quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: swbarnes2, I didn't ask you whether I could make judgments. I asked if you thought it was necessarily bigotry
People assess you based on what you type here. If you type that gay people are as "immoral" as alcoholics...well, they are going to come to certain conclusions.
What am I supposed to do about that?
quote:As for what I expect, it's prejudice against moralists, actually, which I'm getting from you quite nicely. :-)
No, you aren't. What this is, as I already said, and you have ignored twice, is a differece in how "morality" is defined. Much of the modern world has moved onto a definition that is about harm and concent, and the Golden Rule. By that definition, there's nothing immoral about gay people or what they do at all.
So when you say you are being "moral", I say you are being morally backwards, and by hurting innocent people, it is you who are the immoral one.
And you want to flay me for making a moral judgment, go right on ahead. Say how awful and relativistic and perverted I am for not wanting to punish innocent people who aren't hurting anyone, but are only being stepped on by the "moral" righteous. I won't complain. I may try to rebut, but I won't whine.
quote:Also, since you seem to be of the "if it doesn't hurt people it's not wrong" mindset, I take it you are in favor of legalizing marriage for sibling and parent/child relationships?
The point of civil marriage is, in part, to form a legal bond where there is no family one. So siblings and parent/child pairs don't really need them.
Biologically, it just doesn't happen often enough to be a worry. And because of that, when it does come up, it's because someone is being coerced (and yes, adults can be coerced too), which would obviosuly negate a contract which requires two consenting parties.
What's your answer: "No, because I say so"? "No, because my favorite religious book says not to"? "No, because I think it's icky, and no one should be allowed to do things I find icky"?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
I hesitate to. Because I know that some people have absolutely set in stone feelings on this issue, and I have no desire to make them feel like I have any reason to believe they're bad, or that I don't understand why they feel the way they do.
I do. For a long time, I supported same sex marriage. I actually saw it as a freedom of religion issue, believe it or not. If someone belived that God, Nature, or their own morality told them they should be able to marry someone of their own gender, who was I to argue with them?
So I respect everybody's opinion on this.
In the past few years, I've come to feel differently. Because I realized that I was thinking about things purely from the point of view of the rights of adults.
I hadn't been considering the rights of kids.
It could be argued that the drive on the part of children to have both a mother and a father is just as biological as the desire of either sexual orientation to be attracted to a certain gender.
Even if you were fortunate enough to have two parents who stayed together, you either can see the unique influence they each brought to your life or you've seen the emotions it caused in your friends who lacked the influence of both parents.
Kids deserve to be able to have, if at all possible, a mom and a dad. Each brings a unique perspective to the child, because men and women are different.
If men and women weren't different, it wouldn't matter so much to people which gender they wanted to pair off with.
This does not inherently suggest that homosexuals are bad parents. If my wife were to die, and one of my brothers were to move in with me to help me raise my children, no one would argue we didn't love our kids. No one would say were less capable, and certainly no one would hate us.
They would just feel sad that the children had lost the influence of a mother in their lives.
This would not neccessarily imply any hostility, bigotry, or bad feelings towards us. No one would be saying we were bad caretakers. They'd just be acknowling we couldn't be something we weren't: a Mom.
That's what preserving the current defition of marriage could offer future generations of children: That men and women are different, and bring different things to a parenting union, we'll continue to consider that as being the ideal, for the sake of children.
I know people toss around studies that show how many times a child in this type of situation or that type of situation end up getting good grades and staying well adjusted.
As my analogy above indicates, I'm not talking about what groups are capable of raising well-adjusted children. I'm going for a deeper goal here than simply having the kids turn out okay.
Those arguements are silly anyway--if studies showed that gay marriages, say, increased global warming, would the advocates of gay marriage really back down? Of course not. Because in the end, their goal isn't about doing what studies have shown is best--it's about granting what they feel to be fundamental rights.
It's the same way for me.
I believe that children have the right to be born into a family with a mother and a father. It's a basic desire in all humans, probably even more universal than heterosexuality.
It's a right that legislation can never enforce. Laws cannot prevent death or separation or divorce. Laws can't even reduce the death rater or the divorce rate.
But at least, by preserving the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, we're still acknowledging as a society that we recognize that we're putting the rights of children first.
Someone here is going to have to give up something they want. I think it should be the grown-ups.
****
What about gays and adoption?
I think that gay adoption should be viewed in exactly the same way as the situation I described earlier with me and my brother. If the state would, in that scenario, allow my brother and I to adopt a child, they should allow homosexuals to do the same.
