I can read it, I’m simply pointing out that it makes no sense.
It’s like arguing that eating apples is healthy, so eating baseballs must also be healthy.
After all, both objects are round and are approximately the same size. Wouldn’t eating baseballs encourage people to eat more apples?
It’s a ridiculous assertion. Arguing that reproduction is the core purpose of marriage, and then sanctioning unions that directly and irrevocably oppose that purpose, makes no sense.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Why should he drop the ‘allowing singles to marry themselves’ argument?
Because in all definitions of marriage, it is a union. A union requires two things to put together.
Invoking the possibility of individual marriages is nothing more than silly hyperbole, and it denigrates anything else he says as reeking of desperation.
Ohhhh! So THAT definition is sacred. You learn something new everyday. Why not 4 though? Why not 50 ‘things’ put together?[/quote]
Feel free to find one single instance, legal, internet, or otherwise, where marriage hasn’t been considered a union.
And why not this, and why not that? You are Captain Barn Door, proclaimer of all skies falling.
[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
You are the one that generally doesn’t like good science, but rather preferes pr statements put out by large organizations in the pockets of special interest groups, trying to make everyone feel better about themselves.
Anyone can cherry pick a study or two to support his viewpoint.
Which is why it is important to consider the consensual conclusions of the major medical and mental health organizations.
It is the responsibility of these organizations to conduct valid scientific research, and draw correct conclusions based on that research over a large number of studies. These organizations have done exactly that, but you dismiss them because their conclusions are different than yours.[/quote]
That was what I was getting at with the 10% comment, alot of groups will use one study that doesn’t fit with the rest of the data out their to justify claims.
And I am not giving any causation to this it could be society influencing them to act more deviant but a majority of studies show that their is a statistically significant higher correlation with being homosexual and a pedophile then heterosexual and a pedophile.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And I am not giving any causation to this it could be society influencing them to act more deviant but a majority of studies show that their is a statistically significant higher correlation with being homosexual and a pedophile then heterosexual and a pedophile.
[/quote]
Prove it, using peer-reviewed journal references from the major medical and mental health organizations like this one:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41
[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You are stuck on specific, single instances of marriage. I’m not. The male and female arrangement is the smallest unit capable of reproducing and raising it’s own children. Period. End of story. It is absolutely pathetic that even needs to be argued.
Now you’re just being dense. I never said that a male and female isn’t the smallest unit. I said that marriage doesn’t serve the purpose of creating that unit.
[/quote]
Looking around, it does.
[quote]
You can bring up problem scenarios all day long, it does nothing, nothing, nothing to defeat the model.
I’m not bringing up a problem scenario to bring down hetero marriage, I’m highlighting scenarios that invalidate the criteria for banning gay marriage. Not once have you addressed why that criteria still holds. You’re all fluff and no substance… [/quote]
I have explained numerous times why homosexaul marriage (state recognized) makes as much sense as polygamous marriage, hetero same sex marriage, including whatever marriage benefits a single person may choose to make use of. I have also pointed out that marriage, if it means anything, is discriminatory. Notice you’ve yet to answer why there is even a seperate treatment for certain kind of relationships. A single guy and his stable of women…A monogamous and committed relationship…Why should or shouldn’t the state recognize and treat either different? I want your answer.
[quote]So, the often “sterile couple” scenario falls flat. Why? Because it still provides yet one more model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry. Numbers take care of the desired outcome. The more married hetero couples out there, the more it is seen as a norm. The more heteros marrying and staying together, the more children born and raised with both parents still together.
You’re really really trying hard, so I give you credit for that, but you need to pick a pony and ride. First, it’s gays can’t marry because they fail the reproduction test. Now it’s gays can’t marry because hetero marriage is self recapitulating and is more normal.[/quote]
What? Gays ALWAYS fail the reproduction and raising of their own offspring test. No matter how many marry. Be it a specific partnership, or even when looking at the entire population. When bowel movements start producing children, let me know.
Even a sterile hetero couple serves the purpose of providing a model, reinforcing the normalcy and frequency of the mating sexes marrying. The more the opposite sexes pair up and marry, the more models for behavior. The more models seen and experienced, the more entrenched it becomes as a norm. Numbers flat out handle the child birthing and rearing. I can’t believe this kind of stuff has to be explained. It’s the birds and the bees all over again. For adults, at that!
It wasn’t wit. It’s the reality of the sexes.
