quote:Lisa, you are absolutely correct. I have not seen it from the perspective of someone in a homosexual family. My views, and perhaps the views of other Americans would change if this were demonstrated.
I am arguing from theory, and from my exposure to male homosexuals. The gay couples I know would not, in my opinion, raise children as well as heterosexual couples would, on the whole.
The research that has been done on the physical and psychological health of children of same sex parents shows pretty conclusively that they are doing at least as well as those of opposite sex parents and that both groups are doing much, much better than children of single parents of either sex.
What do you see as the problem with not having parental role models of both sexes?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The heterosexual family unit IS the most successful family unit...at creating more heterosexual family units.
Actually, I don't know about that. I grew up in a heterosexual family unit. Most gay people I know did so as well.
Agreed. But the vast majority of family types that come from hetero family units are hetero families.
Probably. But the vast majority of family types that come from same-sex family units are also hetero families. It'd be interesting to see what the percentages are in the two cases.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It'd be interesting to see what the percentages are in the two cases.
In the studies, while children of same sex couples report more same sex experiences than children of heterosexual parents, there is not a statistically significant different in their sexual identification. That is, a statistically equal number of them report being straight, gay, or bi.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Mystic: No. Not spiritual. Emotional. See the posting I referred you to and read the back and forth I had there. It isn't terribly long. I think the gender role of male and female need both be present. (Anyone who reads that sentence and wants to respond to me - please do not until you read the aforementioned post in context)
I read your opinion about the need for these roles, with no supporting evidence. Even if I grant you that there is some advantage to having parents filling these roles (I don't grant this, btw), it is still not clear why one would think that the potential detriment to kids outweighs the detriment accrued to gay couples by not being permitted to marry.
Btw, your argument can be easily adapted to argue against people of different cultures being permitted to marry. Hopefully that gives you pause.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It seems logical to me that the balance of the male and female perspectives is a good thing. The strong but kind, physical and emotional, challenging and nurturing.
It seems here that you are identifying gender stereotypes that don't always fit. Some men are kinder and more nurturing and more emotional than some women and some women are stronger, more physical, more challenging than some men. Are you going to legislate that hetero people who marry must fit into traditional stereotypes as well?
We do not have a good parenting test for marriage. We don't have a parenting test at all for marriage. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Gays can "marry" - i just don't think that society should provide incentives. That's very different.
We as a society decide together what we want to provide incentives for and what not. I don't think it is reasonable not to provide incentives for people of different cultures to marry. I don't think society believes that these marriages or their children will be any less successful. Maybe more successful for their cultural diversity. And yes, I think we should decide who to provide incentive to and who not. Once we are already providing incentives. Either that, or don't provide incentives at all.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you think society should provide incentives to same-sex couples? Surely we want more stable homes capable of raising children well, and the research shows same sex couples provide that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, we do not have a good parenting test for providing incentives to marry. We do not have parenting tests at all for providing incentives to marry. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It seems logical to me that the balance of the male and female perspectives is a good thing. The strong but kind, physical and emotional, challenging and nurturing.
It seems here that you are identifying gender stereotypes that don't always fit. Some men are kinder and more nurturing and more emotional than some women and some women are stronger, more physical, more challenging than some men. Are you going to legislate that hetero people who marry must fit into traditional stereotypes as well?
We do not have a good parenting test for marriage. We don't have a parenting test at all for marriage. Are you suggesting that we should?
I addressed your first point in the context of my original post. I said that these stereotypes are true on the whole, even if the male is female and the female male. My argument is that this is often not the case with homosexual couples. And to be clear, I have been exposed to many MALE homosexual couples, and to very few female couples.
My perspectives are based on theory and experience, as I stated above. I am not a bible thumping bigot, so please read my views patiently. But there IS truth to the stereotype of the homosexual personality. That, plus the my view on the gender roles = my position. Undermine any of those and I'm happy to change my beliefs.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've given a lists and discussed them in detail in a bunch of other threads. Don't really have the time to go into detail now, but you can look for the other threads.
For references, you can look at the bibliographies of the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement and/or that of the American Psychological Association.
I also did a quick google search and pulled some results without really looking at them:
edit: I should mention, as I have before, that I started out believing that gay parents would be inferior parents to straight ones largely because of the sex role issue. I've since changed that view because the data does not support it.
posted
Armoth, your stereotypes may be true "on the whole" but we do not insist on people fitting into those stereotypes in order to marry. We allow two nurturing, emotional, kind people to marry each other. We do not insist on a balance.
