Child molestation is inherently harmful. Same sex committed relationships are not.
Why would anyone even try to compare the two?
[quote]borrek wrote:
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]
The definition of marriage, depending on which state you live in, is between a man and a woman. Its definition has included a man and multiple women. Why, on earth, would you think the definition you’ve chosen is the definition.
Saying marriage doesn’t exclude degenerates of various forms, so homosexuals should be able to get married is equally desperate. As I said, I’d rather grant a man a marriage to himself than grant a single marriage to two gay pedophiles (does it make more sense if both ‘marriages’ are illogical? If not pick another degenerate besides a pedophile.).
I’ve said this before, if there were some clear advantage to marrying homosexuals, there would be no question. Instead, it’s giving an already overreaching gov’t more authority over an institution that they should be involved in to begin with. All so that gay partners can file their taxes jointly.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What? Gays ALWAYS fail the reproduction and raising of their own offspring test. [/quote]
-
Gays (like myself) can have children from a prior relationship.
-
Gays can have children through in vitro fertilization.
-
Gays can adopt children who would otherwise be raised by a government facility.
Sterile hetero couples provide a model for marriage having a purpose beyond reproduction. You’re correct that it models the pairing of a man with a woman, but at the greater expense (from your perspective) of directly contradicting the reproduction model of marriage.
The more infertile sexes pair up and marry, the more models for behavior. The more infertile models seen and experienced, the more entrenched it becomes as a norm.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
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]
Exactly, which is why instead of cherry picking studies to support your perspective, it is safer to inform yourself of the consensual conclusions of the major medical and mental health organizations that have the expertise and responsibility for drawing those conclusions correctly.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Child molestation is inherently harmful. Same sex committed relationships are not.
Why would anyone even try to compare the two?[/quote]
I didn’t compare the two the ISSC did. Child molestation itself is harmful, but the act of marriage between two child molesters is ‘completely harmless’.
Since you have your Ph.D., its obvious I have to spell it out for you, child molestation is a particular embodiment of the generality they made. You could choose numerous other embodiments that are more or less offensive and portray the flawed logic equally.
Two Nazi-cannibals getting married is harmless, a misogynist and a manic-depressive getting married is harmless… I chose child molesters because, as opposed to Nazi cannibals, there really are such things and, as opposed to manic-depressives, pretty much everyone hates child molesters.
Maybe you’re beginning to glimpse the ridiculousness of at least a portion of ISSCs argument.
Now seriously, where did you get your Ph.D.?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
You’re asking the wrong question. It is not whether society needs to create gay marriage, but whether society needs not to allow gay marriage. As pointed out by the Iowa Supreme Court, there is no compelling reason to disallow gays from marrying.
Marriage serves a variety of purposes, most of which apply to gay couples. Reproduction isn’t necessary for marriage, and thus is not a disqualifier for those that want to marry without reproducing. The other purposes of marriage still apply.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
The Iowa Supreme Court decision doesn’t settle the question, but it demonstrates that reasonable, intelligent, informed judges have specifically considered and rejected the criticisms you have leveled against gay marriage in this thread.
As with most policy decisions, both sides have a valid argument, and the question must ultimately be decided based on objective facts as they apply to the requirements and protections of the constitution.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I didn’t compare the two the ISSC did. Child molestation itself is harmful, but the act of marriage between two child molesters is ‘completely harmless’.[/quote]
What is your point then? Are you arguing that two child molestors or two Nazi cannibals shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Unless there is inherent harm in the union, why would you oppose it?
Why are you even bringing this up? I haven’t mentioned my education level, nor does having a Ph.D. apply to this discussion.
[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
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.
Exactly, which is why instead of cherry picking studies to support your perspective, it is safer to inform yourself of the consensual conclusions of the major medical and mental health organizations that have the expertise and responsibility for drawing those conclusions correctly.
[/quote]
Incorrect, you’re just cherry-picking the consensual conclusions from the last 40 yrs. and even then, those consensual conclusions are cherry-picked from assenting research.
