quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Who does? I'd much rather get government out of the marriage biz.
That's so interesting! You say this, but you spend the rest of your post arguing for government getting further into the marriage biz.
If the situation is inequitable, it is not a given that the way to fix it is to get government even more involved.
You say later to someone else, "When civil unions are equivalent to marriage, give me a call." Why not make them so? Why pour your effort into more government involvement, when you say you want less?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, the government has seen fit to grant certain perqs to people who are considered married. And a government which is not allowed to adopt the position of a particular religion should not be allowed to discriminate in the granting of such perqs.
Sure, the government shouldn't be in the perqs biz at all. Protecting citizens from attacks internal and external and mediating disputes. That's the only legitimate role of governments to begin with. But so long as I'm being forced to pay for the perqs they give out, I'm not willing to be a second class citizen when it comes to receiving them.
end quote.
Government marriage is not going to go away. So we have to work with what we've got.
btw starlisa, I sense a fellow Libertarian... Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: Did you miss most of her post?
<sigh> I hate when people snip a teeny bit of a long post and present it completely out of context. I want so much to assume that people are interested in an honest dialogue, and that kind of thing just really makes it hard.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: btw starlisa, I sense a fellow Libertarian...
<grin> I can't imagine why. I'm sort of a post-Objectivist. That's a little like an Objectivist without the snarling and condescension.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Who does? I'd much rather get government out of the marriage biz.
That's so interesting! You say this, but you spend the rest of your post arguing for government getting further into the marriage biz.
If the situation is inequitable, it is not a given that the way to fix it is to get government even more involved.
You say later to someone else, "When civil unions are equivalent to marriage, give me a call." Why not make them so? Why pour your effort into more government involvement, when you say you want less?
Why do you suppose it's contradictory to fight for equality under the law at the same time that you fight for less government interference? Or are you just saying that as a matter of rhetoric?
I'm on the record as being willing to accept either solution. The essential thing is not playing favorites.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't imagine why. I'm sort of a post-Objectivist. That's a little like an Objectivist without the snarling and condescension
And the belief in God. That's a little non-Objectivist, too.
quote:But so long as I'm being forced to pay for the perqs they give out, I'm not willing to be a second class citizen when it comes to receiving them.
I've used this same argument in a different context. I was opposed to a particular method of funding activities, but as long as I was forced to subsidize it, I took action to ensure I wasn't arbitrarily excluded. It's a perfectly rational, consistent response.
It can also highlight the reason for not providing certain types of benefits: the inability to fairly limit to whom the benefit is provided can be an indication that the benefit is problematic. It's not the only possible factor, but I think it should send a warning signal.
quote: As for fairly limiting who a benefit is provided to, it is possible. To me, it seems obvious that if you have to change the meaning of an word that has been around for thousands of years in order to qualify for the benefit, perhaps it IS possible to fairly limit that benefit.
While you were being an insulting jackass, you might trouble your pea-brained what-passes-for-brain to learn that 'marriage' is hardly a word that has meant one thing throughout human civlization.
quote:You either want it for yourself, or you want nobody to have it. Kind of reminds me of this bully I used to know in elementary school that took a birthday cake from a classmate and smashed it because he couldn't have it. Needless to say, this is not normally a productive social attribute, but thats beside the point.
Liar. It is nothing like a childhood bully to want something that is provided to another person, when you're contributing just as much to the government as they are. A very stupid and knowingly stupid example that is.
Was the bully you? Needless to say, resorting to insults immediately in a discussion is not a productive social attribute-but what would you know about those, anyway?
quote:As for fairly limiting who a benefit is provided to, it is possible. To me, it seems obvious that if you have to change the meaning of an word that has been around for thousands of years in order to qualify for the benefit, perhaps it IS possible to fairly limit that benefit.
Oh? Because something has been practiced for thousands of years, that by definition makes it fair? Of course not. Another stupid assertion. That's two in three paragraphs!
quote:I can claim to be African-American all day (in fact, I have about as much in common with African heritage as most people in this group do). However, this does not entitle me to affirmative action or minority scholarships, no matter how loudly I yell about it.
I think it likely that you a) know very little indeed about African heritage (not that there is only one), and b) know next to nothing about what African-Americans know about their own heritage, anyway. Jackass.
StarLisa isn't yelling about it. Homosexuals in this country do not just claim that they pay as much taxes, obey laws, live peacefully, and serve in the military, they actually do.
So that and the Native American, military, welfare, land-owning, etc., 'comparisons' are all by definition stupid and offensive and frankly childish.
quote:Why should we pay for services through taxation that do not directly benefit us, right?
At last! A worthwhile question. Because we live in a republic in which individuals surrender a certain amount of power to the whole, among whom they vote. And because benefits do not have to be direct to be a benefit, either.
But you're not really going to say that just because people pay taxes that don't directly benefit them, homosexuals shouldn't be permitted the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens, are you? Oh, wait...you are saying just that, because they aren't as 'beneficial' to 'traditional society' as heterosexual marriage.
That's a claim you haven't proven, or even attempted to prove.
quote:Society must keep doing what is in its best interest as a whole to do. The government is simply the mechanism to do that, always has been, always will be. Thats its purpose
That is not the purpose of the American government. The purpose of the American government is not to deny rights and responsibilities to a minority of its population for an unproven 'best interest' of the majority of the people.
You need a better reason than, "They're 'abnormal' and granting them recognition harms society as a whole," to continue denying them rights. So long as no individual is harmed or forced, American government should stop at the bedroom door, g-dammit.
But go ahead, IdahoEEBoy. Keep your boot on the necks of 'abnormal' tiny minorities. People making your arguments have been doing so for a long, long time. And their reasons were just as vacuous and at-root bigoted as yours are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't imagine why. I'm sort of a post-Objectivist. That's a little like an Objectivist without the snarling and condescension
And the belief in God. That's a little non-Objectivist, too.