Should we prevent a strong, challenging woman from marrying a strong, challenging man?
Again, Armoth, we do not have a good parenting test for providing incentives to marry. We do not have parenting tests at all for providing incentives to marry. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Presuming your opponents are lying about their concerns is not a productive and persuasive strategy.
It's not a presumption, its a conclusion based on evidence.
People who genuinely cared about marriage including non-reproducing couples would be opposing infertile married couples, and would have been doing before gay marriage was even on the radar.
But no one does. Hence, no one is actually motivated by this reasoning.
The idea that inconsistency in ones position is evidence of dishonesty is fallacious. One could just as well ask why proponents of same sex marriage aren't fighting to make marriage between cousins, syblings, or parent and adult child legal. All the arguments that can be made for allowing same sex marriage are could also justify incestuous marriage. Does this mean that proponents of same sex marriage are lying about their real reasons -- no it does not. Human beings are rarely 100% logically consistent in what they do.
There are many many problems with your argument. First, I've known quite a few people who've made that argument and I've discussed it with some of them over many years and I am fully convinced they really believe it.
Second, many of the people who I've heard make that argument aren't even coming from a religious background that condemns homosexuality. Some of them have been chinese athiests, thai buddhists or Hindu. None of them have had religious reasons for disapproving of homosexuality. Some of them have even considered homosexuality completely acceptable but have still opposed gay marriage. Many cultures in the world that have a long standing tradition of accepting same gender sex have nonetheless never allowed same sex marriage (Japan for example).
And once again, you are completely missing my point when you argue that the secular arguments against same sex marriage aren't valid or logical or ask me to defend them. I'm not going to defend these arguments. I don't agree with them. But whether or not I agree with them or find them valid has little to do with whether or not the people who oppose same sex marriage really believe these arguments. When you quickly dismiss an argument that has been made by many intelligent people as stupid and dishonest, I don't think you've made an honest attempt to see things from their perspective.
If you made that honest attempt at understanding the opposition rather than the knee jerk response you have presented, you will be much more effective at persuading the opposition or finding compromises that satisfy their concerns.
[ April 22, 2009, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sex role issue? But people are all different and complicated. It seems healthier to be able to switch roles. I want a father for my kids who will be nurturing and compassionate towards them. That would definitely not be a stereotypical sort of fellow...
Anyway, I don't think a family is healthy BECAUSE they are a nuclear heterosexual family but because they are nurturing, non-abusive, patient and compassionate towards their kids, able to discipline their children, but still respect them and treat them with kindness. Any family can do that, whether they are two men, two women, a man and a woman, grandparents, aunts and uncles or single parents. They need to provide a child with the things that make them thrive and grow up healthy. So stating that JUST being a "traditional" family is automatically better isn't really logical, doesn't look at the whole picture and it does nothing to address problems a so-called traditional family can have. It's a deeply limited argument.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Presuming your opponents are lying about their concerns is not a productive and persuasive strategy.
It's not a presumption, its a conclusion based on evidence.
People who genuinely cared about marriage including non-reproducing couples would be opposing infertile married couples, and would have been doing before gay marriage was even on the radar.
But no one does. Hence, no one is actually motivated by this reasoning.
The idea that inconsistency in ones position is evidence of dishonesty is fallacious. One could just as well ask why proponents of same sex marriage aren't fighting to make marriage between cousins, syblings, or parent and adult child legal. All the arguments that can be made for allowing same sex marriage are could also justify incestuous marriage. Does this mean that proponents of same sex marriage are lying about their real reasons -- no it does not. Human beings are rarely 100% logically consistent in what they do.
There are many many problems with your argument. First, I've known quite a few people who've made that argument and I've discussed it with some of them over many years and I am fully convinced they really believe it.
I don't think you're distinguishing between deliberate dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty. A general sense that marriage is for babymaking, and that only heterosexuals are capable of babymaking the right way, is not a valid argument or even a coherent belief. It is, as MattP and swbarnes have pointed out, an after-the-fact explanation for their gut reactions or invidious beliefs.
They're not necessarily liars, but neither are they willing to make these "beliefs" any sort of principled rule. Case in point, my widowed grandmother married her widowed high school sweetheart a decade after both had lost their spouses. it's just about the sweetest thing I've ever seen. However, neither are capable of producing children. I challenge you to find a single one of these people you've cited, Thai Buddhist or Chinese atheist, willing to say they shouldn't be permitted to marry.