[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
And I am not giving any causation to this it could be society influencing them to act more deviant but a majority of studies show that their is a statistically significant higher correlation with being homosexual and a pedophile then heterosexual and a pedophile.
Prove it, using peer-reviewed journal references from the major medical and mental health organizations like this one:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41[/quote]
well in this specific instance, for the measure they are using the wrong application of measure, it is merely a subjective retrospective study, in essence measuring fromt he wrong side so to speak. To truly get a firm grip of the statistic being sought you would want to break up two groups one homosexual and one heterosexual. Look at those groups and see if there were ever charges, or cases against them .
one of the reasons I don’t like case study datamining, not actually scientific, you can get some generalizations from it maybe but usually just a waste of time.
can’t see the full pdf either so I don’t really get a good idea of the all the results fromt eh study only those claims made by the researchers.
if you don’t mind give me a day so I may do a good database search to come up with some articles, that I can post full versions for.
Sorry, I don’t like studies are trying to make claims supported through faulty design not actual well designed research.
Goes both ways, believe me I guaruntee I can find data to support any statement I want if the I get to choose the design of the study. Not good science, and I don’t like it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
If a heterosexual is deemed an unfit parent, their right to marry is not abridged, in spite of failing the same criteria which is preventing same-sex couples from marrying. How is this equal protection?
Ok, and this. The equal protection nonsense is stupid. What about single folks? Why do they have to see a special status and sets of benifits for people who choose to live under the same roof together? Do you propose doing away with marriage? Or, allowing single people to claim the status and benefits of marriage solo? Or, just do away with state recognized/rewarded marriage in order to creat an equal status under the law?
You’re trying to make this more complicated in the hopes the base issue will get bowled away. Shock & Awe didn’t work in Iraq, and it isn’t very good here either.
I will make this simple for you…
-drivel–
You are stuck on specific, single instances of marriage. I’m not. The male and female arrangement is the smallest unit capable of reproducing and raising it’s own children. Period. End of story. It is absolutely pathetic that even needs to be argued.
You can bring up problem scenarios all day long, it does nothing, nothing, nothing to defeat the model. So, the often “sterile couple” scenario falls flat. Why? Because it still provides yet one more model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry. Numbers take care of the desired outcome. The more married hetero couples out there, the more it is seen as a norm. The more heteros marrying and staying together, the more children born and raised with both parents still together.
Don’t blame me, I didn’t have a hand in crafting the reproductive organs.[/quote]
I love this Augustine-esque natural law BS. Boy-oh-boy! Sexual organs exist therefore marriage must be between two members of the opposite sex! It’s only natural!!
You can argue that YOU would prefer men and women to marry, but assuming that you have “the reason for marriage” or that YOUR “reason” is more important than someone else’s is some serious stuff my good ol’ friend.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I love this Augustine-esque natural law BS. Boy-oh-boy! Sexual organs exist therefore marriage must be between two members of the opposite sex! It’s only natural!!
[/quote]
…
My arguement does in fact center on the ability of men and women to reproduce. And-and!-to raise their own children together. I see no reason to join you in supporting polygamy (including bi-sexual arrangements), gay marriage, and hetero-same sex marriage (hey, if they want the benefits, right?).
[quote]borrek wrote:
Per your own link to the New York State Supreme Court ruling, “Beyond this, they receive the symbolic
benefit, or moral satisfaction, of seeing
their relationships recognized by the State.”
“Beyond this” was regarding specific benefits of marriage provided by the State, i.e. tax relief, insurance coverage. The ruling lists a summary of the most significant benefits of marriage, and specificallydoes not list a more stable child rearing environment as a benefit.[/quote]
The ruling is not the answer to the question - the ruling discusses why a legislature, whatever its reason, was justified in passing such a law.
Yes, there is a specific legal benefit - the “particular child raising” at issue here is encouraging biological parents of a child to bind together through the use of public policy, which is the superior means of child raising. It also serves to order child raising - it disincentivizes having children outside of wedlock.
You seem confused on the issue - the best “particular raising” of a child is much broader than you suggest. It is about encouraging the institutionalization of the very best environment for children as a general rule, to the exclusion of lesser alternatives. Now, if within that environment, certain individuals prove not to be good parents, that is a separate question and, most importantly, is not any kind of indicator that the environment that we ecnouraged created the problem. If a two parents get married and otherwise act as bad parents, that has exactly zilch to do with whether or not marriage serves larger goals - i.e., “marriage” didn’t fail the child.
