I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon. [/quote]
Actually there is. Do you know what happens when two siblings reproduce with each other? [/quote]
Do we think it’s right to prevent people with mental illnesses, physical deformities, low IQ, or any other problems from reproducing? There’s no reason that should be different than pregnancies from incest.
In addition to that, marriage is not about producing children, so such an issue is irrelevant to whether or not their marriage should be legally recognized. [/quote]
Show some manners and at least read through the thread before you jump in here with a bunch of issues that have already been beaten to death over the course of this thread and a 20 something page long one before it.
You must have missed that word I put in quotation marks in my final paragraph. Your “can” in a limited sense on one very limited point, and even then still not meeting the criterion that define “BEST arrangement for children” is not anywhere near reason enough to reward a group with the substantial benefits that married heterosexuals deserve.
[/quote]
Prove that a man-woman parenting household is the best form and that LGBT make for inferior parents in comparison. I know you’re not a dullard but “because I say so” isn’t evidence.
Assuming for a second that you are indeed correct, LGBT parents are inferior to straight couples. An LGBT household would still be a HUGE improvement for a child in foster care. Have you ever looked at statistics of children in foster care? They’re atrocious.
[/quote]
And here we have the reset button getting pressed again.
1.) Look up the thread about every 10 posts for where Sloth, thunderbolt or I have addressed this about 200 times combined over the past month. YOU need to back up your claims of equality. E-QUA-LI-TY, meaning, the same, exact value. No net loss and possible net gain and where does the change take place?
I am not being condescending in the slightest when I say that you will lose this argument if you continue to try and assert this. Hint: Sloth has mentioned I don’t know how many times now what would happen if homosexual relationships disappeared overnight, and what would happen if hetero ones did the same.
2.) Thunderbolt has already provided a viable solution if there is some rampant Dickensonian problem with feral homeless or orphaned children going on in America. Cliff notes: There’s not and this is not a compelling reason to provide a new niche group with benefits massively out of proportion to the service it might provide.
[/quote]
Is number one being answered? The question is whether they provide inferior parents/households not baby makers.
I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon. [/quote]
Actually there is. Do you know what happens when two siblings reproduce with each other? [/quote]
Do we think it’s right to prevent people with mental illnesses, physical deformities, low IQ, or any other problems from reproducing? There’s no reason that should be different than pregnancies from incest.
In addition to that, marriage is not about producing children, so such an issue is irrelevant to whether or not their marriage should be legally recognized. [/quote]
Show some manners and at least read through the thread before you jump in here with a bunch of issues that have already been beaten to death over the course of this thread and a 20 something page long one before it.
[/quote]
Oh polite sir, please forgive me for my great rudeness of civilly contributing my opinion to this politics & world issues topic.
I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon. [/quote]
Actually there is. Do you know what happens when two siblings reproduce with each other? [/quote]
Do we think it’s right to prevent people with mental illnesses, physical deformities, low IQ, or any other problems from reproducing? There’s no reason that should be different than pregnancies from incest.
In addition to that, marriage is not about producing children, so such an issue is irrelevant to whether or not their marriage should be legally recognized. [/quote]
Show some manners and at least read through the thread before you jump in here with a bunch of issues that have already been beaten to death over the course of this thread and a 20 something page long one before it.
[/quote]
Oh polite sir, please forgive me for my great rudeness of civilly contributing my opinion to this politics & world issues topic.[/quote]
Do you butt into conversations people are in the middle of in real life and then act indignantly when they express annoyance at your boorishness?
1.) Look up the thread about every 10 posts for where Sloth, thunderbolt or I have addressed this about 200 times combined over the past month. YOU need to back up your claims of equality. E-QUA-LI-TY, meaning, the same, exact value. No net loss and possible net gain and where does the change take place? [/quote]
I think it’s an equality issue but WHY does it even matter how the issue is labeled? What matters are the arguments for and against gay marriage. I don’t see how this is relevant.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I am not being condescending in the slightest when I say that you will lose this argument if you continue to try and assert this. Hint: Sloth has mentioned I don’t know how many times now what would happen if homosexual relationships disappeared overnight, and what would happen if hetero ones did the same. [/quote]
And?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
2.) Thunderbolt has already provided a viable solution if there is some rampant Dickensonian problem with feral homeless or orphaned children going on in America. Cliff notes: There’s not and this is not a compelling reason to provide a new niche group with benefits massively out of proportion to the service it might provide.