Since most states have adoption scenarios roughly equivalent to the number of children availabe for adoption, it would still give children the best chance of being raised in traditonal mother-father households, but not take away from another child the chance to be raised by two people who would love him, rather than be shuttled between foster families or being a ward of the state.
*****
The comparison is often made: If marriage is about children, then what about couples who, because of age or health, are unable to have children? Should their union not be called a "marriage" either?
I hope you can see why, from what I describe above, that doesn't apply. Anyone is free to marry who is capable of proving that man-woman union that children both need and desire.
This is also why same sex marriage is different than interraccial marriage, interfaith marriage, or any of the other scenarios described.
None of those could possibly be argued as interfering with the desire/right of a child to have a parent of each gender.
--------------
This whole idea that having a parent of each gender is a right, a right that isn't enforcable, but only promotable--is that up for discussion?
Of course it is.
Some will dismiss it out of hand, of course, without giving it any thought.
Others will leap on it immediately, accepting it simply because it reinforces their previous beliefs.
But amidst all this discussion about which grown up deserves what, I think it's a discussion that isn't being given nearly enough serious analysis.
Not justification. Not just people on one side or the other coming up with all the reasons why, off the top of their head, their view is the right one.
But we're leaping headlong into this whole thing about the rights of adults based on their bilogical and psycological desires without any serious discussion being given to the biological and psycological desires of children.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Parent/child sexual relationships are, by nature, predatory. There is indeed harm.
Adults are still the children of the parents. I'm talking about adults. Say a 22 year old and their 37 year old parent, for example, wanting to get married. Where's the harm?
Edit: [still thunderstruck at a totally unexpected, unintending interpretation of my words]
It isn't the age question as much as the parent/child relationship is one of inequality. A 22 year old will still have been the 37 year old's child. Will still have been an eight year old when his 23 year old mother was telling him to clean his room. Or a 2 year old when her 17 year old dad was trying to potty train her.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone is free to marry who is capable of proving that man-woman union that children both need and desire.
It's not the children who need and desire it...it's the parents. I have yet to see any study that indicates children with two gay parents are any less healthy or happy than children of straight parents.
Now, if your goal is to continue the existence of "These are the things that women do, and these are the things that men do", then it makes perfect sense to want to keep the gays from raising children. Because when gays have children, they consistently show that they can fulfill all the roles that straight parents fill, just not in the conventional ways.
So if you can show me a study that demonstrates that straight parents are objectively better than the equivalent gay parents for the health of the children, I'll be behind you.
Otherwise, to me it just looks like an excuse to continue the status quo.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Let's say that you had a gay son, and a straight daughter.
What would you tell them you think the laws should be regarding their ability to get married, and raise children?
Would you really say "Jimmy, you will go to your sister's wedding some day. She will never go to yours, you won't have one"?
Or if your son-in-law confessed "I'm really gay, but I had to marry some girl, so I picked your daughter", would that be okay with you?
Yes, it's a hypothetical, but it happens to millions of families. What do you think those parents, in an ideal world, would tell their children?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
What exact, quantifiable quality (aside from genitals, which aren't directly used much in child-rearing) is it that every woman ever born has but is impossible for any man to get under any circumstance? And what exact quality does a man have that no woman could ever emulate?
I've never understood the "a child needs a mother and a father" argument. It seems to me that the kind of person who feels like a child needs something from a man that no woman could ever replicate (or vice versa) is probably the same kind of person who expected all of Hillary Clinton's supporters to automatically vote for John McCain once he chose Palin for his VP.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2, you are not even consistent in your own beliefs. You denigrate me for making a judgment you disagree with, based on your view of morality, which you assume is necessarily superior, and then you go and trivialize the desires of incestuous couples. What of their rights? Because they are a tiny minority, they do not count?
While I may not agree with them, I sincerely applaud the consistency of Threads and rollainm.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't the age question as much as the parent/child relationship is one of inequality.
No problem, how about a dad wants to marry his sterile daughter that he never helped raise? They're in love, you can't change that, and they want to get married. Do you deny them?
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: So if you can show me a study that demonstrates that straight parents are objectively better than the equivalent gay parents for the health of the children, I'll be behind you.
To be honest, I would be interested in a study that says anything about this either way, it is an interesting issue.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: What exact, quantifiable quality (aside from genitals, which aren't directly used much in child-rearing) is it that every woman ever born has but is impossible for any man to get under any circumstance? And what exact quality does a man have that no woman could ever emulate?
I'm not sure it is necessarily that clear cut. After all, what exact, quantifiable quality does a set of adoptive white parents have that a set of black biological parents doesn't have?
Nothing really, yet I do think that *all other things being equal* a black child would have an easier time growing up in a family of their own race.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm not sure it is necessarily that clear cut. After all, what exact, quantifiable quality does a set of adoptive white parents have that a set of black biological parents doesn't have?