It's an intellectually dishonest position, covering for a far less acceptable -- and far stronger -- motivation for denying homosexuals equal rights. It's bullshit, in other words.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships. Do I? I'm not sure why you put such a weak analogy out there. Why not pedophilia or beastiality if we're going nuts?
A far better analogy would be polygamy, which is the logical extension of homosexual marriage. It's the one secular argument against homosexual rights I've heard that makes sense, and it's a good one. I actually offered my law professor to write up a defense of polygamy on legal grounds and submit it for his consideration -- if I do, I'll share it here as well.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think you're distinguishing between deliberate dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty.
I don't think you are listening.
quote:A general sense that marriage is for babymaking, and that only heterosexuals are capable of babymaking the right way, is not a valid argument or even a coherent belief.
That is not a fair summary of the argument being made. Until you are capable of recognizing the key differences between the strawman you've constructed and the real arguments people have put forth, all your arguments are bullshit.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships.
Why not? Please explain why marriage between consenting adult syblings is fundamentally different from marriage between consenting unrelated adults?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you made that honest attempt at understanding the opposition rather than the knee jerk response you have presented, you will be much more effective at persuading the opposition or finding compromises that satisfy their concerns.
Erm, that may be the disconnect. Many people, myself included, are not looking to find compromises that satisfy 'their' concerns. Their compromises only get about as good as an intent to get a separate but equal institution; most don't even wish to 'compromise' that far.
The pro-SSM side doesn't even need to compromise. How many people under the age of 30 are okay with homosexuality? How many under 20? This is a war that can be won by waiting.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships.
Why not? Please explain why marriage between consenting adult syblings is fundamentally different from marriage between consenting unrelated adults?
These are independent events. If there is an interest group that wants to legalize sibling unions they are welcome to argue for it. However, the question of SSM does not depend on the status of such unions and so should be considered on its own merits. Bringing up these other unions is just a diversion.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Erm, that may be the disconnect. Many people, myself included, are not looking to find compromises that satisfy 'their' concerns.
Right, why go for peaceful resolution if you have the guns to win by force. It couldn't possibly be that the people you oppose have any legitimate concerns, they are the enemy. It couldn't possibly be that they are decent human being who deserve respect. Why bother understanding other people at all. If they disagree with you, they are wrong and probably evil to boot. They probably aren't as smart or fully evolved as you are. They probably aren't even really human like you. We could kill them all but why bother when we can just wait for them to go extinct.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Erm, that may be the disconnect. Many people, myself included, are not looking to find compromises that satisfy 'their' concerns.
Right, why go for peaceful resolution if you have the guns to win by force. It couldn't possibly be that the people you oppose have any legitimate concerns, they are the enemy. It couldn't possibly be that they are decent human being who deserve respect. Why bother understanding other people at all. If they disagree with you, they are wrong and probably evil to boot. They probably aren't as smart or fully evolved as you are. They probably aren't even really human like you. We could kill them all but why bother when we can just wait for them to go extinct.
Rabbit, your debating skills are not very good when you're playing devil's advocate.
I realize you think people are rude to anti-homosexual activists, but quite frankly, I don't think you consider how rude it is to legislate against homosexuals. Heroes like Alan Turing were crudely sterilized by people who supported these beliefs. And you're worried that feelings might be hurt if we point out how stupid these arguments are?
If you think I'm doing a poor job assessing the merits of the marriage-is-for-reproducing-heterosexuals argument, would you mind summarizing it? I'd be interested in hearing what you think I don't understand.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What The Rabbit is trying to say is that I have a much easier time listening to someone who is willing to have respect to the other side and to present arguments than someone who wants to call my arguments B.S.
It does not help me open the mind to consider different views. I left this thread to go to the gym about an hour ago and I had all the arguments in mind and played them in my head. I reserve further arguments until I look up the research that was earlier presented. But I have to tell you, your particular role (Lalo) in this thread was not pleasant.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and I don't think I need to go into exactly why incestuous relationships aren't the equivalent of homosexual relationships.
Why not? Please explain why marriage between consenting adult syblings is fundamentally different from marriage between consenting unrelated adults?
These are independent events. If there is an interest group that wants to legalize sibling unions they are welcome to argue for it. However, the question of SSM does not depend on the status of such unions and so should be considered on its own merits. Bringing up these other unions is just a diversion.
Did you read the thread leading up to this? Lalo was arguing that if people oppose same sex marriage because same sex partners can't have children, then they should oppose marriage between infertile couples of all kind. His argument was that since they don't do the latter, they can't really believe the former.