[/quote]
So let me if I understand you. A social issue is only worth addressing if the problem is severe?
According to this there were 408,425 children in foster care as of September 2010. Wouldn’t you like to see this number decrease even if it’s not a large number relative to the US population?
Heck, say LGBT parents go out of the country and adopt chinese baby girls. You’d still have a stable household raising a future contributor to society.
I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon. [/quote]
Actually there is. Do you know what happens when two siblings reproduce with each other? [/quote]
Do we think it’s right to prevent people with mental illnesses, physical deformities, low IQ, or any other problems from reproducing? There’s no reason that should be different than pregnancies from incest.
In addition to that, marriage is not about producing children, so such an issue is irrelevant to whether or not their marriage should be legally recognized. [/quote]
It’s not the same. By legalizing incest marriage, you are encouraging people to produce children with birth defects/health issues. And forget incest marriage. Start with legalizing incest if that’s your agenda.
Heck, say LGBT parents go out of the country and adopt chinese baby girls.[/quote]
You forgot the “Q.” It’s L.G.B.T.Q. don’tchaknow? That stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual and “Questioning.”
But that doesn’t really cover it all either. Wikipedia:‘Transsexualism is often included within the broader category of transgenderism, which is generally used as an umbrella term for people who do not conform to typical accepted gender roles, for example cross-dressers, transvestites, and people who identify as genderqueer[*]. Transsexualism refers to a specific condition in the transgender realm. Thus, even though a crossdresser and transsexual are both transgender people, their conditions differ radically. Though some people use transgenderism and transsexualism interchangeably, they are not synonymous terms.’
Genderqueer: Genderqueer (GQ; alternatively non-binary) is a catch-all term for gender identities other than man and woman, thus outside of the gender binary and heteronormativity. People who identify as genderqueer may think of themselves as one or more of the following:
both man and woman (bigender, pangender);
neither man nor woman (genderless, agender);
moving between genders (genderfluid);
third gender or other-gendered; includes those who do not place a name to their gender;
having an overlap of, or blurred lines between, gender identity and sexual orientation.’
bigender: ‘Bigender, bi-gender or bi+gender describes a tendency to move between feminine and masculine gender-typed behaviour depending on context. Some bigendered individuals express a distinctly “en femme” persona and a distinctly “en homme” persona, feminine and masculine respectively; others have shades of grey between the two. It is recognized by the American Psychological Association (APA) as a subset of the transgender group.’
I like how we’re expected to take this stuff seriously. Yes, adopting out kids to people with psychosexual pathologies is a good idea…sure.
All of this is “plowing old ground.” The same arguments have been being made by both sides for quite some time. You may not agree with his argument or chose to label his arguments in a derogatory fashion (“therapeutic”), but there are very few changes that I’ve seen. [/quote]
Hi GL,
“Therapeutic” is not a derogatory label on its face - it definitionally describes the primary motivation to enact gay marriage - to make certain people feel better about the cultural status of their relationships. That ism by definition, therapeutic: “having or exhibiting healing powers.”
And most importantly, these aren’t new arguments, and they don’t represent the “conservative” case for gay marriage.
That’s just silly - the change in labeling came as a result of gay marriage advocates trying to advance a certain notion of what amounts to tradition and what doesn’t, so in an effort to focus the argument on public policy (which is the most important aspect of this debate), we chose some new labeling reflecting the public policy reasons.
That “traditional marriage” argument isn’t “flat” - it’s doing just fine. Best way to know for sure? The arguments for “traditional marriage” get smart, thoughtful posts from the likes of the well-read and well-thought Sloth, Cortes and Brother Chris, and from the “alternative marriage crowd” we get non-sequiturs and pictures of cats.
No it wouldn’t. Public policy is made to benefit society. If a relationship type serves no benefit or causes harm to society it has no reason for recognition. [/quote]
In terms of reading children? Yes they are equal.[/quote]
If this is true, then why does our law presume that a child belongs to its biological parents (which its does and always has)?
We have never assumed equality here, never. And, for good reason - there’s no reason to. Our entire society, culture of family, and laws reflecting our beliefs on family are based on one singular proposition - children belong and should belong to their biological parents. We make exceptions to that rule, but they are exceptions, and not the rule.