Nothing really, yet I do think that *all other things being equal* a black child would have an easier time growing up in a family of their own race.
OK... at least you admit what your conclusion is based on.
I, on the other hand, think that statement is both untrue and irrelevant. But you have a right to your opinion. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)? ...
The issue with that argument is not merely that it is a cliched line, but that its logically almost without value. It actually shoots one in their own foot rather than adding to one's argument.
TomDavidson has posted a pretty consistent position that religious opinions should be ignored. Ok. Thats a position that can be debated and defended on its own merits.
Now imagine if he had explicitly said, "I don't hate Christians, in fact I have a Christian friend." before that. That should ring alarm bells and rightly so.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speed: The struggles of adopted Chinese children by North American parents are quite well documented and have even reached the status of popular entertainment, such as the last episode of House.
While other factors such as a chance at a better livelihood make the choice a positive one (albeit one that is rapidly declining), it hard to deny that growing up in a completely different racial environment doesn't add significant pressures to one's upbringing.
Its not just my opinion, consider this:
quote: As the CEO of one of the nation's most experienced international adoption agencies, I am committed to doing what's best for orphaned children. When children lose their parents, it's always better for them to remain in their country of birth, provided that someone — a relative or adoptive parent — is able to care for them. It's only when kids have no options or opportunities for a family in their native countries that international adoption should be considered. ... Lillian Thogersen has adopted eight children internationally, and is the CEO of WACAP (World Association for Children and Parents), a nonprofit adoption agency based in Renton.
quote:It isn't the age question as much as the parent/child relationship is one of inequality.
No problem, how about a dad wants to marry his sterile daughter that he never helped raise? They're in love, you can't change that, and they want to get married. Do you deny them?
They should have to undergo genetic counseling, so they understand the probable results of their having a child together. They can't be kept from having a child if they so wish, but they need to fully understand the probabilities.
It's a little "icky", but the right to let consenting adults do as they please is more important than avoiding my "ick" factor.
But, if you wish to address consistancy, why don't you say straight out if you think that two women, whose physical disabilities bar them from any kind of sexual activity, should still be allowed to marry.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, this may make me evil, but I think if my daughter came home and said, I am marrying this great guy. He has a disability that makes sexual activity impossible for him" it would be very hard for me to support the marriage. So, if I wouldn't support it for straight folks, I am not sure I could support it for lesbians. Of course, from a legal standpoint, I am in favor of doing away with marriage all together and just having civil unions. For civil unions, the expectation of sex is no longer there for me, just the legal committment to each other.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What exact, quantifiable quality (aside from genitals, which aren't directly used much in child-rearing) is it that every woman ever born has but is impossible for any man to get under any circumstance? And what exact quality does a man have that no woman could ever emulate?
What exact, quantifiable quality is it that women have that make lesbians attracted to them that no man could ever emulate? (Besides sexual charictaristics, because, like heterosexual unions, real, lasting gay relationships are about more than physcial attraction.)
There isn't just one.
Obviously there are some, though, and while no two lesbians would neccessarily agree on which ones are responsible for their own personal psychological and biological prefrences, the differences are there.
And they're predominant enough among the genders that it makes people driven to want to form long-term emotional relationships with one gender over another.
Same with children. While there is no one, single thing that creates the difference, it's the general package that makes women both attractive to heterosexual men, attractive to lesbians, and deseriable as mothers for children.
Consider it this way (a gross oversimplificiation, but meant to be just complex enough to make my point:
In general, women are more disposed to have qualities a, b, c, and d. Men are more disposed to have qualities w, x, y and z.
If an uppercase letter represents qualities people have in larger amounts, a lower case letter represents qualities people have in lesser amounts, and no letter represents a quality that person possesses only to the degree that all humanity has it:
A group of women might be:
aBcX ACxy bcDz
And a group of men might be:
XyZa WyzB wYbc
Make sense? So among adults, men or women attracted to quality A would be more attracted to the first two women and the first man.
It's the fact that a lesbian finds quality A so much more often among women than men that she is more inclined, either because of bigology or psychology, to want to have her long term relationships with women instead of men.
So there doesn't need to be a set value on "Attribute A" as being the one that makes a Mom a good mom, any more than "Attribute A" is what makes a woman attractive to a heterosexual man or a lesbian. But just as some combination of traits are found more often among women than men, making them more attractive to certain people, a certain pool attributes are found more often among women that make them more suitable for the role of "Mom."