Well, I'd say "conviction", rather than "belief", but yeah, it never did make me popular amongst Objectivists.
Hey, cool story about that. There's a guy in Israel named Ohad. He was sort of the head of the only Objectivist group in the country. At the time I knew him, he was not religious (I fell out of touch with him, so I don't know for sure now).
He managed to convince eight die-hard atheist Objectivists to become religious. And I mean seriously religious. One of them was his wife. But the arguments he brought that convinced them weren't quite good enough for him at the time. Go figure...
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:But so long as I'm being forced to pay for the perqs they give out, I'm not willing to be a second class citizen when it comes to receiving them.
I've used this same argument in a different context. I was opposed to a particular method of funding activities, but as long as I was forced to subsidize it, I took action to ensure I wasn't arbitrarily excluded. It's a perfectly rational, consistent response.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: The government has seen fit to grant certain perks to all sorts of individuals, groups, and organizations. Every benefit that exists does so because of people who receive no equal benefit, otherwise its not really a benefit.
That's... an unusual way of looking at things. And it's clearly untrue. Social Security benefits, for instance. A benefit is any goody given out by the government.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: StarLisa, it seems you've concluded is that the main reason you're upset about the gay marriage situation is that you feel that certain perks (or perqs?) have been given to couples defined as married that you would like to enjoy.
It would be nice if you said something like, "Lisa, is it true that you've concluded yadda, yadda, yadda", rather than claiming that I've done so.
Because truly, I think I've made myself abundantly clear. It's not merely that I would "like" to enjoy them, it's that I claim it is absolutely unacceptable to grant them to some people and not others purely due to their gender.
I do not recognize the right of the government to engage in social engineering on my nickel. This is a nation of the people, for the people and by the people, and not just some of the people.
When the US came into existence, there were many, many groups that were discriminated against. Pretty much if you weren't a heterosexual white male who owned property, you weren't really what "All men are created equal" was referring to.
It's been a maturing process.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: You either want it for yourself, or you want nobody to have it.
That's an offensive and dishonest misrepresentation. That implies that I either want it for myself only, or I want nobody to have it. Dog in the manger, and so on. And I never said anything of the sort. I want equity. That's it. If the government gets to take my money and then parcel it out, it doesn't get to give it to Rick and Darva and deny it to me and my partner.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: Kind of reminds me of this bully I used to know in elementary school that took a birthday cake from a classmate and smashed it because he couldn't have it. Needless to say, this is not normally a productive social attribute, but thats beside the point.
It certainly is not. But if the bully you describe was not actually a bully; if he had worked hard to pay for the ingredients and had helped bake the cake, and then was told that while his contributions were surely accepted, he himself was dirt, and therefore couldn't have any of the cake, maybe smashing it wouldn't have been as wrong as you think.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: As for fairly limiting who a benefit is provided to, it is possible. To me, it seems obvious that if you have to change the meaning of an word that has been around for thousands of years in order to qualify for the benefit, perhaps it IS possible to fairly limit that benefit.
So... is it "obvious", or is it "perhaps" possible? Or are you just playing rhetorical games? Poorly, I might add.
To many people, marriage didn't include miscegenation. Too bad. To many people, the very word "woman" indicated that a woman's place was to serve her man. Yeah, whatever.
I've said dozens of times already that I don't care about the word "marriage". And I certainly have no interest in changing the religious definitions of the word. Call it whatever you want; my family has every bit as much right to security, both financial and legal, as a heterosexual couple. And it's really a little sick that you'd consider defending the opposite.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: Redefining marriage reminds me of what Brad Pitt
Gosh. Another lame analogy? I can't wait.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: said with such refinement in his role as Tyler Durden in Fight Club: "Stuffing feathers up your butt does NOT make you a chicken."
I defer to your superior knowledge of sticking things up your butt.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: I can claim to be African-American all day (in fact, I have about as much in common with African heritage as most people in this group do). However, this does not entitle me to affirmative action or minority scholarships, no matter how loudly I yell about it.
If you're talking about government mandated affirmative action or minority scholarships, no one is entitled to such a thing. It's a travesty.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: I can change the definition of a Native-American to include me, after all, I was born here and this is my native land. However, I cannot own land on a reservation or any of the other "perqs" they receive, even if I change the definition ever so slightly to include me.
Again, you're missing the point. But then, you're not actually making an attempt to engage in honest discourse, are you. You're just flailing about, bringing up every silly cliche as though you just came up with them yourself.
Maybe read the thread and then see if you can add something new.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: Anyway, this whole thread has gone on way too long already.
Your post has, at any rate.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: The real issue isn't gay marriage anyway.
Um... did someone accidentally give you the impression that you get to say what the real issue is? Or is that just more of your reading comprehension problems?
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: But maybe I'll do another thread for that topic. Or maybe I'll get back to work.
posted
I hear news now and then about gay and lesbian groups (or individual couples) going after churches for refusing to marry them in states or countries that have legalized gay marriage.
This bothers me, as it smacks of trying to dictate belief and change churches with governmental regulation.
Is this becoming a problem? And if gay marriage or civil unions were legalized in the US, do you think it would be a problem? Would churches be barred from refusing to perform gay marriages?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are legitimate concerns it might be attempted, but I feel confident in predicting it wouldn't survive judicial challenges.
For example, Catholic churches can already refuse to marry people who don't meet some of the requirements imposed by the Catholic faith. I don't see why a requirement on the sex of the participants would get special treatment.
It's more conceivable that states might refuse to empower officials who refuse to perform gay marriages, but I honestly don't see it happening. And if it did, it could be worked around.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I still fail to see how saying that I believed that OSC was consciously acting as a demogogue and that this is omething that I'm inclined to see as worse than being hateful is disrespectful. From his writing, I've picked up an impression that OSC is not concerned with either persuading those who disgree with them or illustrating as fairly as possible how he believes. Rather, he seems to me to in many cases be writing to enflame the people who agree with him and to dehumanize and spread false information about the people who disagree with him.