If you think that there is nothing unique or inherently superior about children being raised by their biological parents, then you don’t just want to enact gay marriage - you want to up-end our entire social and legal framework for how we perceive the child-parent relationship.
All of this is “plowing old ground.” The same arguments have been being made by both sides for quite some time. You may not agree with his argument or chose to label his arguments in a derogatory fashion (“therapeutic”), but there are very few changes that I’ve seen. [/quote]
Hi GL,
“Therapeutic” is not a derogatory label on its face - it definitionally describes the primary motivation to enact gay marriage - to make certain people feel better about the cultural status of their relationships. That ism by definition, therapeutic: “having or exhibiting healing powers.”
And most importantly, these aren’t new arguments, and they don’t represent the “conservative” case for gay marriage.
That’s just silly - the change in labeling came as a result of gay marriage advocates trying to advance a certain notion of what amounts to tradition and what doesn’t, so in an effort to focus the argument on public policy (which is the most important aspect of this debate), we chose some new labeling reflecting the public policy reasons.
That “traditional marriage” argument isn’t “flat” - it’s doing just fine. Best way to know for sure? The arguments for “traditional marriage” get smart, thoughtful posts from the likes of the well-read and well-thought Sloth, Cortes and Brother Chris, and from the “alternative marriage crowd” we get non-sequiturs and pictures of cats.[/quote]
Thanks for the response. A few points:
-It seems like you were–at least in part–agreeing with me, especially the underlined above, so I’m not sure why you say it is “silly.” You are purposefully trying to highlight a different aspect of your argument (and move away from “tradition”). This, I think, was close to the original point of the thread. I think now we can move on from “tradition.”
-In the following paragraph, you seem to revert to using “traditional marriage” to mean the argument for the current form of heterosexual marriage. While I think “rational marriage” is another somewhat silly term since it is an obvious attempt to claim the “other side” is irrational, at least it highlights a different aspect of the argument against homosexual marriage…the only one that is interesting, IMO. I’d be happy if you and others stop saying “traditional marriage” completely simply to highlight what you said you are highlighting above.
-There are smart, meaningful posts on both sides of the argument. I’m not sure why you and others continue to claim that the “other side” “isn’t making an argument.” That said, there are very few good posters anymore, and even fewer “from the left.” I like lifting weights and I like talking about and thinking about politics, so I’ll probably stick around, but the negativity seen in virtually every thread keeps me from posting much anymore. So, I understand why many have left or are remaining silent. In truth, I’m only posting now because I want to “zone out” for a little bit before I do some sprints.
[quote]Tumbles wrote:
I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon.[/quote]
Polygamy and incestuous relationships are two very different things.
In the case of incestuous relationships, it’s not only “our current landscap of social values” that “still frown on” them. Prohibition of incest exists in every culture, in a way or another. It’s one of the few universal structures of human societies.
Because without some kind of prohibition of incest, there would be no society and no culture at all. Society would quickly devolve into pure endogamy. See Levi Strauss’s work on this topic.
On the other hand, polygamy is a millenia old institution in some parts of the world. It’s viable (which does not mean that it is desirable for OUR society).
[quote]
It’s slow progress, but I imagine in a century from now people will look back at this issue the same way we look back at something like women’s suffrage. [/quote]
Which progress ?
These legalizations doesn’t automatically produce more sexual freedom, more tolerance or more social acceptance.
Quite the contrary indeed.
The only guaranteed progress here is the growth of government.
The argument of “equality” is a very dangerous one because it denies the basic right for our society to determine its own structures and institutions.
If we were aboriginals, our marriage customs would be seen as a cultural treasure to be respected and preserved.
But when westerners do it, suddenly, our marriage customs suddenly need to be redefined to please and appase various minorities, and those who object becomes “bigots”.
Then, I’m a polyamourous pagan bigot who do NOT want the right to polymarry my loved ones. Because i understand and respect the basic principle of the res publica.
-It seems like you were–at least in part–agreeing with me, especially the underlined above, so I’m not sure why you say it is “silly.” You are purposefully trying to highlight a different aspect of your argument (and move away from “tradition”). This, I think, was close to the original point of the thread. I think now we can move on from “tradition.” [/quote]
Well, not really at all - the traditional marriage argument hasn’t “moved on” to the public policy of “ordered procreation” - that is part and parcel of why it is a tradition in the first place. You insinuated that the shift in labeling was a “tacit admission” that the traditional marriage argument was “flat” or somehow not working, and that is silly - because it is unfounded. It isn’t a “tacit admission” of anything other than changing labels to help the gay marriage advocate stay focused on the issue.