I'd even suggest that some of those attributes might be physical. I'm not speaking sexually, but has anyone considered that the bodies of a child's parents might influence a child? Again, we'd have to study it, but in general, does a child get different things from a hug from Dad than a hug from Mom? Does a supportive kiss from a father produce different emotional and/or chemical reactions in a child from a supportive kiss from a mother?
These are the kinds of questions we don't have answers to.
And from there, we work out deciding how much weight to give to the findings. Do we allow these hypothetical natural signs of a child's pre-disposition towards traditional parenting rules a place in the law, or do we just let them go, as long as the parenting situation results in a child who meets a certain standard of "healthy?"
If you're in favor of marriage between a man and a woman, and say you'd go with the studies, think about this:
What if studies showed that it didn't matter who or what was being called mom or dad, all the same reactions happened in the child, even if it was, say, a pair of social workers caring for a ward of the state? Would you be in favor of letting the two people be called "Mom" and "Dad" just because studies showed it might give the child an increased sense of stability, and made their grades go up?
I don't mean for anyone to actually answer these hypotheticals.
I just mean to say there are complicated issues regarding the relationships of parents and children that deserve to be treated with the complexity that they deserve.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
So, with you and Lillian Thogersen, I guess that makes two people whose unsupported statements I disagree with.
Not that it matters. Before you go killing yourself finding better evidence against interracial adoption, remember that unless you can find the same quality evidence against homosexual adoption, it's still irrelevant.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: It could be argued that the drive on the part of children to have both a mother and a father is just as biological as the desire of either sexual orientation to be attracted to a certain gender.
I could be mistaken but I think that biologically speaking there is a desire for a mother but not necessarily a father. /nitpick
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't wish to get too heavily involved in this debate, as it is an issue that's pretty personal with me. I have homosexual family members that have lived with the scorn and persecution of the societies in which we live. I oppose the amendment, and if you were to challenge me on my reasons, it really boils down to that in my gut it feels like the right thing to do. I can't materialize it with evidence or figures.
JFK gave a quote once that, to put mildly, changed my perspective in life. I was always frustrated with people who didn't agree with me on social issues, particularly because I couldn't express myself. (Not a good thing for a debater) Finally I found a quote that helps me conceptualize my reasoning for others. He said, "Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs, but rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others."
In other words, I don't see how allowing SSM in any way, shape, or form changes my feelings of commitment and love. I feel as though there is no reason for me to oppose SSM, and after seeing the damage of the stereotypes and oppression against my family, I feel morally compelled to try to play my part to alleviate their pain.
However, I recognize that this is only my own view, and I don't judge people solely for being for the amendment. This is a difficult issue that requires a lot of thought. It's a decision that a person shouldn't come to easily, and therefor I try not to judge their motives based on the decision. I judge the person based on their motives. (Though I also do recognize I probably shouldn't judge people at all.)
So when I see Puppy's concern saying,
quote: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)?
That's a good question.
I don't think that Puppy's a bigot. Especially when reading his motivation, which is a concern for children that he thinks can be brought by a same-sex couple. While I disagree with him on this point, I certainly don't think any less of him. His concern is for the well-being of children. How could someone be angry with that? I think it is unfair that so many of us who are opposed to the bill characterize those who support it as 'bigots.' I mean, if our argument comes down to tolerance, then shouldn't we be tolerant of those who oppose us as well? We shouldn't be hypocrites. We should be understanding of the difference of opinion, and just hope for the best on our side. And if we lose, I can't imagine this issue not coming up again. We will live to fight another day.
So to answer your question, Puppy, I don't think there is a good answer to that accusation. But I don't think that accusation should be thrown around so lightly.
ETA: I also understand the concern of the slippery slope playing with the definition of marriage plays, but I don't want to worry about those issues right now. What I do want to worry about is helping those who are asking for it.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speed: "unsupported", you use that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. If the informed opinion of both someone that runs an international adoption agency and has actually adopted internationally eight times is unsupported, if the piles of documentation on the subject by adoptees is unsupported, than what is your declaration by fiat? Is support even in the same neighbourhood? The same galaxy?
It is also perfectly relevant. It goes back to both your question about exact and quantifiable differences AND the OP.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yeah. Seriously. Let them have unions and couples rights.
Straights want the term 'marriage'. Deal. All yours.
People and children all over Earth are starving, being denied human rights, and dieing. Our government is corrupt to the core, our Churches are making far more money than they product they are putting out should be at fair market value, and the world economy is in the hands of a very few.
Legislate pre-marital sex, or remarriage under the same BIBLICAL standards, and then maybe, just maybe, you'll have some ground to stand on.
LET THE LORD JUDGE THEM
treat them as the same sinner you are.