I countered with the question of incestuous marriage. It was a rhetorical devise. It wasn't a diversion or an attempt to start a discussion about incestuous marriage. The point was that you can't dismiss peoples arguments as insincere simple because those don't advocate every possible position those arguments might possibly be used to support.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I addressed your first point in the context of my original post. I said that these stereotypes are true on the whole, even if the male is female and the female male. My argument is that this is often not the case with homosexual couples. And to be clear, I have been exposed to many MALE homosexual couples, and to very few female couples.
Not for nothing, but male/female is not the same as masculine/feminine. When I hear people say that children are better off with both male and female role models (assuming, I guess, that only their parents can possibly serve as role models, but that's another flaw in the argument), I always wonder exactly what they're talking about.
Havah kills the spiders (they give me the creeps). I change the lightbulbs (I'm taller). Havah cooks more than I do (I work more hours). Havah does more homework with Tova than I do (she's a teacher). She's also more likely to do sports stuff with her (the only sport I've ever enjoyed is bowling).
I'm trying to find the stereotypes and figure out which ones I tend to fulfill and which ones Havah does. And which ones we both do, or which ones neither of us do. I'm more likely to determine whether I like a song or not based on the music, while Havah is more likely to judge based on the lyrics. Havah taught Tova to ride her bicycle, but I taught her to play chess. Havah won't even play chess with me because she dislikes the game and because I'm better at it, but she rips my head off at MasterMind. I guess she's better at deductive reasoning and I'm better at inductive. Is one of those more male-ish or female-ish? Whether it is or not, the fact remains that Havah and I are about as different as any straight couple I know, and that Tova is definitely getting a broad set of traits shown to her in her life, not even counting male teachers and rabbis and relatives and friends' fathers and all the men she sees in every book she reads and every TV show and movie she watches.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I have a lot of respect for you and find you utterly fascinating.
Your argument has been the strongest so far. I am simply not exposed to a gay family. It's likely to drastically change my opinion. But right now, I just look at my gay friends, while some of them are my best friends, I would not want to be raised by them.
Like I said, I will reserve further argument till I read the research.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But right now, I just look at my gay friends, while some of them are my best friends, I would not want to be raised by them.
Might cultural maginalization be a contributor to the behavior of these friends rather than a justified response?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
armoth: I wouldn't want to be raised by anyone other than the people who raised me. I think most kids feel that way (once they stop being kids) and it doesn't matter if they have two daddies or two mommies or a sampler set.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: What The Rabbit is trying to say is that I have a much easier time listening to someone who is willing to have respect to the other side and to present arguments than someone who wants to call my arguments B.S.
It does not help me open the mind to consider different views. I left this thread to go to the gym about an hour ago and I had all the arguments in mind and played them in my head. I reserve further arguments until I look up the research that was earlier presented. But I have to tell you, your particular role (Lalo) in this thread was not pleasant.
This attitude confuses me so much. I don't think I was rude in pointing out how illogical and irrelevant the reproduction argument is. But even if I were, what possible difference can it make? Be a man and back your position with hard evidence or solid reasoning -- and if you're wrong, admit it and move on.
I'm absolutely amazed by people who are perfectly aware their positions and arguments are stupid, and know they're actively harming other people by holding them, but refuse to reconsider because they weren't coddled enough. If I pretend that the reproduction argument is at all intelligent, then you'll feel good enough to give homosexuals equal rights?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I do get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to suggest that one side is not properly listening to another side in a debate. I figure you say your piece and if they're listening, you'll have a good discussion and if they're not, you stop talking.
When it comes to respecting the other side, I do my best in all subjects. SSM is a hard one because of the way I formed my personal views. To oversimplify the matter: I used to be anti-gay, largely because I thought it was gross and unnatural. When I got over that, I stopped being anti-gay. Now, looking back at the anti-gay side, I continue to fail to see valid arguments. Mostly, I hear people's feelings getting hurt because they don't think they're being heard.
If anyone wants to talk, I'm listening.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But right now, I just look at my gay friends, while some of them are my best friends, I would not want to be raised by them. "
Even if its true that , statistically speaking, children raised by gay parents are worse off than children raised by straight parents (and its not. The evidence doesn't support that conclusion), there are other factors that have very strong correlations with bad child outcomes, such as income. Yet we do not legislate against poor people getting married. And we do not perform examinations to determine how much time parents will spend with their children. We do not prevent people with low IQ's from marrying. Or any number of other factors that play into the success of child rearing.