From what I see, he's playing Grego, but he wrote Grego and he's studied classic demogogues. If he's actually doing this (and given his familiarity with the tactics of demogoguery and his skill as a writer, I find it unlikely that he consistently reproduces them by accident), then I think he is doing something very wrong and following practices that are harmful for our society.
---
As to unreported/undiagnosed conditions, the technique I was specifically thinking of, which I've read about being used in estimating the amount of undiagnosed schizoprenia in a population, is to utilize more agressive systems of assesment and then compare these results with what you would get by the standard method to get a percentage estimate of undiagnosed cases. So, the normal rate would be schizphrenics properly diagnosed through existing channels (therapists, criminal procedings, self-check-ins, etc.) and the more agressive assessment would be something like going into the population and specifically testing everyone for schizophrenia. If you got say a rate of 5% of the base undiagnosed, you could say with some degree of confidence, that similar populations likely also have around 5% undiagnosed schizophrenics.
You can use this type of estimate in any situation where there are more thorough assesment tools than are typically used. You can then use this information to form an idea of what a representative sample would likely look like and compare your sample against it. Assuming that there is no causitive or otherwise correlative relationship between what you're testing and the undiagnosed part of the population, you don't need to include them for a representative sampling.
Are you suggesting that there is a correlative relationship between unreported child abuse and being firmly in the closet?
---
I'm still wondering in what possible way could you read what OSC wrote and say that it was probably about rapists and molestors and that it was implausible to think that he meant homosexuals. I feel like maybe this is the center of our differing opinions of the character of OSC's writing, because I can't see any way that this is a reasonable statement.
Even if OSC is as poor a writer as you seem to be consistently claiming and is often unable to understand the implications of what he writes, I can't see him expecting a passage in a essay about homosexuality where he's talking about homosexuals and where he never mentions rapists and molestors to be interpreted as being about rapists and molestors instead of about homosexuals.
This is not a case where you saying "I tried to make it clear that this isn't defnitely true." works for me. You implied that it was the most likely explanation, you said that my interpretation was implausible, and I can't see anything in there that would even make someone consider that this might be what he meant. Perhaps if you could explain the thought process that you used to come up with that idea to me, I might be better able to see where you're coming from.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
starL, I wondering, do you think that the bit of OSC's writing that I quoted fit my description or do you feel that this
quote:Is it possible that you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole or reformulation of what he actually said?
is closer to what happened?
---
I don't agree with your idea that homosexuals deserve marriage (and the social supports that go along with it) no matter what. This is not a case of homosexuals being denied basic rights. In it's secular aspect, marriage is not a right; it's a priviledged relationship that the government and society supports at their cost because it is to the wider benefit. I think treating it as a right than anyone should expect is a weak argument and opens up the whole slippery slope argument that anti-SSM people like to throw into the mix.
If I thought that allowing gay marriage would not benefit or would even harm society, I'd be against it, even as much as I am for gay rights.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I hear news now and then about gay and lesbian groups (or individual couples) going after churches for refusing to marry them in states or countries that have legalized gay marriage.
That's appalling. I would fight against that kind of nonsense every bit as much as I would fight against governmental discrimination.
That said, opponents of same-sex marriage can't really complain about such antics. What's good for the goose, and all.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: This bothers me, as it smacks of trying to dictate belief and change churches with governmental regulation.
It should bother you. But this is what happens when you start letting governments set social policy instead of merely keeping the peace and mediating disputes. People love it when it goes their way, but never seem to realize that it's a double-edged sword until it goes against what they want.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Is this becoming a problem? And if gay marriage or civil unions were legalized in the US, do you think it would be a problem? Would churches be barred from refusing to perform gay marriages?
It would absolutely not be a problem in the US. Oh, I can see a nut here or there trying to sue, but that's what Americans do best, right? Litigation is the national sport. But the same First Amendment that doesn't allow religions to meddle in politics also doesn't allow politics to mess with religion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The whole purpose of such an obviously offensive post to both sides of the debate was simply for the benefit of people in this discussion to see who is able to really take the high road, and who sinks low at a moments notice.
Hm. I'm not a fan of this approach. Leaving aside the fact that it's practically the definition of offensive trolling, I feel compelled to point out that your "experiment" here is neither scientific nor conclusive. At best, you clearly upset a handful of people to prove that some people could be upset.
It's like punching random strangers in the face to prove that some strangers would hit you in response -- and that some strangers might even hit you harder. I'm afraid I don't see the point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: starL, I wondering, do you think that the bit of OSC's writing that I quoted fit my description or do you feel that this
quote:Is it possible that you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole or reformulation of what he actually said?
is closer to what happened?
Um... it's been a while, and there are a lot of pages to look through. Could you jog my rapidly disintegrating memory, please?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't agree with your idea that homosexuals deserve marriage (and the social supports that go along with it) no matter what. This is not a case of homosexuals being denied basic rights. In it's secular aspect, marriage is not a right; it's a priviledged relationship that the government and society supports at their cost because it is to the wider benefit. I think treating it as a right than anyone should expect is a weak argument and opens up the whole slippery slope argument that anti-SSM people like to throw into the mix.
I don't recognize the right of government to claim that my relationship with my partner is of lesser benefit than my brother's relationship with his wife. The burden of proving such a thing is 100% on anyone wanting to make such a claim.
Further, I don't consider social engineering to be a legitimate function of government. Period. And this is a classic example of why that is. Just the fact that you can even get into a discussion about whether this relationship is better for "society" is... well, let's just say that it may not smell good, but it helps the flowers grow.
Look... there is no such thing as "society". When someone says something is for the benefit of society, what they mean is that it's for the benefit of what they like.