Hmmm. What if a gay man with good works is better than someone with no works but isn't gay? Who are you to add up the unquantifiable?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If civil marriage had more to do with children then it does, doc, your arguments would carry more weight. But civil marriage is a congolmerate of hundreds or thousands of priveleges, rights, and responsibilities, almost all of which have nothing to do with children.
If we want to start applying marriage laws only to unions with kids, then we can start talking. But until then, civil marriage in this country is far more about pair-bonding then it is about child rearing.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No problem, how about a dad wants to marry his sterile daughter that he never helped raise? They're in love, you can't change that, and they want to get married. Do you deny them?
I'll go out on a limb, here: I can imagine cases in which a marriage between a daughter and her father would not be harmful to either party. However, I think the incalculable majority of such cases would be so inequitable that society is justified in saying, "No, we won't permit it -- even in this one specific, possibly non-harmful case -- because the precedent is bad."
It's the same logic used to deny even the most talented 14-year-old drivers their license, or require that kids be 16 or 18 or whatever (depending on the state) before they can choose to get married: at some point, we need to draw a quasi-arbitrary line, unless we want to put each individual case through some kind of lengthy review.
But here's the thing: when we draw these lines, we justify their arbitrary nature based on the likely possibility of harm. In this case -- a marriage between two people of the same sex -- I don't perceive any potential harm in the general case that justifies denying the possibility to the broader population.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If civil marriage had more to do with children then it does, doc, your arguments would carry more weight. But civil marriage is a congolmerate of hundreds or thousands of priveleges, rights, and responsibilities, almost all of which have nothing to do with children.
Again, you're looking at it from an adult perspective. The reason the connection I'm making resonates so much with me comes from the other direction.
While many marriages have lost their connection to children, children have never lost their fundamental connection to parents. A marriage can exist without children, but no child can exist without a desire to connect with and be nurtured by a family.
So while not every marriage has to deal with the issue of children, every child has to deal with the issue of marriage. That's a large enough group that I feel their best interests are worth considering.
quote:But here's the thing: when we draw these lines, we justify their arbitrary nature based on the likely possibility of harm.
Or we draw them based on possible benifits.
For example, when we place the demarcation line in a graduated income tax scale, we may lower it by X number of points because that would raise $### million more dollars in the treasury. We're not afraid of hurting anybody--we're looking to give someone something, or pomote an additonal benefit.
However, we might slide it back the other way based on fear of harm. Will this put too much of a burden on a person at that borderline?
So all these issues fall along some kind of scale between potential harm vs. potential benifit.
Lots of the states, for example, that have lower driving ages have them because they're traditionally rural communities that set the age at a time when Jr. needed to have a liscence so he could work the fields.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"While many marriages have lost their connection to children, children have never lost their fundamental connection to parents. A marriage can exist without children, but no child can exist without a desire to connect with and be nurtured by a family. "
I would argue that extending marriage rights to gay couples will increase the percentage of children raised in a more nurturing family.
"every child has to deal with the issue of marriage."
maybe. But, again, extend marriage, and a greater percentage of children will be raised within the confines of marriage.
"That's a large enough group that I feel their best interests are worth considering."
Their best interests are worth considering. But, in general, when we're talking about marriage, we're not talking about a civil institution that is designed to promote the best interests of children. most of civil marriage law deals with pair-bonding, and property distribution.
Aside from that is the point made above that no one has shown children of gay parents are worse off then children of straight parents in any objective way.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So while not every marriage has to deal with the issue of children, every child has to deal with the issue of marriage. That's a large enough group that I feel their best interests are worth considering.
Which children, specifically, do you think will be harmed if SSM is permitted? Are the gays going to steal children from heterosexuals? Will there be a run on the adoption agencies by gays? (Note that in California, gays can already adopt.)
Doesn't allowing SSM in California merely provide a better environment for children who are already being raised by gay parents?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: ... no one has shown children of gay parents are worse off then children of straight parents in any objective way.
I seriously doubt that. In the trivial case, I suspect that children of gay parents probably suffer significantly greater prejudice and stigma for being the children of gay parents than the children of straight parents Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As far as I know, it is against the rules to endorse a candidate, not to back a political issue.
Maybe it's time to change that. Seems to me that would be pretty easy to get on the ballot.
I don't think it would be easy to get on the ballot, and it would run afoul of constitutional challenges very quickly if it passed.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I am LDS.
I believe that male same-sex attraction is largely genetic/determined before birth. I believe that homosexual partnerships should have legal rights equal with heterosexual couples. I believe they should get health and death benefits, be able to foster and adopt (heaven knows we have enough kids in need of loving homes, I don't care who's taking care of them as long as they're taken care of and well!) I believe that civil unions should be legally equivalent to marriage-- as they are in the state of California.
