Traditional Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

-Why do you continue to lump the “pro” side into one group and then take umbrage when I do the exact same thing to you? If I am expected to defend those “on my side” who call you names or do something else, why wouldn’t you have to defend those “on your side” who use pseudo-science or do something else? [/quote]

What are you talking about? I don’t hold you “responsible” for all everything your “side” says - I merely pointed out that they were doing a miserable job of arguing in this thread.

You weren’t complaining about the “arguments” of my side - you were whining about the “tone”. And I pointed out that these complaints don’t appear to be even-handed from you, so it was hard to take you seriously.

Read the damn thread. Nearly every single pro-rational marriage advocate nearly pulled their hair out at the rank inability for the gay marriage advocates to actually provide counterarguments to points raised. Counterarguments, Gambit, not non-sequiturs or ad hominems or accusations that people like Cortes want to burn gays to death.

And I’ve seen your counterarguments. They are precisely the “counteraguments” the likes of me, Cortes and Sloth were trying to drill down on, and were met with stupidity.

Heh. Wny not, exactly?

282

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

It’s just an open ended question: who do we presume that a child belongs and should belong to its biological parents?

Just answer it. Should be easy.[/quote]

Let’s go, Rajraj. Time’s wasting.

283

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

It’s just an open ended question: who do we presume that a child belongs and should belong to its biological parents?

Just answer it. Should be easy.[/quote]

Let’s go, Rajraj. Time’s wasting.[/quote]

Because biological parents generally have a vested interest in seeing their genes being passed on.

I’m not saying biological parents are inferior, I am saying there are two answers to this equation. Unfortunately, orphaned children do no realize this benefit from their biological parents.

Based on the research presented, I believe LGBT parents are equally as capable as biological parents.

284

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Because biological parents generally have a vested interest in seeing their genes being passed on.[/quote]

That’s a dodge.

Answer the question. I want to know why we - as a society - enshrine this principle in law, that children belong and should belong to their parents if, other parents/parenting units are just as capable as raising these children.

You think LGBT are just as capable - so should we get rid of this presumption in law? Or not?

285

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Hey Cortes,
Here is the case for homosexual marriage given a conservative viewpoint: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

I think you question is answered therein. I also think your question was answered on this thread (or maybe the other) but it’s pretty much the same thing.

If you are feeling better and can find that old post. We could continue the conversation we were having last week (or so). If I remember correctly, the interesting part of your beliefs is that you do see societal benefits of homosexual marriage and do see homosexuals as being able to be competent and capable parents, but don’t see this as meeting the “standard” of benefit heterosexual marriage. Many of those arguing with you would deny those things.

Have a good one. If you like the article we could discuss it as well. [/quote]

Ironically, Olsen didn’t make the conservative case for gay marriage. He made the therapeutic case for gay marriage as a card carrying Republican.

He sticks to the same themes - it’s a matter of civil rights equality (it’s not) and that it is just the next stairstep on the path to progress with African-American civil rights being the last stairstep (it’s not, and not even close), and that straight marriage won’t be negatively impacted by gay marriage (it will, because it will join other factors to continue de-legitimizing marriage as anything special or crucial in society), but mostly…if we don’t pass gay marriage, we demean the value of gay relationships, and that’s mean-spirited (it’s not for all kinds of reasons, just like college students are demeaned by not having their health care resolved through Medicare subsidies/benefits).

So, Olsen is plowing old ground, and he isn’t making the “conservative” case for marriage. And, he is incorrect. In short, everything Olsen has attempted in this article has been addressed in this (and many other) thread(s).[/quote]

Oh well, in that case, I canz makez argumentz too!

See, I just dismantled your whole utilitarian thesis.

286


This is my reason for gay marriage…

287


My most eloquent reason for gun control…

288


And, finally, my most eloquent reason for just about anything I say…

Me, using utilitarian arguments without any calculus whatsoever?

Why yes, Dorothy, its all the rage now!

289

I swear to God the conservatives on this board are billboards for everything that is wrong with liberalism and the ever convincing “fuck you, thats why” branch of legislative reasoning.

Because if all they have to offer is another set of liberal fantasies, well, good riddance, the Whigs will welcome you in whatever realm they dwell now.

290

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

-Why do you continue to lump the “pro” side into one group and then take umbrage when I do the exact same thing to you? If I am expected to defend those “on my side” who call you names or do something else, why wouldn’t you have to defend those “on your side” who use pseudo-science or do something else? [/quote]

What are you talking about? I don’t hold you “responsible” for all everything your “side” says - I merely pointed out that they were doing a miserable job of arguing in this thread.

You weren’t complaining about the “arguments” of my side - you were whining about the “tone”. And I pointed out that these complaints don’t appear to be even-handed from you, so it was hard to take you seriously.

