inner city school and so I often despair for this generation and the next. And a lot of that does come from the loss of the two parent system. 14 year olds having a kid with the only help being their 30 year old mom who is also single is not a good situation.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa - I was not offended. Just didn't know.
Squicky - Yea. That is pretty much what concerns me too. I'm afraid of voicing that concern too vocally because It's a bit of a sensitive subject, but yea.
Lalo - The alternative is not Bristol Palin. I live in a community in which pre-marital sex is not very common. I think the expectation of being a virgin for your spouse is pretty cool. Now, I'm not saying marriages are perfect in my community - but I am saying that other alternatives exist.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: We often talk about homosexuality only in cases where there is no choice, and then continue to argue whether or not that's true (that we don't choose our sexual orientation). But also in the mix are people who could swing either way and I wonder if these people might scare anti-SSM people the most. I don't know; I still fail to really understand their arguments and I wouldn't want to speak for them, but if you allow SSM then suddenly it makes it ok to be gay. People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
And that's a bad thing because...? Folks can't settle down with someone of the same sex and have a happy life too? [/QB]
I think you missed my point. I don't personally have a problem with SSM under any circumstance. I was just wondering if it might be a hangup for others. I'm still struggling to understand the anti-SSM point of view at all.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Lalo - The alternative is not Bristol Palin. I live in a community in which pre-marital sex is not very common. I think the expectation of being a virgin for your spouse is pretty cool. Now, I'm not saying marriages are perfect in my community - but I am saying that other alternatives exist.
Sorry dude, but Bristol Palin is the poster girl for Republican abstinence-only fundamentalism. She's young, white, pregnant, and pressured into a shotgun marriage by her conservative family to a boy she didn't love. Her life would have been miserable if she'd gone through with it.
I realize you prize virginity in your brides, but it's scarily reminiscent of fundamentalist Islam. A woman's worth is not increased or decreased by her virginity, no more than mine is. Why should virgins marry? I'd be in terrible straits today if I'd married the girl I lost my virginity to.
Having some experience with love and loss gives me an idea of what I want, and with what type of person. I've been in love several times, with virgins and otherwise, but I don't rank any of them based on their virginity.
I understand where you're coming from -- I think a large number of partners is grody, and I've never been with a girl who's had more than two previous partners. But I'm so glad I didn't wait until marriage -- my life has been remarkable, and that's in large part thanks to my adventures and romances with different women.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I understand where you're coming from
I don't think you do. Armoth seems to me to be talking about it largely as a community issue that concerns both men and women. You seem to be treating it as a purely individual issue and that it is only something for women.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I understand where you're coming from
I don't think you do. Armoth seems to me to be talking about it largely as a community issue that concerns both men and women. You seem to be treating it as a purely individual issue and that it is only something for women.
Indeed. My wife can count on my virginity.
And while I realize that your life has turned out just fine, so has the lives of many in our community. What I'm saying is that my way and the way of my community is not something you should sneer at like a fundamentalist Islamic idea.
Actually, it's an Orthodox Jewish ideal if we want to get our sneering right. But why is that okay, to disparage something like that and use the label "fundamentalist Islam" - do you realize how intolerant you sound?
Just like I may not know very many gay families, you seem not to know very many families from my community. I invite you to see for yourself. We are good people and this style works for us. By keeping the stress off of sex it emphasizes other aspects of our early relationships. I'm not saying that it is a better way of life, but just because it is different from your successful life does not mean that it is not also successful and beautiful in its own way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: We are good people and this style works for us.
quote: I'm not saying that it is a better way of life, but just because it is different from your successful life does not mean that it is not also successful and beautiful in its own way.
Please bear those two admirable sentiments in mind as you continue to contemplate your stance on SSM.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Actually, it's an Orthodox Jewish ideal if we want to get our sneering right. But why is that okay, to disparage something like that and use the label "fundamentalist Islam" - do you realize how intolerant you sound?
Are you saying it's intolerant to suggest that Orthodox Judaism and fundamentalist Islam both prize virgins? Or that it's intolerant to suggest that fundamentalist Islam is a very screwed up culture? Because either way, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on.