This is my major point of difference with OSC politically. He's a statist, through and through. He thinks it's actually a good thing to have the government running around like the Lone Ranger, righting wrongs, helping old ladies cross the street, and so on. It sounds like you do, too. I consider acceptance of government acting that way to be a forfeiture of individual responsibility. And it has led to an infantilization of the American citizenry to the point that we might just as well replace the Pledge of Allegiance with the slogan "There Oughta Be A Law!"
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If I thought that allowing gay marriage would not benefit or would even harm society, I'd be against it, even as much as I am for gay rights.
And you'd be wrong. Not, mind you, that it would harm anything, let alone this fictional "society" you speak of, but I'll live and die by my principles. People who place what they view as pragmatism above such things... well, I can only pity them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, You're adressing arguments I didn't make again. I didn't attack the past (by which, I am assuming that you're talking about 50s, as that is generally the "past" that people talk about when marriage was better) by bringing up the problems with civil rights and the like. One of the reason I've been very strict about what I've said is that people (yourself particularly) keep on attacking and refuting things I didn't say. I was very specific in that I was talking about marriage during the 50s (and, if this wasn't the past that you were talking about, my appologies and could you specify when this past was?) and showing how your description of it being valued very highly then was inaccurate. Here's the entirety of what I said:
quote: And then, your description of the problems with marriage rely on a comparison to the way we never were. Marriage didn't enjoy a golden age in the 50s. It was severely troubled. Conjuring up some fantasty (from the tv shows of the time perhaps) to point to and say "Look at what you people decided to throw away." doesn't work for me.
You said: "We resort to law enforcement to track down deatbeat dads, where once we depended on a sense of honor and social disapproval of divorce and illegitimacy to keep those guys in their homes." which is true, but doesn't treat the fact that this sense of honor and social dispproval didn't work all that well. Consider the cliche'd description of Dad leaving to get a pack of cigarrettes and never coming back. This was a common way of ending a marriage in the time of no or little divorce. Also common, and to a large extent socially sanctioned, was physical and emotion wife and child abuse.
which, as far as I can see, you've failed to address and instead dismissed me as jumping on what said by talking about the wider social problems of that decade.
---
I wonder how you incorportate the statistics on divorce being higher among the religious (and highest among the pople who are most vocal about anti-gay things) with your statement that religion is one of the only things left that supports marriage?
I also wonder what unique position religion has to encourage moral behavior. You stated it, but I didn't see any explanation of this idea. Considering the track record and current state of affairs, I don't think you can hold this to be simply self-evident. From what I can see, religious does not have a unique position and it has provided a multitude of examples of it encouraging bad behavior as well as good.
----
As to this:
quote:As far as I've seen, no one in the mainstream is trying to prevent homosexuals from pairing up, and no one wants them to suffer these horror-story disadvantages. ALL they want, from what I can see, is to keep the concept of "marriage" bound to the human mating/reproductive cycle, and not to relationships that fall outside that sphere. I think that if there were a way for homosexual couples to obtain a contract that gave them all the same legal rights as a married couple, everybody could live with that solution.
10 out of the 11 anti-gay marriage ammendments of the 2004 elections carried provisions specifically banning "civil unions" or any relationship, no matter what the term that conferred on gay people the benefits of marriage. Your own father has publically joined with a very significant percentage of the population in saying that homsexual sex should be illegal. I don't see how this reconciles with the quoted statement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: First I apologize to Lisa. I meant nothing at all toward you in the last post, you just happened to be the most consistent poster lately, please read on.
<...snippage...>
Obviously that last post was as offensive as possible without doing some serious name calling. There were so many fallacies, straw men, red herrings, and slippery slopes, offensive terms, and pointless analogies that I'm really surprised people didn't just reply with a big LOL.
Unfortunately people will always sink lower. I was called insulting, a jackass, pea-brained, stupid, offensive, childish, vacuous, and bigoted. And that was by just one person. But there were a lot of I guess.
I disagree with your claim that those epithets were lower than what you posted. Granted that they were a little stronger than I would have used; you deserved every one of them. And more. They were 100% accurate, and this post of yours demonstrates that they were, if anything, giving you too much credit.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: The whole purpose of such an obviously offensive post to both sides of the debate was simply for the benefit of people in this discussion to see who is able to really take the high road, and who sinks low at a moments notice.
<counting to ten... slowly...>
Listen up, Private Idaho, because this is probably going to be the last time I ever dirty my fingers typing at you.
What you posted was despicable. But this lame attempt to portray it as a public service, of sorts, almost makes me want to hunt you down. If you were here right now, I don't think I'd be able to avoid doing you physical harm.
You did not benefit anyone. I do not believe that such was your attempt. I believe that you are lying through your teeth after having realized what a donkey you made of yourself in the previous post.
Who in the bloody hell do you think you are, anyway, to place yourself above the rest of us, in such a way?
You are like every sophomoric male I've ever met who makes "jokes" that are incredibly unfunny, and when met with criticism, tries to turn it around with, "Gawd, can't you people take a joke?"
You are truly vile, and not only do I not accept your insincere apology, but I do not believe there is anything you can possibly say at this point that would make me interested in responding to you. Particularly as there doesn't appear to be an "Instant Graemlin" with its middle finger sticking up.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starL, I said that OSC said that we should have anti-gay laws on the books so that we could, from time to time, throw gay people in jail to send a message to the rest of them. you responded with your somewhat insulting accusation, and I countered with this OSC quote:
quote:This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
---
quote:Look... there is no such thing as "society". When someone says something is for the benefit of society, what they mean is that it's for the benefit of what they like.
Yes, I'm fully aware of the values oriented nature of that judgement. In this case, it's certainly a value judgement that children should not be molested, that they should enter adulthood with a degree of mental and physical health comparable to their peers, that the couples we are specifcally diverting resoureces to should show permenance, and a whole host of other thigns that people have characterized homosexual relationships as lacking in.