Read the damn thread. Nearly every single pro-rational marriage advocate nearly pulled their hair out at the rank inability for the gay marriage advocates to actually provide counterarguments to points raised. Counterarguments, Gambit, not non-sequiturs or ad hominems or accusations that people like Cortes want to burn gays to death.

And I’ve seen your counterarguments. They are precisely the “counteraguments” the likes of me, Cortes and Sloth were trying to drill down on, and were met with stupidity.

Heh. Wny not, exactly?
[/quote]

It would be a further waste of your time (and mine).

Thanks for your responses in this thread. I don’t care to (further) comment about other posters on this thread. Was there anything related to the point of this thread that you wanted to discuss?

291

[quote]orion wrote:

I swear to God the conservatives on this board are billboards for everything that is wrong with liberalism and the ever convincing “fuck you, thats why” branch of legislative reasoning.[/quote]

Of course, none of this is true - the legislative reasoning has been laid out as clear as can be and is rationally justified.

But, as an aside, here we have yet another libertarian hissy fit about these darned social institutions that keep holding people back from being “free”, and if only we could emancipate ourselves from these artifices of these frauds erected to deny people their “li-burr-tee”, then we’d be living the dream.

File this away in the “of course libertarianism is a creature of the political Left and has very little in common with conservatism” box.

292

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Was there anything related to the point of this thread that you wanted to discuss?[/quote]

Well, sure - I have a burning question to Rajraj that he doesn’t seem capable of answering: if children are just as better off with a LGBT parenting couple as their biological parents, then why does our society presume that chidlren belong and should belong to their parents?

Why do parents (the biological ones) have a constitutional right to their children? Why do biological parents get to take home the kid that is born in the hospital, basically no questions asked (barring some extreme exception)?

Why do we have in place a process of adoption that requires that enormous pains are taken to make sure that the biological parents don’t want/have forfeited a claim to the child? And sometimes that even isn’t enough to prevent a biological parent coming back and reclaiming the child as its own?

If there is no difference in the scenario by which children are raised by their biological parents and any other scenario - in other words, the traditional and alternative arrangements are equal - then there would be no use for any of the presumptions we have in law about the superiority of the biological parents’ claim to their child.

So, I ask again - why this presumption of superiority if the alternatives are just as good? Why do we, as society, presume a child belongs and should belong to its biological parents if it makes no difference who raises the child?

293

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Was there anything related to the point of this thread that you wanted to discuss?[/quote]

Well, sure - I have a burning question to Rajraj that he doesn’t seem capable of answering: if children are just as better off with a LGBT parenting couple as their biological parents, then why does our society presume that chidlren belong and should belong to their parents?

Why do parents (the biological ones) have a constitutional right to their children? Why do biological parents get to take home the kid that is born in the hospital, basically no questions asked (barring some extreme exception)?

Why do we have in place a process of adoption that requires that enormous pains are taken to make sure that the biological parents don’t want/have forfeited a claim to the child? And sometimes that even isn’t enough to prevent a biological parent coming back and reclaiming the child as its own?

If there is no difference in the scenario by which children are raised by their biological parents and any other scenario - in other words, the traditional and alternative arrangements are equal - then there would be no use for any of the presumptions we have in law about the superiority of the biological parents’ claim to their child.

So, I ask again - why this presumption of superiority if the alternatives are just as good? Why do we, as society, presume a child belongs and should belong to its biological parents if it makes no difference who raises the child?[/quote]

Hey TB,

I’m not sure why you would ask me this question. I am not Raj and, again as stated, I don’t feel I need to justify or comment on his or anyone else’s views.

But to directly answer your question, I think that 99% of the time or so we should favor biological parents. I’ve never said otherwise. I have argued for greater rights for the father, but that seems more appropriate for another thread. If you mean this in a more legal sense, consult your law books; I am certainly not a lawyer.

As I’ve said before, and you claim to have read, I don’t agree with the “ideal/best parenting situation as model” argument for justification of marriage. Isn’t that what we should be talking about?

294

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I’m not sure why you would ask me this question. I am not Raj and, again as stated, I don’t feel I need to justify or comment on his or anyone else’s views. [/quote]

I am not askibng you to explain/justify Rajraj’s views - I am saying the question was posed to him, and since he can’t answer it, it’d be open to answer by any gay marriage advocate.

I know you aren’t, but you don’t have to be. The problem is this - if the arrangements are equal, so many gay marriage advocates insist, this presumption (which exists) doesn’t need to exist. It’s not founded on a rational basis, if as Rajraj (and others) have said, there is no difference in children being raised by their biological parents versus alternatives.

Why would be be talking about that? The entire post-hoc rationalization for gay marriage is that it’s just as good as the traditional/rational arrangement. Well, if it is, then we don’t need these presupmtions in place.

Raraj, for example, has flat out said he thinks LGBT parenting is equal to and no different than parenting by biological parents - i.e., they are equal - which is what prompted by query about the presumption we see in our society.