But “traditional marriage” is a thing, and a good one - and it is a good tradition. Traditions are presumptively good in that the are most often the result of inherited wisdom over several generations. That isn’t always the case, but often is. So there is no reason to do away with the label “traditional marriage” - we’ve simply changed labels because gay marriage advocates get confused when we bring history into the debate.
As for the “rational marriage” - the other side has been irrational in this thread. Increibly so. They can’t argue on point - they appeal to emotion and mostly anti-religious ad hominem. “Rational marriage” is meant to be a term that means “a marriage arrangement that society would rationally desire to recognize in public policy because it produces some social dividend.” No one has successfully argued that gay marriage fits this criteria.
Have you read the thread? Have you read the idiotic insistence on trying to impugn the motives of those arguing against gay marriage as bigots? Have you read the endless stream of non-sequiturs? The exhausting routine that we hit the reset button over and over just because they can’t handle the arguments put to them?
While you lament the quality of posting around here and the general tone and lack of civility, you always complain about the “negativity” from the “right”. Left-wing posters post all sorts of inflammatory and negative stuff - insulting people’s religions, engaging in sarcasm and distracting trash-talking, attacking people as “bigots”, and so on - this thread is a perfect example - but curiously, I never see you come in and complain about them.
A piece of advice - if you are truly concerned about the civility of PWI, it would behoove you to be more consistent and a little less selective with the complaints.
While you lament the quality of posting around here and the general tone and lack of civility, you always complain about the “negativity” from the “right”. Left-wing posters post all sorts of inflammatory and negative stuff - insulting people’s religions, engaging in sarcasm and distracting trash-talking, attacking people as “bigots”, and so on - this thread is a perfect example - but curiously, I never see you come in and complain about them.
A piece of advice - if you are truly concerned about the civility of PWI, it would behoove you to be more consistent and a little less selective with the complaints.[/quote]
I have to agree here, GL. While you are certainly civil, many, no, most of the rest of those on “your side” have been absolutely incorrigible. Don’t believe me. Take a quick scan over the first four or five pages of this thread one more time and tell me I’m wrong. As I said earlier on, according to one poster, apparently, I support setting people on fire. The other thread was no better.
Got swamped in posts again so I’ll just give a general response. It will basically be the same question I asked earlier, but as has been demonstrated time and again over the past few weeks here, I have to extract every single possible iota of ambiguity and malleability out of any question in order to maaaaybe get a straight answer:
Pro-gay marriage advocates: Do you believe that your father could have filled the role your mother played in your life exactly as good as she did? And do you feel your mother could have performed just exactly as good as your father in the part he played in raising you?
To be (even more) clear, I am not talking about mothers who necessarily had to take up the role of the father in addition to their own due to unfortunate circumstances. I am asking, could either of your own parents have switched roles with no change in your life whatsoever?
Don’t worry about nit picking why the analogy is not perfect. I cannot make the question any more simple than it is: Could your father do your mother’s job exactly as good as she could, and could your mother do your father’s job exactly as good as he could?
-It seems like you were–at least in part–agreeing with me, especially the underlined above, so I’m not sure why you say it is “silly.” You are purposefully trying to highlight a different aspect of your argument (and move away from “tradition”). This, I think, was close to the original point of the thread. I think now we can move on from “tradition.” [/quote]
Well, not really at all - the traditional marriage argument hasn’t “moved on” to the public policy of “ordered procreation” - that is part and parcel of why it is a tradition in the first place. You insinuated that the shift in labeling was a “tacit admission” that the traditional marriage argument was “flat” or somehow not working, and that is silly - because it is unfounded. It isn’t a “tacit admission” of anything other than changing labels to help the gay marriage advocate stay focused on the issue.
But “traditional marriage” is a thing, and a good one - and it is a good tradition. Traditions are presumptively good in that the are most often the result of inherited wisdom over several generations. That isn’t always the case, but often is. So there is no reason to do away with the label “traditional marriage” - we’ve simply changed labels because gay marriage advocates get confused when we bring history into the debate.