I also believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, and that churches should not have to marry people who do not meet their criteria for marriage, whether that's same-sex, remaining chaste before marriage, both members of their church, or whatever the requirements might be.
Amen.
Except for the "I am LDS." part of that post I could have written it myself. As a matter of fact, I think I have posted almost the same things a number of times here at Hatrack.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with ketchupqueen up to the "marriage should be defined as..."
Frankly, I don't see the point of creating a second class of "marriage" unless it's to deliberately create a lower class of marriage. I'd rather the word "marriage" wasn't used by the government at all; barring that, I'd expect to have it applied to all such unions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)? ...
The issue with that argument is not merely that it is a cliched line, but that its logically almost without value. It actually shoots one in their own foot rather than adding to one's argument.
TomDavidson has posted a pretty consistent position that religious opinions should be ignored. Ok. Thats a position that can be debated and defended on its own merits.
Now imagine if he had explicitly said, "I don't hate Christians, in fact I have a Christian friend." before that. That should ring alarm bells and rightly so.
I disagree completely with your interpretation of that. I don't think it should send up warning flag or that it is worthless even if true.
I was accused of being racist by some white kid when I was in the Army. We didn't know each other, and I got really pissed at a Hispanic guy in my squad. Of course it HAD to be racism...it couldn't have been because I knew the guy and he screwed me over.
I simply said that anyone who knew me (as this guy really didn't) would know that couldn't be true. I got along well with most people in my squad, and about 3/4 of them were Afro-American or Hispanic, and I considered several of them to be friends.
In and of itself such a statement can be questioned, but I don't think it is without merit.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For legal marriage (as opposed to sacramental marriage. I don't think the government should be in the business of administering sacraments.) Partly because of history. Marriage is a contract. Originally, it transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Other times, it sealed alliances. It has been and still is a contractual combination of assets from two households into one. It turns two legal entities into one entity for certain purposes.
I guess I wasn't really asking for the original purpose of marriage (which is guessed at, but unknown) or the function of marriage. Talking about the "value" of marriage is like talking about the "value" of having evolved opposable thumbs.
Knowing how a thumb works doesn't tell you why we evolved it, and talking about the "purpose" of a thumb is either a religious question ("why did God give us the thumb?") or an irrelevant question (natural selection doesn't have "purposes", only mechanisms).
Similarly, when we're talking about the value of marriage, knowing that it's a contract with certain provisions doesn't tell us why we have it. Knowing the purposes of its originators similarly won't tell you why it exists today, nor will it at all inform how we ought to treat it in our society, now.
Instead, the question we need to ask ourselves, on both counts, is why has this feature (of our bodies, or of our culture) survived until today? What survival value did an opposable thumb have, which made it so that the only surviving primates on our branch of the evolutionary tree are the ones who possessed it? Similarly, what survival value does marriage have, such that all of the dominant human cultures on earth currently practice it, or have practiced it very recently?
quote:And, yes, it did make contractual the obligation of the groom to care for any children that issued from the union. Of course, now fathers are legally responsible for their children whether or not they are married to the mother.
I hope you can tell the difference between a father being legally obligated to send a check to the mother each month or go to jail, versus a father being closely involved with a child's upbringing.
quote:Why do you think we have legal marriage?
I'm still working on the "survival value" question myself, which is why I asked you. But I do strongly suspect that it (like most questions of survival value) has a lot to do with improving the chances of the next generation of humans.
For instance, what if the education gap between America and other countries had less to do with federally-funded education programs, and more to do with the percentage of intact households? (I have zero facts to back this up — I just came up with it. But it's the kind of thing I think we should be considering.)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Think about it a different way, you're listening to a speech by an American politician, which beginning to a speech sets off more alarm bells?
1: Marriage is a sacred institution built between a man and a woman which benefits society. It should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
2: I am a family man. I love my wife and my two children. Therefore, I think that marriage should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
Ponder why the second statement is so ruthlessly cliche and moreover, worthless (and actually dangerous) as a piece of rhetoric. Also, consider why the fact that a *specific* politician might actually be what they call a "family man" is not actually a good reason to bring that up anyways these days.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, the question is more about how to respond to an ad hominem accusation that you possess some terrible motivation that you do not. If someone called you a bigot for some hypothetical position that you held, and you felt you needed to clear your name, how would you go about it?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)? ...
The issue with that argument is not merely that it is a cliched line, but that its logically almost without value. It actually shoots one in their own foot rather than adding to one's argument.
TomDavidson has posted a pretty consistent position that religious opinions should be ignored. Ok. Thats a position that can be debated and defended on its own merits.