Demonstrably false - like other institutions, they serve as agents of a society to accomplish certain goals that might not otherwise be accomplished without it.
If it is unnecessary as you posit, it certainly can’t be a right - and with that said, as an advocate of “personal freedom”, your logic ends at the destruction of the institution. After all, every conceivable relationshiop/arrangement is due the same “right” as you suggest for gays, and with that, marriage ceases to exist.
Moreover, you say you are an advocate of “personal freedom” - but a positive right like public recognition of gay marriage is not a “freedom”. Gays are free to engage in whatever relationship they want - they just don’t get the public policy recognition. The existence of traditional marriage to the exclusion of gay marriage simply does not infringe upon any freedom a gay person has.
You said it serves no purpose and have indicated that people are “un-free” if their choices aren’t validates with traditional relationships. That combo eliminates marriage, easy peasy.
[quote]My disagreement about the role of marriage in society is based on the initial statements that marriage’s role is to form the smallest unit of reproduction. (Which, by the way, when being issued a license to marry, reproduction is never even mentioned. Seems odd if I’m being issued a license to create a reproductive unit)
Now it seems like the argument is being shifted and marriage’s role is now as a check on salacious behaviors. [/quote]
You make a frequent mistake - you present a false choice. Marriage is “all of the above”, not an “either-or” - it encourages the best unit of reproduction, it dampens certain behaviors we want to limit, such as sexual jealousy, out of wedlock children, etc., and it incentivizes the raising of children in the best way.
As a point of argument, uh, no it isn’t a “given”.
And, further to the issue, we base our rules on The Rule, not the Exception. Even if, for the sake of argument, some alternative family arrangements provide better environments for kids than some nightmarish situations, that doesn’t change the General Rule.
You seem confused on Equal Protection - the appropriate question is “is it rational to only offer marriage to a union of one man and one woman?” Society certainly can rationally come to that conclusion, which also includes not allowing polygamy. The “fundamental right of marriage” has never meant a “fundamental right to marry whoever and however many you want” - you have a “fundamental right” to marry within the context of however a society defines marriage.
Don’t believe me? States differ on what age you must be to get married - if you are below that age, you don’t have a claim that you are being denied your “fundamental right” to get married, because the state has defined marriage in a certain, rational way that doesn’t include you for publc policy reasons.
Because being a “fit” parent isn’t a prerequisite to being married.
Naturally, your (incorrect) reply likely would be: “but I thought marriage was about reproduction?”
To which the answer is: read above. Marriage is about reprduction ordering, and lots more. Society is still served by the marriage.
Society simply has no need to create gay marriage - marriage is a means to certain ends, and those policy goals simply don’t apply to gay persons. You think that because society won’t validate a gay relationship as “equal” to a straight one, there has been a denial of equal “rights”. But marriage doesn’t exist to validate personal love interest choices only - it serves other purposes.
None of those purposes are served with gay marriage. Moreover, erecting just-as-good-as alternatives disturbs the most important aspect of marriage: that it is exalted and set aside, it is honored. Making it one more choice on the menu doesn’t do anything to strengthen or reinforce it, and now more than ever, marriage needs to be buttressed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You forgot to mention that New York already recognizes gay marriages conducted in other states as valid, and is considering passing its own gay marriage law as well.[/quote]
No, I didn’t forget it - I was highlighting the fact that anyone can post a court decision that agrees with them as “the Answer”, only to find another that contradicts them.
You did this mindlessly with the California Supreme Court opinion - as soon as anyone made an arguments, you offered the CA opinion as an instantaneous “rebuttal”, as if it settled the question.
That New York is addressing the issue democratically is entirely the point I have stood behind since the beginning. I may disagree with where the democratic action goes, but that is perfectly legitimate - something you simply can’t be bothered to consider.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t think you are a hateful bigot…[/quote]
Odd - should I drag up your posts where every fourth post or so you label me a bigot? If you want to apologize for taking that approach and take a different tack going forward, no problem - but don’t add the additional wage of hypocrisy to your resume of gaffes.
Not a problem for me, never has been. Perfect example? While Sloth and I agree on this topic, he and I were on opposite sides of our opinion of Ron Paul, and I never lacked respect for him.