For the majority of the history of psychological research, the consensus has been around classifying it as various medical diseases.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There must be something wrong with your ip-stack, Makavali. Have you checked the log for outgoing calls?
Am I still triple posting? I thought the problem had been fixed… I guess the Mods are stepping in.[/quote]
Not three, four.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Incorrect, you’re just cherry-picking the consensual conclusions from the last 40 yrs. and even then, those consensual conclusions are cherry-picked from assenting research.
[/quote]
Not cherry picking at all. I’m referring to the current policy statements of every major medical and mental health organization, without exception. They are unanimous in their conclusions on homosexuality, based on 40 years of research.
[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I didn’t compare the two the ISSC did. Child molestation itself is harmful, but the act of marriage between two child molesters is ‘completely harmless’.
What is your point then? Are you arguing that two child molestors or two Nazi cannibals shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Unless there is inherent harm in the union, why would you oppose it?[/quote]
Sure, filing individual tax returns and being barred from adopting children seems a pretty paltry ‘penalty’ for being a child molester or Nazi cannibal. I’m not opposed to the union itself (especially hypothetical unions), I’m opposed to the gov’t ‘protections’ and ‘sanctions’ imposed upon it. Especially if the deciding line is ‘so long as no one gets hurt’. I really don’t believe in sanctioning/rewarding people just for not hurting one another. That’s a pretty permissive, self-defeating, and generally low bar for society.
[quote]Why are you even bringing this up? I haven’t mentioned my education level, nor does having a Ph.D. apply to this discussion.
[/quote]
I could go on about your broad generalizations, ridiculously absolutist statements, crude interpretation of scientific knowledge… but I’ll leave it at you got your distraction, I’ve got mine.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Sure, filing individual tax returns and being barred from adopting children seems a pretty paltry ‘penalty’ for being a child molester or Nazi cannibal.[/quote]
If people commit crimes like murder or child abuse, there is a legal system in place to punish them for those crimes.
You can argue that disallowing criminals to marry would be a new line of punishments to dish out, but you will have to take that up with your legislators.
As it stands now, child molestors and Nazi cannibals CAN get married to the person they love, but gays cannot.
[quote]I could go on about your broad generalizations, ridiculously absolutist statements, crude interpretation of scientific knowledge… but I’ll leave it at you got your distraction, I’ve got mine.
[/quote]
The logical cohesiveness (or lack thereof) of my arguments has nothing to do with my education level, so again why are you bringing it up? Would having a Ph.D. make me any more or less credible?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What? Gays ALWAYS fail the reproduction and raising of their own offspring test.
-
Gays (like myself) can have children from a prior relationship.
-
Gays can have children through in vitro fertilization.
-
Gays can adopt children who would otherwise be raised by a government facility.
Even a sterile hetero couple serves the purpose of providing a model, reinforcing the normalcy and frequency of the mating sexes marrying.
Sterile hetero couples provide a model for marriage having a purpose beyond reproduction. You’re correct that it models the pairing of a man with a woman, but at the greater expense (from your perspective) of directly contradicting the reproduction model of marriage.
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.
The more infertile sexes pair up and marry, the more models for behavior. The more infertile models seen and experienced, the more entrenched it becomes as a norm.
[/quote]
Honestly, forlife. I don’t even think you believe what you’ve typed. You know, it’s not that I want to treat you like your stupid, or something. And I doubt you are. So, I think you’re dealing with a denial so deep, you’re willing to make embarrisingly bad arguements.
For instance, this whole “more infertile couples will defeat your goal” business is silly. First, when we see a male and female with wedding rings, holding hands, but with no children following behind, do we say to ourselves “Oh, someone’s shooting blanks. That, or her ovaries are bad! I think I’ll develop whatever condition has made this couple infertile.” Nonsense.