Now imagine if he had explicitly said, "I don't hate Christians, in fact I have a Christian friend." before that. That should ring alarm bells and rightly so.
I disagree completely with your interpretation of that. I don't think it should send up warning flag or that it is worthless even if true.
I was accused of being racist by some white kid when I was in the Army. We didn't know each other, and I got really pissed at a Hispanic guy in my squad. Of course it HAD to be racism...it couldn't have been because I knew the guy and he screwed me over.
I simply said that anyone who knew me (as this guy really didn't) would know that couldn't be true. I got along well with most people in my squad, and about 3/4 of them were Afro-American or Hispanic, and I considered several of them to be friends.
In and of itself such a statement can be questioned, but I don't think it is without merit.
Actually, Kwea, the fact that you got along with and were even friends with several people of other races doesn't really address the question of whether you are racist at all. From what you've described, it was a stupid, baseless accusation and of course you shouldn't have had to defend yourself against it at all. But being friendly with people does nothing to prove that you are not a racist: if anything, it shows that whatever you believe about other races doesn't prevent you from being friendly with them.
What I'm getting at is that being friends with someone doesn't preclude thinking they have defects associated with their race. Any friend you have is going to have shortcomings. You can be friends anyway. If you think those shortcomings are endemic to the person's race, then you're a racist, but you can still be friends anyway.
Look at some popular racist beliefs: -[Whoever] are lazy. Well, lots of people have lazy friends. -[Whoever] are stupid. Ever have any stupid friends? ..etc.
The bottom line is that racism is NOT about choosing who you will be friends with.*
That's one of the chief reasons why "but I have friends who are -" is worthless as a defense against racism. That it is useless as rhetoric about public policy has already been explained by Mucus, of course.
*ETA: I grant that the garden variety bigot does seem to want to avoid associating with those he is prejudiced against - but it can't be the defining characteristic of racism or bigotry.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
puppy: Let's continue the analogy, an American senator is accused of participating in a gay sex scandal. Why does him trotting out his wife and children, and him pronouncing that he is a "family man" actually hurt his case?
Why doesn't the fact that he can produce a wife and children prove that he isn't in fact gay?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
EDIT: This video is kind of out of place but it does a good job of showing why the "I have a [gay/black/mexican...] friend" is not a valid excuse.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For legal marriage (as opposed to sacramental marriage. I don't think the government should be in the business of administering sacraments.) Partly because of history. Marriage is a contract. Originally, it transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Other times, it sealed alliances. It has been and still is a contractual combination of assets from two households into one. It turns two legal entities into one entity for certain purposes.
I guess I wasn't really asking for the original purpose of marriage (which is guessed at, but unknown) or the function of marriage. Talking about the "value" of marriage is like talking about the "value" of having evolved opposable thumbs.
Knowing how a thumb works doesn't tell you why we evolved it, and talking about the "purpose" of a thumb is either a religious question ("why did God give us the thumb?") or an irrelevant question (natural selection doesn't have "purposes", only mechanisms).
Similarly, when we're talking about the value of marriage, knowing that it's a contract with certain provisions doesn't tell us why we have it. Knowing the purposes of its originators similarly won't tell you why it exists today, nor will it at all inform how we ought to treat it in our society, now.
Instead, the question we need to ask ourselves, on both counts, is why has this feature (of our bodies, or of our culture) survived until today? What survival value did an opposable thumb have, which made it so that the only surviving primates on our branch of the evolutionary tree are the ones who possessed it? Similarly, what survival value does marriage have, such that all of the dominant human cultures on earth currently practice it, or have practiced it very recently?
quote:And, yes, it did make contractual the obligation of the groom to care for any children that issued from the union. Of course, now fathers are legally responsible for their children whether or not they are married to the mother.
I hope you can tell the difference between a father being legally obligated to send a check to the mother each month or go to jail, versus a father being closely involved with a child's upbringing.
quote:Why do you think we have legal marriage?
I'm still working on the "survival value" question myself, which is why I asked you. But I do strongly suspect that it (like most questions of survival value) has a lot to do with improving the chances of the next generation of humans.
For instance, what if the education gap between America and other countries had less to do with federally-funded education programs, and more to do with the percentage of intact households? (I have zero facts to back this up — I just came up with it. But it's the kind of thing I think we should be considering.)
When I write about marriage being a contract between a father and a groom, transferring ownership of the bride, I am not exactly talking about ancient history. Up until fairly recently, that has been the case. In some cultures, it still is. The "value" of marriage is that it combines assets. Whether that was a dowry or the Aquitaine. Marriage creates new legal entities called families. Most families have children; some do not. We do not legislate that these new legal entities produce offspring. If we did than your argument would have some merit.