If kids had a much higher chance of gettign molested by homosexual step-parents or if they were across the board in significantly poorer condition when raised by same sex couples, then we shouldn't let gay couples adopt, or put up some pretty high hoops for them to jump through before they did. If gay partnerships were intrinsically characterized by violence, infidelity, etc. and were largely of short term duration, then we shouldn't incur costs to support them.
Because it's not all about you. The central concern of child-rearing is by far the children. Marriage is not just (or shouldn't be) a set of cool benefits people get because they went through some ceremony. It also represents a relationship that entails responsibilities to the community. If people aren't going to accept these responsibilities or if they are constitutionally unable to fulfill them, then they don't get to be married in a way where they can reasonably expect community support.
Marriage is a priviledge we extend. Saying that the burden of proof lies on people who say we shouldn't extend it is backwards. Priviledges are made available when people demonstrate that they can use them responsibily. That why you have to pass a test before being permitted to drive instead of being allowed to drive until you do something wrong.
I find the attitude that "We don't have to pass any standards." to be a poor one, especially in terms of the gay marriage debate. If three are no standards, what then prevents the other slippery-slope marriages that people bring up?
edit: Also, the government doesn't make a judgement about the absolute worth of your relationship if it does or does not support it. That's the same confusion of the values-based marriage with the secualr one that the religious people are using as their main (as so far sole) argument against gay marriage. The government (in a theoretical ideal sense) allocates it's reasources in a way that it reasonably expects good returns on. If it were about value judgements, the religious people have a very strong case that you shouldn't be allowed to marry.
posted
Not to treat any of this too lightly by being funny but-
starLisa: bring along your partner, I'm sure my boyfriend would not mind having two other women around.
All kidding aside, I must tell you that I very much admire you for your eloquence, conviction, wit, and intelligence. Plus, you're quite pretty, I looked at your homepage.
I've never met someone I admire as much as I do you, right away. I swear I'm not hitting on you! I think I'm just a little awestruck and crushy.
For everyone else who thinks I'm being weird by saying all that: to you! She's just so smart and so cool! And she's Jewish, and Libertarian, and it seems she likes Ayn Rand, and she's "alternative" Everything I like!
Ok I'm done now. Sorry everyone.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for responding to my question-this thread had more for me to reply to than I expected when I logged on this morning, so I'll have to reply later.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: starL, I said that OSC said that we should have anti-gay laws on the books so that we could, from time to time, throw gay people in jail to send a message to the rest of them. you responded with your somewhat insulting accusation, and I countered with this OSC quote:
quote:This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
I apologize if you found my question insulting. I deliberately tried to phrase it in a way that would not be.
And yes, you were right, and what OSC wrote in that case was beyond unacceptable. And the excuses you've gotten along the lines of "he was talking about pedophiles" or "he was just being incendiary" are obvious nonsense. Everyone on these boards knows OSC's style, and it is crystal clear what he is saying.
People are often a mass of contradictions. I continue to think that this seems out of character for him, but I guess that just means that people have various facets, and they don't always harmonize with one another.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Look... there is no such thing as "society". When someone says something is for the benefit of society, what they mean is that it's for the benefit of what they like.
Yes, I'm fully aware of the values oriented nature of that judgement. In this case, it's certainly a value judgement that children should not be molested, that they should enter adulthood with a degree of mental and physical health comparable to their peers, that the couples we are specifcally diverting resoureces to should show permenance, and a whole host of other thigns that people have characterized homosexual relationships as lacking in.
Wow. Character assassination much? There are just so many things wrong with what you just wrote that it's hard to know where to start.
Most child molesters are heterosexual men.
The idea that "physical health" could even be mentioned in this context is bizarre. My sharing the rights and responsibilities of marriage with my partner cannot possibly effect anyone's physical health.
The same is true of mental health, although here, I suspect you mean that gay kids are more likely to be overstressed. But since that's 100% a matter of 'phobes treating them like crud, the solution is for 'phobes to stop treating them like crud.
I have friends who have been together for almost 30 years. This weekend is my partner's and my 7th anniversary since our commitment ceremony. Lesbian relationships are actually more stable than heterosexual ones. There's a joke:
Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date? A: A U-Haul.
And that's without the help of the marriage framework.
Lastly, that's my money. You have no right to be diverting it to your pet projects.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If kids had a much higher chance of gettign molested by homosexual step-parents
Which they don't.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: or if they were across the board in significantly poorer condition when raised by same sex couples,
Which they aren't.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: then we shouldn't let gay couples adopt, or put up some pretty high hoops for them to jump through before they did. If gay partnerships were intrinsically characterized by violence, infidelity, etc.
Which they aren't.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: and were largely of short term duration, then we shouldn't incur costs to support them.
Really. Then I think we should give some serious thought to not only allowing same-sex marriage, but banning opposite-sex marriage. Because domestic violence and divorce are the rule, rather than the exception, in those marriages.
And once more, because I want to make it very, very clear: the government does not have any legitimate role in "supporting" or "not supporting" personal relationships.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Because it's not all about you. The central concern of child-rearing is by far the children. Marriage is not just (or shouldn't be) a set of cool benefits people get because they went through some ceremony.
Tell it to my daughter. Maybe infertile couples should be required to divorce. Maybe fertility testing should be a mandatory prerequisite to the issuance of a marriage license. Or maybe government should get out of our lives a bit.
The fact is, many opposite-sex couples marry and never have children. While many same-sex couples have children and are not permitted to marry.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It also represents a relationship that entails responsibilities to the community.
<blink> You're really into this living for others thing, aren't you, Squick?
That's a shame.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If people aren't going to accept these responsibilities or if they are constitutionally unable to fulfill them, then they don't get to be married in a way where they can reasonably expect community support.