As for the “rational marriage” - the other side has been irrational in this thread. Increibly so. They can’t argue on point - they appeal to emotion and mostly anti-religious ad hominem. “Rational marriage” is meant to be a term that means “a marriage arrangement that society would rationally desire to recognize in public policy because it produces some social dividend.” No one has successfully argued that gay marriage fits this criteria.
Have you read the thread? Have you read the idiotic insistence on trying to impugn the motives of those arguing against gay marriage as bigots? Have you read the endless stream of non-sequiturs? The exhausting routine that we hit the reset button over and over just because they can’t handle the arguments put to them?
While you lament the quality of posting around here and the general tone and lack of civility, you always complain about the “negativity” from the “right”. Left-wing posters post all sorts of inflammatory and negative stuff - insulting people’s religions, engaging in sarcasm and distracting trash-talking, attacking people as “bigots”, and so on - this thread is a perfect example - but curiously, I never see you come in and complain about them.
A piece of advice - if you are truly concerned about the civility of PWI, it would behoove you to be more consistent and a little less selective with the complaints.[/quote]
Thanks for the response. A few points:
-I didn’t imply that it was a tacit admission, I stated it bluntly. I still think this is true. And I do hope we can move on because arguing as to the motivations of those who started a tradition, arguing the age of the tradition, or arguing the specifics of a tradition simply isn’t interesting to me.
-No, I haven’t really read through this thread or the other. I skimmed for names/avatars at best. We’ve had these discussions countless times before. Other than the change in terminology has there been anything new here?
-I have in this thread (or the other) made a specific point that the use of bigotry was unhelpful/inappropriate. I can’t recall my exact words now. I assume this was primarily used by those advocating for homosexual marriage. Essentially, this was my complaining about incivility “from the left.” I’m not sure why you didn’t see it. That said, from past experience I know that all sides in PWI are quite negative. I feel no obligation to “patrol” the forum. Furthermore, you yourself have told me (unless I am mus-remembering) that you enjoy the negativity.
-I try to select who I respond to here in PWI. While I was lamenting the general tone and quality of PWI in general, I was thanking you in particular for not engaging in that in your response to me. Sometimes your posts are interesting. However, they are often so inflammatory as to be made “not worth it” as it were. I generally ignore you so-as not to be caught up in another “flame war” as they used to be called.
While you lament the quality of posting around here and the general tone and lack of civility, you always complain about the “negativity” from the “right”. Left-wing posters post all sorts of inflammatory and negative stuff - insulting people’s religions, engaging in sarcasm and distracting trash-talking, attacking people as “bigots”, and so on - this thread is a perfect example - but curiously, I never see you come in and complain about them.
A piece of advice - if you are truly concerned about the civility of PWI, it would behoove you to be more consistent and a little less selective with the complaints.[/quote]
I have to agree here, GL. While you are certainly civil, many, no, most of the rest of those on “your side” have been absolutely incorrigible. Don’t believe me. Take a quick scan over the first four or five pages of this thread one more time and tell me I’m wrong. As I said earlier on, according to one poster, apparently, I support setting people on fire. The other thread was no better.
[/quote]
It’s not just “my side” mate. And as I said to TB above, I actually did comment, although I don’t feel any obligation to do so.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Got swamped in posts again so I’ll just give a general response. It will basically be the same question I asked earlier, but as has been demonstrated time and again over the past few weeks here, I have to extract every single possible iota of ambiguity and malleability out of any question in order to maaaaybe get a straight answer:
Pro-gay marriage advocates: Do you believe that your father could have filled the role your mother played in your life exactly as good as she did? And do you feel your mother could have performed just exactly as good as your father in the part he played in raising you?
To be (even more) clear, I am not talking about mothers who necessarily had to take up the role of the father in addition to their own due to unfortunate circumstances. I am asking, could either of your own parents have switched roles with no change in your life whatsoever?
Don’t worry about nit picking why the analogy is not perfect. I cannot make the question any more simple than it is: Could your father do your mother’s job exactly as good as she could, and could your mother do your father’s job exactly as good as he could?[/quote]
I’m not sure why you keep asking this question. Particularity given the direction our conversation was going from last week. See my previous response and/or the link I provided for a direct response to these questions.
Otherwise we’ll just be going over the EXACT SAME ground again and again.