And of course I know the difference between a parent who is involved in a child's life and one who is not. What does that have to do with anything? We do not legislate that two parents remain or even become a single legal entity.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: kwea: I think you're missing the point.
Think about it a different way, you're listening to a speech by an American politician, which beginning to a speech sets off more alarm bells?
1: Marriage is a sacred institution built between a man and a woman which benefits society. It should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
2: I am a family man. I love my wife and my two children. Therefore, I think that marriage should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
Ponder why the second statement is so ruthlessly cliche and moreover, worthless (and actually dangerous) as a piece of rhetoric. Also, consider why the fact that a *specific* politician might actually be what they call a "family man" is not actually a good reason to bring that up anyways these days.
Number two, because the politician actually has three children! Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Their best interests are worth considering. But, in general, when we're talking about marriage, we're not talking about a civil institution that is designed to promote the best interests of children. most of civil marriage law deals with pair-bonding, and property distribution.
While I agree with this, I think a lot of people who are opposed to SSM think that the main point of marriage should be child rearing. By extending marriage rights to a population that has 0 probability of naturally making a baby, it concedes that civil marriage really is about pair bonding and property distribution. Yes, civil marriage already is mostly that, but this step for them officially declares that.
Personally, as I have said before, I want civil unions for all, marriages for whatever religion wants to do them. I don't think the government has the right to define what a marriage is, though I like them enforcing the contractual aspects of the union. I would vote no on prop 8 if I was in California (unless I believed that voting yes would lead to my above stated desire, which I currently don't). However, it upsets me greatly to see everyone who votes yes being characterized as a hate filled bigot. I don't believe that and the constant claim of it really makes me dislike the pro-ssm side.
As far as racism, I know someone who is convinced I am a bigot because I believe gay sex is a sin (but my list of things that are sins is nice and long so everyone is a sinner in my mind, so being a sinner just means you are human). When she found out someone close to her was gay, her response was "of course I still love you, but please don't sleep with any young boys. Promise me you'll only be with people over 18." I don't know- I would rather someone think I was sinning rather then that I was a pedophiliac preying on innocent children.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I believe that civil unions should be legally equivalent to marriage-- as they are in the state of California.
Amen.
Except for the "I am LDS." part of that post I could have written it myself. As a matter of fact, I think I have posted almost the same things a number of times here at Hatrack.
Come on.
Certainly you know that the "in California" part is deeply misleading.
Sure...ssm couples share all of the state rights that California grants to married couples, but they don't have the federal benefits, while opposite sex couples do.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason I couldn’t log onto my old ID here so I had to create a new one, but it has been over 2 years since I have posted so perhaps it was purged. I guess I just don’t see what the big fuss is among the gay community. If “Civil Unions” granted the same rights as “Marriages,” what is the big stink about? I have two friends that are a homosexual couple, and while they would like to have a ceremony in which they are joined together and given the same rights as heterosexual couples, they really don’t care what it is called. I know this is not an indicator of how the entire gay community feels, but it is what I have experienced in speaking with them. A word can have many definitions, but a definition can have many different words for it as well. Why can’t there be a word for a marriage type union between two homosexual adults that holds the same rights as a traditional marriage? As far as the religion argument goes, I think the biggest fear of some from the religious community is that homosexuality is against their teachings, and they do not want to be forced to recognize or perform same sex marriages. I believe another fear in the religious community is that if the word marriage is redefined, it also opens up the way for other non-traditional types of unions. If a man wants to marry 30 women, who should stop him? If a man or woman wants to marry someone that is 12 years old, why should anyone stand in his or her way? If someone wants to marry their dog or their cat because they feel they have a loving relationship with them, who should stop them? What right does anyone have to stand in the way of any type of union? I am not against homosexual couples being joined in a marriage like ceremony. I am not opposed to health benefits for same sex couples. I am not opposed to tax breaks, adoption, or child bearing rights for same sex couples. I guess my whole point can be summed up by Shakespeare. 'In a name a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'? I say call marriages for homosexual couples something else, and keep everybody happy. The religious community gets their wishes and the gay community gets their rights. I think that is a fair compromise. Am I missing something and oversimplifying or does this just seem like it should not be that big of an issue?
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: What right does anyone have to stand in the way of any type of union?
The right of self-determination, defined as "free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion." Recently invoked as a part of wars and legal referendums on separation from a larger union.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If “Civil Unions” granted the same rights as “Marriages,” what is the big stink about?
Good question. If "civil unions" granted the exact same rights as "marriages," why wouldn't you just call them "marriages?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