In terms of a religious institution, that may be fine. But the United States of America was founded on the basis of equality under the law. You don't get to push your religious conceptions into that law.
Suppose that Catholics were the majority in this country. Would you defend the outlawing of divorce? Would you support prosecuting people who remarry under bigamy statutes? What makes your standards better than theirs?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Marriage is a priviledge we extend.
That's an indefensible statement. In fact, marriage is a religious institution, and the government's involvement with it came about as a means of registering marriages that already existed.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Saying that the burden of proof lies on people who say we shouldn't extend it is backwards.
Not at all. Because it's not a privilege.
(There's no "d" in that word, incidentally.)
The government doesn't get to sponsor certain interpersonal relationships using my money. Your religious group can do that if it likes, but this country guarantees equal treatment under the law.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Priviledges are made available when people demonstrate that they can use them responsibily.
It's not a privilege, and I don't see opposite-sex couples being required to demonstrate anything.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That why you have to pass a test before being permitted to drive instead of being allowed to drive until you do something wrong.
That's a truly delusional analogy. I mean, no analogy is perfect, but I've rarely seen one so bad.
Displaying an "F" and an "M" on identification does not indicate anything about a couple's staying power or responsibleness.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I find the attitude that "We don't have to pass any standards." to be a poor one, especially in terms of the gay marriage debate.
I'm not sure why you find it to be a poor one, or why what you find is relevant.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If three are no standards, what then prevents the other slippery-slope marriages that people bring up?
That's what they said about interracial marriages. People were afraid that it would mix the races. Well, guess what? It did. It has. It continues to do so. So friggin' what?
There was a public policy against interracial marriages. It was a dumb policy. It was a bigoted policy with no basis to it whatsoever, but it was every bit as important to people then as the anti-gay marriage policy is to some people now.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: edit: Also, the government doesn't make a judgement about the absolute worth of your relationship if it does or does not support it. That's the same confusion of the values-based marriage with the secualr one that the religious people are using as their main (as so far sole) argument against gay marriage. The government (in a theoretical ideal sense) allocates it's reasources in a way that it reasonably expects good returns on.
We don't live in a theoretical ideal world, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that claim is. Not that I think it's true even in a theoretical ideal world.
And you forget that government doesn't have any resources of its own. Those are my resources. And yours and everyone else's.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If it were about value judgements, the religious people have a very strong case that you shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Really? I know a lot of religious people who would disagree with you about that. Different religions, but then, the government doesn't get to decide which religion counts and which doesn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I'm fully aware of the values oriented nature of that judgement. In this case, it's certainly a value judgement that children should not be molested, that they should enter adulthood with a degree of mental and physical health comparable to their peers, that the couples we are specifcally diverting resoureces to should show permenance, and a whole host of other thigns that people have characterized homosexual relationships as lacking in.
Wow. Character assassination much? There are just so many things wrong with what you just wrote that it's hard to know where to start.
Squick is NOT saying that homosexuals are more likely to bring about any of these outcomes. The fact they aren't is why he supports gay marriage. There's no character assasination in the quoted section.
quote:Because domestic violence and divorce are the rule, rather than the exception, in those marriages.
quote:nearly 1 in 3 adult women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. American Psychl. Ass'n, Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996), p. 10.
quote:Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships with the same statistical frequency as in heterosexual relationships.
the prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 25.
battering among Lesbians crosses age, race, class, lifestyle and socio-economic lines. Lobel, ed., Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering, 183 (1986).
each year, between 50,000 and 100,000 Lesbian women and as many as 500,000 Gay men are battered. Murphy, Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 335 (1995).
while same-sex battering mirrors heterosexual battering both in type and prevalence, its victims receive fewer protections. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 24.
seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-sex victims; 21 states have sodomy laws that may require same-sex victims to confess to a crime in order to prove they are in a domestic relationship. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 24.
posted
Maybe people are afraid of gay marriage because they don't want their kids thinking that it is okay to be gay because their religion condemns it. Maybe they're afraid that people who would otherwise be happily straight would decide to be gay because of a bad experience or lack of members of the opposite sex. Maybe they're afraid that people will just start having mass orgies with anyone and everyone.
Those perceptions might not be held by anyone... or they might be held falsely... but I wonder if that's what's underlying the opposition? There is a vast stereotype out there that homosexuals are very permiscuous with many partners. Shows like Will and Grace with Jack who sleeps with many men, and coverage of Gay Pride parades with naked people dancing around reinforces that idea. I guess it doesn't really matter that heterosexuals display the same promiscuity on television--even more so. (That's a whole other problem!)
I'm posting this because it just occurred to me what people might mean when they talk about the decline of marriage and the family if gay marriage is allowed.
posted
Nah. If someone has to leave, how about it be you?
See the "log out" button? It's your friend. Push it. You know you want to. (That's you. Laughing and pushing the log out button.)
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I'm fully aware of the values oriented nature of that judgement. In this case, it's certainly a value judgement that children should not be molested, that they should enter adulthood with a degree of mental and physical health comparable to their peers, that the couples we are specifcally diverting resoureces to should show permenance, and a whole host of other thigns that people have characterized homosexual relationships as lacking in.
Wow. Character assassination much? There are just so many things wrong with what you just wrote that it's hard to know where to start.
Squick is NOT saying that homosexuals are more likely to bring about any of these outcomes. The fact they aren't is why he supports gay marriage. There's no character assasination in the quoted section.
That's not how it sounds to me.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Because domestic violence and divorce are the rule, rather than the exception, in those marriages.
quote:If I thought that allowing gay marriage would not benefit or would even harm society, I'd be against it, even as much as I am for gay rights.
Further, he has spent most of his time on this thread responding to others' allegations that gay marriage would lead to those negative consequences.
There's lots to disagree with Squick about, but accusing him of character assasination on the basis of his thinking that homosexual marriages lead to the listed negative outcomes is not one of them. He's the one who has posted studies to the contrary and demanded scientific proof of such allegations.
quote:I hardly think that we can do worse.