Why should the sex of parents be the one area where ability to raise children successfully determine eligibility for marriage?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Again, Armoth, we do not have a good parenting test for providing incentives to marry. We do not have parenting tests at all for providing incentives to marry. Are you suggesting that we should?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Did you read the thread leading up to this? Lalo was arguing that if people oppose same sex marriage because same sex partners can't have children, then they should oppose marriage between infertile couples of all kind. His argument was that since they don't do the latter, they can't really believe the former.
I countered with the question of incestuous marriage. It was a rhetorical devise. It wasn't a diversion or an attempt to start a discussion about incestuous marriage. The point was that you can't dismiss peoples arguments as insincere simple because those don't advocate every possible position those arguments might possibly be used to support. [/QB]
To some degree I did just give my canned response to the tactic of acting like allowing SSM would necessitate the enlarging of scope of marriage to other types of unions. To your larger point I think we are in agreement. In this thread I have already agreed that if arguments are presented against SSM, these arguments should be rebutted for what they are and not for what the SSM proponent thinks they really mean.
I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm absolutely amazed by people who are perfectly aware their positions and arguments are stupid, and know they're actively harming other people by holding them, but refuse to reconsider because they weren't coddled enough.
I don't even agree with anti-SSM advocates, but if I were one I wouldn't want to talk to you. If you can't see how condescending and dismissive you're being, then you certainly don't have standing to question their intellectual honesty. (Which kind of gets you coming and going, the way you've discussed the topic so far.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Lalo claimed the that the argument that SSM shouldn't be recognized because they couldn't have children was fallacious because people who hold that position aren't trying to ban marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. His argument was if you claim to oppose A because of reason B but you aren't actively opposing C, which could also be supported for reason B, reason B is clear flawed. Its not that simple. The issues are separate even though they are similar in some respects.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
scifi: How can I respect someone who doesn't respect me? The whole anti-SSM side consists of disrespect for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They deny us the basic human right of marriage. They want us to remain second class citizens. Don't you see how insulting and dehumanizing it is?
How can we respect people who feel that way about us?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't even agree with anti-SSM advocates, but if I were one I wouldn't want to talk to you. If you can't see how condescending and dismissive you're being, then you certainly don't have standing to question their intellectual honesty. (Which kind of gets you coming and going, the way you've discussed the topic so far.)
But somehow after reading his thread on formal attire, his behavior all makes sense.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Lalo claimed the that the argument that SSM shouldn't be recognized because they couldn't have children was fallacious because people who hold that position aren't trying to ban marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. His argument was if you claim to oppose A because of reason B but you aren't actively opposing C, which could also be supported for reason B, reason B is clear flawed. Its not that simple. The issues are separate even though they are similar in some respects.
I think the question of sterile siblings is different in a couple of ways. First, siblings are already family, they are not forming a new family. Second and I think the more important point is that the sibling relationship has a distorting impact on the ability to consent to a sexual/romantic relationship.
If sterile siblings have been brought up without that sibling relationship - say, they were separated at birth and didn't know they were siblings until they were already engaged in a romantic relationship - I think that they should be allowed to marry.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am still a little confused as to what effect you were looking for with your rhetorical device.
Lalo claimed the that the argument that SSM shouldn't be recognized because they couldn't have children was fallacious because people who hold that position aren't trying to ban marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. His argument was if you claim to oppose A because of reason B but you aren't actively opposing C, which could also be supported for reason B, reason B is clear flawed. Its not that simple. The issues are separate even though they are similar in some respects.
I would state it like this: SSM antagonists say "all marriages should satisfy X" and then find that a significant subset of uncontroversial marriages do not satisfy X. It is incumbent on them accept that the absence of X is not a disqualifying feature, to enact legislation to make it a disqualifying feature or to make an argument as to why it was not a disqualifying feature for that subset but would be for SSM. So Lalo's treatment omits the third option.
On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds. It's basically saying SSM and IM (incestuous marriage) share property p1 and therefore if SSM is permmited then so too must IM. This of course neglects that SSM and IM differ in a substantial number of ways.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: scifi: How can I respect someone who doesn't respect me? The whole anti-SSM side consists of disrespect for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They deny us the basic human right of marriage. They want us to remain second class citizens. Don't you see how insulting and dehumanizing it is?
How can we respect people who feel that way about us?
I understand how you feel. Truly. Your feelings are valid and the onus is on me to make sure you see I intend you no disrespect.