In any case, yes, I think it's unhealthy to expect virgins to marry. Sexual compatibility is one of the single greatest aspects of a relationship, and I can't imagine not being sure of it before committing to marriage.
If that's how you want to live your life, by all means. But I think the freedom to have happy sexual relationships before committing to a lifelong one is far healthier, both for individuals and for families.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I think a large number of partners is grody, and I've never been with a girl who's had more than two previous partners.
*insulted* Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I understand where you're coming from
I don't think you do. Armoth seems to me to be talking about it largely as a community issue that concerns both men and women. You seem to be treating it as a purely individual issue and that it is only something for women.
I disagree on both counts. I think it's every bit as unhealthy and rash for male virgins to marry as it is for female virgins.
But more to the point, I don't understand distinguishing between the community and the individual. There's not a trade-off between the two -- a happier individual doesn't contribute to a more dysfunctional community, nor vice versa. Marrying young and inexperienced isn't a contribution to the stability of society.
I'd argue that families of mature, happy couples are more likely to form a better community than those pressured together as children by carnal urges, unplanned pregnancies, or religious duties.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In any case, yes, I think it's unhealthy to expect virgins to marry. Sexual compatibility is one of the single greatest aspects of a relationship, and I can't imagine not being sure of it before committing to marriage.
Lots of people think you need to have this or that or should or should not do X or Y. For me, the proof is going to be in the data. I haven't seen anything that shows the marriages and families of cultures that promote holding sex till marriage are intrinsically inferior to those that do.
---
Lalo, for you - for many people - what Armoth is talking about wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that it's not possible for it to work in different contexts.
If you're going to talk about people from very different contexts, you've going to have to get better at taking their perspective or at least allowing that they can have a perspective different from yours that doesn't suck.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But more to the point, I don't understand distinguishing between the community and the individual.
I know you don't. But I think it's a very important thing to understand about where Armoth is coming from. Whether or not you ultimately agree, I'm pretty sure there is something there that you're not considering. I'm going to try to address it this weekend.
I've got something for scholarette too, hopefully.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Is it possible to work? Sure, it's possible, and in many cases it surely happens.
And there certainly shouldn't be anything against someone being a virgin, even when they marry, and it does have certain benefits, especially when it comes to risk of disease and things like that.
But it's an ideal that, if held too stringently, also has the potential to do some damage, if combined with, well, how teenagers can be, and how religious parents can occasionally be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But it's an ideal that, if held too stringently, also has the potential to do some damage, if combined with, well, how teenagers can be, and how religious parents can occasionally be.
As is the ideal that people should not be virgins when they are married or pretty much any ideal.
Barring extremely unrealistic expectations, the problems with ideals often come more from how they held and transmitted than it what they actually are.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: We often talk about homosexuality only in cases where there is no choice, and then continue to argue whether or not that's true (that we don't choose our sexual orientation). But also in the mix are people who could swing either way and I wonder if these people might scare anti-SSM people the most. I don't know; I still fail to really understand their arguments and I wouldn't want to speak for them, but if you allow SSM then suddenly it makes it ok to be gay. People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
And that's a bad thing because...? Folks can't settle down with someone of the same sex and have a happy life too?
I think you missed my point. I don't personally have a problem with SSM under any circumstance. I was just wondering if it might be a hangup for others. I'm still struggling to understand the anti-SSM point of view at all. [/QB]
(Critter keeps moving around! Yay, Critter!)
I don't understand their point of view either. The world has changed and evolved, The concept of gender has evolved. Men and don't have to be limited to just one role, they can pick and choose and be free to do what they want within reason. It's not a bad day and age to live in.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yet too many people, it sometimes seems like, seem to hold their ideals in too high a regard, and transmit them as the Truth.
I too am guilty of this.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If I hadn't been with women before I got married I think the need to *know* would burn me up until I couldn't be a good wife to my husband.
Instead I have lovely memories to look back on.
Likewise, if I had married a woman, I would be happy not to have my gold star for the same reason.
But that's just me. For some, being a virgin is better; for others it's better to have experience.
As with everything, *individual* needs are different. That is why we must all be free to follow our own paths with no special treatment (or special exclusions) for anyone who isn't harming an unwilling victim.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)