First, why in the world would you assume a couple is infertile? Maybe the kids are at school. Maybe they’re with a sitter. Maybe they’re old enough to watch themselves. Maybe they just haven’t concieved yet. Maybe she isn’t showing yet. Etc., etc., etc.,.
The only thing the vast majority of us are going to notice, is that there’s goes another husband and wife. And the more common this arrangement is, the more entrenched it becomes as the norm. The more entrenched the norm, the greater the drive to follow the norm. The greater the number of men and women pairing up, the more procreation within committed relationships, where both biological parents would be present. This point would’ve been conceeded pages ago in an honest debate.
What are you doing? Testing the sperm (insert joke) and ovulation of the couples that pass you by on the street?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
You give him a lot more credit than I do.
Forlife, my point is made.
[/quote]
Your point is that I don’t give yo ua lot of credit? Nice.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
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!!
…
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]
So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What? Gays ALWAYS fail the reproduction and raising of their own offspring test.
-
Gays (like myself) can have children from a prior relationship.
-
Gays can have children through in vitro fertilization.
-
Gays can adopt children who would otherwise be raised by a government facility.
Even a sterile hetero couple serves the purpose of providing a model, reinforcing the normalcy and frequency of the mating sexes marrying.
Sterile hetero couples provide a model for marriage having a purpose beyond reproduction. You’re correct that it models the pairing of a man with a woman, but at the greater expense (from your perspective) of directly contradicting the reproduction model of marriage.
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.
The more infertile sexes pair up and marry, the more models for behavior. The more infertile models seen and experienced, the more entrenched it becomes as a norm.
Honestly, forlife. I don’t even think you believe what you’ve typed. You know, it’s not that I want to treat you like your stupid, or something. And I doubt you are. So, I think you’re dealing with a denial so deep, you’re willing to make embarrisingly bad arguements.
For instance, this whole “more infertile couples will defeat your goal” business is silly. First, when we see a male and female with wedding rings, holding hands, but with no children following behind, do we say to ourselves “Oh, someone’s shooting blanks. That, or her ovaries are bad! I think I’ll develop whatever condition has made this couple infertile.” Nonsense.
First, why in the world would you assume a couple is infertile? Maybe the kids are at school. Maybe they’re with a sitter. Maybe they’re old enough to watch themselves. Maybe they just haven’t concieved yet. Maybe she isn’t showing yet. Etc., etc., etc.,.
The only thing the vast majority of us are going to notice, is that there’s goes another husband and wife. And the more common this arrangement is, the more entrenched it becomes as the norm. The more entrenched the norm, the greater the drive to follow the norm. The greater the number of men and women pairing up, the more procreation within committed relationships, where both biological parents would be present. This point would’ve been conceeded pages ago in an honest debate.
What are you doing? Testing the sperm (insert joke) and ovulation of the couples that pass you by on the street?
[/quote]
Most “couples” you see on the street are “husband and wife,” huh? I’d better be careful, I was walking down the street with my brother the other day and both of us were wearing rings…looks like I was promoting gay marriage.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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!!
…
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?).
So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!
[/quote]
Thanks for crediting me with the form and function of the penis, testicles, vagina, ovaries, and (due to the nature of the topic) rectum. However, I’m afraid your praise is misplaced. Truth be told, I had no hand in fashioning man or woman.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Most “couples” you see on the street are “husband and wife,” huh? I’d better be careful, I was walking down the street with my brother the other day and both of us were wearing rings…looks like I was promoting gay marriage.
[/quote]
Ok…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What are you doing? Testing the sperm (insert joke) and ovulation of the couples that pass you by on the street?
[/quote]
Are you trying to argue that if infertile straight couples were not allowed to marry, this wouldn’t create an uproar because nobody would know whether a particular couple was infertile or not? Seriously?
It’s the law that we’re talking about here, and the effects of this law on public perceptions and consequent modeling behavior.
Obviously, allowing infertile straight couples to marry sends a very strong message that marriage is NOT solely or even primarily about procreation. If you seriously wanted not to send this message, you would advocate against infertile couples marrying.