First, I want to make clear that I view marriage as an incentive, and not as a right (as has been expressed a number of times above).
kmb - Honestly, I'm a fan of the parenting tests and providing greater incentives to higher-scorers. It's like scholarships for parenting. Sounds great.
But even still, we're talking about general rules. And my hypothesis is that the general rule is that heterosexual couples raise children more successfully than homosexual ones.
I understand how that can be taken as disrespectful. But my hypothesis is based on the fact that I think most heterosexual marriages are based on a union of gender roles that I explained above. That does not mean that I disrespect homosexuals or deny them rights. It means that I think that a union of homosexuals will be less likely to have these roles in which I think a child would most benefit from.
Does that mean I want to DENY homosexuals any rights? Heck no. If children aren't being adopted and there are homosexual families willing and able? It'd be a travesty to keep those kids without a home. If homosexual couples want to have kids through artificial insemination and such, that is their right and I do not think anyone should deny them that.
My reasoning and experience tells me that incentives should be provided to the more successful unit.
As a minority member myself, I will tell you that it an arguing tactic where you present yourself as human and humble to the other side is a lot more successful than condescension. As I said, Lisa's argument had the most impact on my way of thinking because she provided a human scenario - one that truly exists, in which my assumptions were undermined.
Pixiest, If I have offended, I am truly sorry. Generally, things get better for minorities and for the persecuted when the veil of ignorance is lifted. When Lisa gave me her example, and I trust Lisa enough to consider her examples, I question my own position. Perhaps ignorance is my problem. There are still people, in this country and all over the world who ask me where my horns are.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:scifi: How can I respect someone who doesn't respect me? The whole anti-SSM side consists of disrespect for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They deny us the basic human right of marriage. They want us to remain second class citizens. Don't you see how insulting and dehumanizing it is?
How can we respect people who feel that way about us?
My point is that you are presuming you know how these people feel about you. You don't. You know only that they oppose SSM. Your presumption that their opposition is because they hate, fear or disrespect you is not conducive to doing anything but promote more hatred and fear.
If that is what you want, proceed as you are.
If on the other hand what you want is for people to make an effort to understand and respect you the way you are. If what you want is human dignity for all people, then starting off by demonizing everyone who disagrees with you is the wrong approach.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
armoth: So get in my knees and beg for our rights...
If I thought it would work, I'd do it. Heck, I'd douse myself in gasoline and immolate myself if I thought it would work. (well, if I was SURE it would work...)
But it wouldn't.
I tried the "befriend them" approach too... then my (now former) best friend of 10 years voted for Prop Hate.
So now it's "Wait for the bigots (and y'all are bigots ya know) to kick the bucket" approach. Unfortunately, I'm old and will kick the bucket about the same time most of the bigots do. (if not sooner.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: kmb - Honestly, I'm a fan of the parenting tests and providing greater incentives to higher-scorers. It's like scholarships for parenting. Sounds great.
What kind of parenting tests should we have before we allow people to get married? I would think that the most basic would be the ability to reproduce. Do you want that to be a condition of marriage?
If so, what about income? People above a certain income threshold are scientifically shown to raise more successful children. Should we have an income threshold before people can marry?
If so, what about education? Surely more educated people raise more successful children. Should we require a certain level of education before people get married?
If so, shall I continue?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds
First off, that wasn't my claim. I claimed demonstrating that arguments could equally support legalizing SSM and incestuous marriage does not prove that arguments are invalid. I claimed that even when a person uses a set of arguments to support SSM that could also be used to support legalizing marriage between close relatives, but opposes marriage between close relatives, it does not necessarily imply that person is being intellectually dishonest.
Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
quote:I think the question of sterile siblings is different in a couple of ways. First, siblings are already family, they are not forming a new family. Second and I think the more important point is that the sibling relationship has a distorting impact on the ability to consent to a sexual/romantic relationship.
If sterile siblings have been brought up without that sibling relationship - say, they were separated at birth and didn't know they were siblings until they were already engaged in a romantic relationship - I think that they should be allowed to marry.
Pixiest - I'm sorry you feel that way. I myself am getting over the fact that God created people so different from one another. Life's greatest pains come from that very fact.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arm: so why should one family get incentives while another doesn't? Have you seen how many kids are in foster care? Have you seen how f*cking hard it is to adopt one? I have, first hand (And no, I'm still not ready to talk about it.)
They should PAY gays to get married and give them a free foster kid when they do! Hets will continue to spew out offspring by accident. At least the ones they don't murder in the womb.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