What's you're basis for stating that? I have no idea if homosexual couples will do worse or not, but clearly it's possible.
posted
Okay..I just figured out the birdie thing. mackillian is a user who evidently made up this: --l-- for the middle finger.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Maybe people are afraid of gay marriage because they don't want their kids thinking that it is okay to be gay because their religion condemns it.
Could be. I'm sure there are Catholics who dislike the fact that divorce is legal in the US (let alone incredibly prevalent), because it could give their kids the idea that divorce is acceptable, when their religion condemns it.
Honestly, Katarain, I understand what you're saying. And they're entitled to feel that way. But the laws in this country must remain religion-neutral.
There are other religions around where their adherants could dislike the fact that same-sex marriage is banned in the US, because that might give their kids the impression that there's something wrong with gay relationships, or being gay, and their religion condemns those positions.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Maybe they're afraid that people who would otherwise be happily straight would decide to be gay because of a bad experience or lack of members of the opposite sex.
I had a friend in Israel who used to tell me she wished she was a lesbian. She found men to be noxious, by and large (I don't, btw), and it annoyed her immensely that she was attracted to them, and not to women.
I get that there are people who have that fear, but ultimately, it really isn't any of their business. They can do whatever social or religious sanctions they want, but legal ones are off-limits.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Maybe they're afraid that people will just start having mass orgies with anyone and everyone.
Those perceptions might not be held by anyone... or they might be held falsely... but I wonder if that's what's underlying the opposition? There is a vast stereotype out there that homosexuals are very permiscuous with many partners. Shows like Will and Grace with Jack who sleeps with many men, and coverage of Gay Pride parades with naked people dancing around reinforces that idea. I guess it doesn't really matter that heterosexuals display the same promiscuity on television--even more so. (That's a whole other problem!)
I'm posting this because it just occurred to me what people might mean when they talk about the decline of marriage and the family if gay marriage is allowed.
-Katarain
Maybe. You could be right. I don't think that justifies it, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mackillian is the name of a poster on the other side, "Books, Food, Culture, etc.". You lamented the lack of a "flipping-you-off" graemlin. I meant to say 'bird', not birdie-golf was on in the background, heh.
--l-- is one way of flipping someone off. It's usually used in jest .
-------
The bottom line is that yes, this is about homosexual and human rights. People making the irrelevant claim that all proponents of SSM want is to throw out obvious definitions are losing track of one simple thing: marriage is not a scientific term. It's not a mathematic formula. 2+2=4 in 1600CE as well as in 2005CE, but by no means was a 1600CE marriage the same as a 2005CE marriage.
Hell, even a 1950CE marriage.
Marriage means what we want it to mean. It's a subjective term. Heterosexuals have been in the business of changing what marriage means for as long as we've been shacking up and making babies.
Already as far as the government is concerned, the term marriage has been stripped down from its 'original' definition (not that there is such a thing outside of religious discussion) to something very different than what most people think of when they think of marriage.
Marriage in the eyes of the government does not mean love, it does not mean a lifetime, it does not mean shared goals, it doesn't even mean cohabitation. Hell, as long as neither party minds, it doesn't even mean fidelity. Marriage in the eyes of the government entails zero committment and sacrifice beyond just getting a darned license, and I'm not even sure THAT costs anything, and it entails a host of benefits and (ideally) responsibilities.
So all this talk about how marriage is between a man and a woman and 'always' has been is hogwash. No one can reasonably deny that every other specific point about marriage has been changed and modified constantly. Therefore the idea that 'this is how it's always been' is meaningless and irrelevant. We (heterosexuals and Americans) have been changing every other aspect of the definition, so frankly let's own up that there's only one real reason we would add homosexuality to it: because we don't want to.
Well, that's not 'we'. That's you (heterosexuals and Americans), of whom I am one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage in the eyes of the government does not mean love, it does not mean a lifetime, it does not mean shared goals, it doesn't even mean cohabitation. Hell, as long as neither party minds, it doesn't even mean fidelity. Marriage in the eyes of the government entails zero committment and sacrifice beyond just getting a darned license, and I'm not even sure THAT costs anything, and it entails a host of benefits and (ideally) responsibilities.
Yup. And in my state at least, not even a blood test.
quote:Rather, he seems to me to in many cases be writing to enflame the people who agree with him and to dehumanize and spread false information about the people who disagree with him.
Just because you are being sincere about something doesn't mean you're being respectful. You're calling him a lying, bigoted demagogue who is calculated in his hatred and actions. That's disrespectful.
And frankly it should be disrespectful. I don't speak respectfully about David Duke, or Louis Farrakan, or that G-d Hates Fags guy, or any other such pathetic demagogue. You're insulting OSC. Just because you believe you're right doesn't change the fact that you're insulting him.
Telling the truth can be disrespectful. I obviously disagree that you are right about this, but that doesn't change anything as far as disrespect is concerned. I fail to see how it can be anything but deliberate obtuseness that you fail to understand this.
---------
quote:If you got say a rate of 5% of the base undiagnosed, you could say with some degree of confidence, that similar populations likely also have around 5% undiagnosed schizophrenics.
What 'aggressive systems' would you use? Schizophrenia is a mental problem, it has symptoms, symptoms which sometimes are out of the victim's control. It could be noticed or at least inferred without the victim's cooperation.
I don't think homosexuality is like that. I think it's quite possible for a homosexual to 'pass', for lack of a better word. Not every homosexual is 'flaming', not every homosexual is liberal in their sexuality. It is possible for a homosexual to be as conservative in demeanor and silent about their sex-life as it is for a heterosexual.
Homosexuals still have many compelling reasons not to reveal their homosexuality to the community at large, Mr. Squicky. 'Aggressive systems' of sampling aren't going to overcome those reasons in every case, and that's at the heart of my mistrust of studies claming to speak for what the 'homosexual community' is like.