But I don’t suffer fools gladly, and I am happy to call horseshit when I see it. That there is a lot of horseshit around here of late is a different problem.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
You give him a lot more credit than I do. [/quote]
Forlife, my point is made.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Invoking the possibility of individual marriages is nothing more than silly hyperbole, and it denigrates anything else he says as reeking of desperation.[/quote]
Nope, and you are dodging the point. Why should a single person be denied all the legal benefits of a married individual, if equal protection means validating individual choices?
After all, you said yourself marriage serves no purpose. Well, if there is no legitimate public policy purpose to marriage, what justification is there to not allow a single person the same legal benefits because they opt not to commit to one person indefinitely?
You have opened the Pandora’s Box of marriage needing to validate individual choices, else it is “unequal” treatment. Ordinarily, we treat people differently under law for public policy reasons - i.e., poor people don’t pay the same tax rate as rich people - that serve a good we prefer.
You’ve said marriage doesn’t do that, it doesn’t serve a social purpose - so why would a single person be “denied” the same legal benefits as a married person if no “greater good” is served by giving married people some benefits?
Do tell.
[quote]borrek wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Why should he drop the ‘allowing singles to marry themselves’ argument?
Because in all definitions of marriage, it is a union. A union requires two things to put together.
Invoking the possibility of individual marriages is nothing more than silly hyperbole, and it denigrates anything else he says as reeking of desperation.
[/quote]
Two or more.
There must be something wrong with your ip-stack, Makavali. Have you checked the log for outgoing calls?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And I am not giving any causation to this it could be society influencing them to act more deviant but a majority of studies show that their is a statistically significant higher correlation with being homosexual and a pedophile then heterosexual and a pedophile.
[/quote]
I never heard of that before. But assuming it’s true, what exactly are you implying?
[quote]lixy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
And I am not giving any causation to this it could be society influencing them to act more deviant but a majority of studies show that their is a statistically significant higher correlation with being homosexual and a pedophile then heterosexual and a pedophile.
I never heard of that before. But assuming it’s true, what exactly are you implying?[/quote]
That whether it be that being a homosexual is a sexual deviancie or disorder, or that being brought up in a society where it is implied, you are more likely to to have other sexual deviancies. I am not arguing right now that it is a deviancie, I am simply whether it is nature or nurture it seems to cause correlation to other sexual deviancies.
Whether it is a deviancie or not has been argued to no end and I am not going to get into that again.
kind of like in American society don’t know if it the same there, young girls are constantly told they are too heavy even if they are rails, and some of these girls buy into it and we have eating disorders. Now not all of them do so does it have to do with some inherant quality that this subgroup possesses or is they are exposed more.
And honestly things like these cannot be tested under good scientific experimentation just given the nature of human study and experimentation, the only thing we can do is case study or observation, which in my book is truly not scientific, one of the reasons I really didn’t pursue much in physchology outside of the courses necessary for a pre-med neuroscience BS.
Why I was so happy when our university got an Exercise physiology program and a position opened up doing recombinant genomics research for the military at a grant funded institute associated with us, but that is a nother topic.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Odd - should I drag up your posts where every fourth post or so you label me a bigot? If you want to apologize for taking that approach and take a different tack going forward, no problem - but don’t add the additional wage of hypocrisy to your resume of gaffes.[/quote]
I think we’ve both been guilty of character attacks. I apologize for calling you a bigot and would appreciate your apology for attacking my character as well.
If at any point in the future, you feel that I have disparaged your character, please call me on it. From what I can tell, you seem a decent and sincere person. While I strongly disagree with your position, I still think you deserve respect.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
There must be something wrong with your ip-stack, Makavali. Have you checked the log for outgoing calls?[/quote]
Am I still triple posting? I thought the problem had been fixed… I guess the Mods are stepping in.
[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Clearly, I would prefer to exclude the child molesters of any orientation first, but that’s not the distinctions/associations the court drew.
What does child molestation have to do with anything, and why are you bringing it up in this thread?[/quote]
Read the whole post nimrod. I distinctly said child molesters (etc.). The court said that marriage isn’t exclusive enough, I picked a group everyone would want to exclude from marriage (and I even added an etc. in parenthesis to include other more/less popular social behavior).
We can choose any other social undesirable you’d prefer; violent, drunk, misogynistic, promiscuous…
Seriously, I’m questioning the very bedrock of your arguments and your quibbling about the specific embodiment of my (the courts) hypotheses? Where did you get your Ph.D.?