[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you denying that you have an aversion to homosexuality? Do you honestly believe it’s morally acceptable for gays to have a committed long term relationship? If so, I would be pleasantly surprised. And please do answer the question, it’s not rhetorical.
[/quote]
Look, forlife, it doesn’t matter if I’m a Nazi member of the Ku Klux Klan attending Westborough Baptist crushing a kitten’s skull under my jackbooted heel as I type, you are still obligated to address the actual arguments I make, or we might as well all go home. This is exactly what you got so upset at TB for supposedly doing to you, yet here you are assigning or implying latent motives to my arguments where none are necessary.
The “double standard,” and the point, to bring us back off this side-track, exists because one kind of relationship confers upon its society basic benefits that the other kind of relationship does not. Period.
You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
[/quote]
No. YOU are the one that brought confirmatory bias into the discussion, and started lecturing me on it, as if I haven’t said a million times that I’m as subject to confirmatory bias as anyone else. I’m honest about that fact, how about you? I just turned YOUR question back on you, and asked if in fact you have a moral aversion to homosexuality. Not surprisingly, you still haven’t answered the question.
I wrote TB off, not because he accused me of confirmatory bias, but because he questioned my sincerity and my integrity. I believe all of us are subject to confirmatory bias, but I also believe we are sincere in what we post here. To question someone’s basic integrity is crossing the line.
Yes, let’s get back to the discussion. I would appreciate an answer to the point I’ve made a couple of times now. You asked what value gay married couples can provide to society, and I pointed out that adopted children are better off with married parents than with unmarried parents. Gay couples can and do adopt children. Don’t you agree those kids are better off with the stability and security of their parents being married, irrespective of whether they are gay or straight?[/quote]
That’s okay. I’ve made my point. You tend to drop the confirmatory bias point/explanation/rebuttal/dismissal pretty casually in the religious threads, as if it neatly compartmentalizes and explains everything. I just wanted to afford you the opportunity to see how it feels when it’s turned on you. You certainly don’t appear to like it too much.
As for moral aversions, we all have them. Much of the time they serve us very well. Occasionally they don’t. Either way, though, their mere presence is still not going to tell you diddly-squat about what IS. And bringing them up in a debate and attacking them as if they have any bearing upon that reality, well, there’s a word for that and I’m sure you know what it is.
As far as your final question goes, I already answered it in this very discussion, I’m copying and pasting from text above:
“…one kind of relationship confers upon its society basic benefits that the other kind of relationship does not. Period.”
We don’t need married gay couples to adopt or raise our children. We need society overall, as a whole, to function in a certain very important manner. Indeed, the behavior and familial arrangements marriage seeks to encourage are integral to the very fabric of our society. That is, first, its own propagation, and, second (among others), the closest-to-ideal family unit to nurture, raise and provide a balanced parenting to this progeny.
Gay marriage does NOT provide this benefit, the benefit for which the first kind of marriage was created in the first place. There’s a reason for all of this. Believe it or not, it has nothing to do with bigotry, but is just as simple to understand. [/quote]
Let’s get this straight. You bring up confirmatory bias, and I completely, 100% agree that I’m as subject to confirmatory bias as everyone else. I’ve said as much multiple times, when raising the subject in the religion threads. I then point out that YOU are equally subject to the same confirmatory bias, and you throw a hissy fit. I’ve never complained about you bringing up confirmatory bias, and in fact I’ve agreed with you every time you’ve brought it up. The person that doesn’t seem to like it is YOU. Stop blaming me for your own defensiveness.
Your aversion to gay marriage is obviously informed by your moral aversion to homosexuality. JUST LIKE MY PROMOTION OF GAY MARRIAGE IS OBVIOUSLY INFORMED BY MY BEING GAY. Do you get it yet? EVERYONE is subject to confirmatory bias. It shades the way we interpret and apply evidence, in support of what we already believe to be true. Nobody is immune to it, INCLUDING YOU AND ME.
You still haven’t addressed my point.
I didn’t ask if you thought children should be raised by gay couples.
I pointed out that gay couples CAN and DO raise children. Nothing you do will change that. The question pertains to what arrangement is in the best interest of those children, given that they will be raised by gay parents.
So answer the question already.
ARE ADOPTED CHILDREN BETTER OFF IF THEIR PARENTS (WHETHER GAY OR STRAIGHT) ARE MARRIED?
If you agree they’re better off if their parents are married, then you implicitly acknowledge the benefit to society provided by allowing gay couples to marry.[/quote]
Look, forlife, I do get what you are saying. If I seem evasive it is because I feel that either we have not progressed to that point in the discussion or because you are willfully ignoring my own points.
The answer to the question you pose above DOES NOT MATTER. I already answered this. I understand it is not the answer you want to hear, and that you’d like me to concede your point because then you’ll be able to dangle that point in front of me when I next try to object. You can say, well, see, you even agreed that kids will be better off in a gay family rather than no family at all (or whatever). So we agree that SOCIETY would therefore be better off affording gays the same rights to marry as straights.
Problem is, it is not such a simple syllogism. What you repeatedly ignore, over and over and over, is that marriage is a REWARD system intended to bring about certain behaviors, on the whole, through the numbers, it’s not gonna happen every single time but this is the arrangement that brings it about so that’s the one we must attempt to foster and the inclusion of any OTHER arrangements than this is going to serve to WEAKEN the original model, there-by making it LESS EFFECTIVE in bringing about the function it was originally created to ensure.
So, although I think there are certainly gay couples who would raise very fine children, I am sorry to say that it doesn’t matter. Whether or not the enactment of gay marriage will result in more intact families for kids is not germane to the argument at hand, because it fails to take in mind the overall NET EFFECT that tinkering with our oldest and more deeply ingrained institutions will engender.
That’s the thing. We’ve come back to it again and it isn’t going away.
Here it is one more time, in simple words:
Hetero marriage results in a NET INCREASE in children born into intact families with a biological male and female parent to raise them. This is indisputably a positive for society at large with very little downside, if any.
Gay marriage DOES NOT result in a net increase for the above (that behavior we as a society would seek to encourage).
Being that that is the case, the onus is upon gay marriage proponents to demonstrate to just what makes their particular case so special. Remember, it had better be something pretty good, because let’s be honest, we are talking about gay marriage muscling into hetero-marriage’s house and setting up a living space for itself. If I’m hetero-marriage, I want to know how you’re gonna pay the rent.
[/quote]
I’m glad you believe that gay couples can raise very fine children.
This pertains directly to your argument that marriage is a REWARD system intended to bring about certain behaviors beneficial to society.
You’re absolutely correct that straight couples are REWARDED for getting married, and that this reward benefits society by providing a stable, secure environment for their biological children.
The same is true for gay couples getting married, and adopting children. In the same way, gay couples are REWARDED for getting married, and this reward benefits society by providing a stable, secure environment for their adopted children.
It doesn’t matter if the children are biological or adopted. The REWARD is the same, and the BENEFITS of the reward are the same.
It results in a NET INCREASE in adopted children benefiting from an intact family, by virtue of the security and stability that marriage provides their gay parents. Again, gay couples are going to adopt these children regardless. If those couples are allowed to marry, their children will benefit, and society will benefit.
There is no compelling argument that gay marriage would result in a NET DECREASE in biological children born to married straight parents. It is a ridiculous assertion, with no supporting logic.
Gay marriage does not negatively impact the biological children born to straight parents, and it positively impacts the adopted children of gay parents.
NET INCREASE: POSITIVE