We have a hard time pinning down what the economy is doing, and there are receipts for that!
quote:Are you suggesting that there is a correlative relationship between unreported child abuse and being firmly in the closet?
I think you know that I wasn't, and for the record-again-I was claiming no such relationship or even suggesting it. I was asking a question-how do you KNOW there isn't? You can't! UNREPORTED!
Also, apply your observations about OSC to yourself and writing styles. Am I to take it as anything but an insult, a question designed to paint me as a bigoted homophobe, that you asked that question?
Because given what I've said and the question you asked, the implication is obvious.
----------
I'll explain-again-my inferences about OSC. They stem largely from the novel Songmaster. In it, a homosexual character is portrayed, and the man is not a monster, he's not indecent, he's not a flamer, he's not anything except a human being.
I have said before and I'll say again that I do not believe OSC could both be guilty of what you're accusing him of, and have written such a compelling story including a homosexual man.
His word choice was, at best, very bad and offensive, and he should have known better. That's another thing I've said before. But I have these two conflicting sets of circumstances, and I chose to believe one thing, you choose to believe another.
In point of fact there are only three times I can remember OSC mentioning either rape or child molestation. One time, in Hart's Hope it was the rape of a young girl, a child, by a grown man. Second, in a short story in which a grown man molests his young daughter, another child. The third time is in Lost Boys, in which a grown man molests and murders a number of boys.
I think it's possible to learn something about how a person thinks from what they write, all of what they write. Weekly columns and lengthy novels.
I'm not going to flog this dead horse anymore with you, Mr. Squicky. I have made my meaning very clear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
"I'll explain-again-my inferences about OSC. They stem largely from the novel Songmaster. In it, a homosexual character is portrayed, and the man is not a monster, he's not indecent, he's not a flamer, he's not anything except a human being."
Remember the consequences being gay had for that poor kid in Songmaster...*shudder*
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mackillian is the name of a poster on the other side, "Books, Food, Culture, etc.". You lamented the lack of a "flipping-you-off" graemlin. I meant to say 'bird', not birdie-golf was on in the background, heh.
--l-- is one way of flipping someone off. It's usually used in jest .
Ah, I see. That's going to come in muy useful. Thanks.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
She posted something while angered. You either 1) Posted a list of insults you didn't mean intended to piss people off, or 2) Posted a list of insults that did piss people off and lied about your motivations later.
That makes starLisa human; it makes you either 1) a dishonest troll or 2) a dishonest jerk.
You intended to provoke, you claim. Don't be surprised when we fail to get mad at a person for doing what you wanted.
Add in that starLisa has added many posts of value to the board. To date, you've just conducted this twisted little psychological experiment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you please go away now IdahoEEBoy? I know I should not encourage you by speaking but really. Buzz off. You are ridiculous.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but what were the circumstances of those consequences?
The man was essentially murdered by Riktors because Riktors was jealous, not because Riktors or Josif (I cannot for the life of me remember the name) were homosexual (in fact, he was bisexual come to think of it).
Those consequences also stemmed from the Songhouse's essential neutering of Ansset as well.
But before those things happened-before the jealous, lust for power, cruelty and ruthlessness of Riktors, Josif was a man with hopes, dreams, qualities and flaws.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't being very specific, sorry. Only because I meant it as more of a general idea. I was thinking more about Ansset and what happened to him (the pain he went through) as well as Josif's murder and all the misunderstandings. I don't know if it matters that all this pain came from trying to share in same sex relations, it still makes a great story. I was just pointing out that being gay (or bisexual) did not have a happy ending for these people. And if they had not been trying to be intimate with each other, none of it ever would have happened. Did I explain that ok? Because I don't know if that even made sense to me!
{edit for a P.S.} Ps. I agree with you that Josif was a great character, and that OSC wrote him beautifully. So was Ansset. That's one of the reasons I never understood OSC's views on gays and lesbians.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think it's likely that Riktors would've reacted the same if Ansset had been sexually involved with anyone, not just Josif. Also, the Songhouse's...alterations...would've manifested in heterosexual relations as well.
Then again, now that I think about it, perhaps Riktors would not have reacted the same way. Perhaps Riktors's terrible jealousy would not have been aroused if Ansset had been involved with a woman, because that would mean that his refusal to be involved with Riktors was just because he (Ansset) wasn't homosexual.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that these things would have happened if he had heterosexual relations with someone. But he didn't, you see? I am not saying it was done on purpose either. It was just a thought.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, There are plenty of methods besides asking are you gay to determine if someone is gay. Responses on both projective and physiolgical arousal have been shown to discriminate between gay and straight people. As I've said, this method (which is only one of the methods used to estimate unreported conditions) works whenever there is a more thorough method. Also, as I've said, statistical sampling doesn't need to measure an entire population to form reliable inferences about that population.
You've misunderstood my point about correlation. I was saying that your objection rests on the assumption that there is a correlation between someone being a victim of unreported abuse and being a closeted homosexual, not that closeted homosexuals commit unreported sexual abuse.
---
starL, You could have saved yourself what appeared to be a deal of agitation and effort if you read me more carefully. As Dag said, I wasn't making any accusations about the actual state of homosexcual marriage, which I'm all for. I was describing conditions that could exist (and that many opponents claim do exist) that would make it so that I wouldn't support gay marriage. The way you're phrasing your arguments, it wouldn't matter to you if these were the case, gay people would deserve to get married and (although this perhaps is an overextention on my part, they are closely related issues) adopt and raise children anyway. I disagree with this idea, but as I'm pretty darn sure none of those things are true, I strongly support gay marriage and adoption.
---
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to offer up reasons why gay marriage is a bad idea that don't rely on "God says so" or prejudices.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
to you!![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
(That's you. Laughing and pushing the log out button.)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