What say you? Equal? Or no?

295

Talk with Raj about your arguments with Raj.

Can a homosexual woman, man, or couple raise a child “well?” Yes. If you have a point about “equal” make it and I’ll tell you what I think.

By the way, [quote]The entire post-hoc rationalization for gay marriage is that it’s just as good as the traditional/rational arrangement. Well, if it is, then we don’t need these presupmtions in place.[/quote] I don’t know what you mean by “just as good” but if you mean it as I believe you do, I have not been arguing that at all.

Isn’t your primary argument about “the best model?” Or have I confused you with another poster? I’m trying to skip to the crux of the argument/disagreement.

296

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Can a homosexual woman, man, or couple raise a child “well?” Yes. If you have a point about “equal” make it and I’ll tell you what I think. [/quote]

I asked if you thought the arrangements were equal. Not whether you think gays can raise a child “well”. So what is your answer?

That is my point, and I have explained in a fair amount of depth.

Yes, it is. A century’s worth of social history has demonstrated that we need to be done with cutting corners on raising children. It’s time to double down on reaffirming that children brought into the world need and deserve to be raised in the very best environment we can provide.

Experimentation for the sake of experimentation - and mainly, experimentation conducted on behalf of the interests of the adults and not the children - needs to come to an end.

297

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Can a homosexual woman, man, or couple raise a child “well?” Yes. If you have a point about “equal” make it and I’ll tell you what I think. [/quote]

I asked if you thought the arrangements were equal. Not whether you think gays can raise a child “well”. So what is your answer? [/quote]

I did answer. Pay attention. You are playing semantics with the word “equal.”

Do you believe homosexuals can raise a child well? Yes or no?

And I’ve given my response multiple times in this thread and the other. You said you read it. Why are you asking again?

Yes, it is. A century’s worth of social history has demonstrated that we need to be done with cutting corners on raising children. It’s time to double down on reaffirming that children brought into the world need and deserve to be raised in the very best environment we can provide.

Experimentation for the sake of experimentation - and mainly, experimentation conducted on behalf of the interests of the adults and not the children - needs to come to an end.[/quote]

Nice emotional appeal. But it’s not “experimentation for adults” or whatever that means. It’s acknowledgement of reality. I personally know people who were raised by homosexuals. Do you? I personally know homosexuals who would be phenomenal parents. Do you?

But really, this is a sub-point based on a premise that I don’t agree with, as you know; I don’t think marriage is primarily “about the kids” or some sort of “model” for young people/parents.

298

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

But really, this is a sub-point based on a premise that I don’t agree with, as you know; I don’t think marriage is primarily “about the kids” or some sort of “model” for young people/parents.

[/quote]

You can think marriage is whatever you want on a completely private level, where it’s sorted out as friends would sort out their relationship. But at the state level, where we put it on a pedestal with title, status, recognition, exclusivity, and privilege, it needs an irreplaceable and critical function to justify putting it up on that pedestal, above all other forms of human relationship and arrangement. If it isn’t about the above (your quote), you’re simply agitating for the recognition of a whopping one other form of human relationship. Just because you personally have some interest in the lifestyle. When you should be, if consistent, agitating for the recognition of any and all forms of consenting relationships/arrangements human adults can imagine.

299

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Experimentation for the sake of experimentation - and mainly, experimentation conducted on behalf of the interests of the adults and not the children - needs to come to an end.[/quote]

This is the point that bothers me most about homosexual marriage. It is in fact a grand experiment on children. Pro gay marriage advocates will throw out short term studies claiming that it does not harm children but what does that really mean? What we really need are long-term studies until then stop the social engineering!

300

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I did answer. Pay attention. You are playing semantics with the word “equal.” [/quote]

No, you didn’t. You can’t play semantics with the word “equal” - it is either the same, or it is not the same. So, which is it? Equal? Or no?

In the long run, no, children need (now more than ever) things that only a man and a woman can provide - but most importantly, as well as the biological parents? Or course not. And that is the only thing that matters for the purpose of the public policy of marriage.

Because I don’t know your answer. Equal? Or no?

This complaint coming from someone whose primary motivation is to enact a public institution whose primary aim is to make people feel better about themselves?

No, it’s experimentation - at no point in human history have we turned over the crucial responsibility of raising children to gay couples.

I do not - and I find it odd that you know gays “that would be phenomenal parents” - well, how do you know that? You don’t even pretend to have objectivity here, and that’s fine, but you should be clear about it.

I also know pairs of brothers and sisters who would make phenomenal parents if put into the position of having to care for children as parents (or if they chose to) - that doesn’t mean we should permit brothers and sisters to sign up for marriage.

Well, it doesn’t matter what you think marriage is for - what matters is what it is actually for, based on policy and history. And the idea that we simply reward adults for their choice of companionship/relationship merely for the sake of rewarding their choice has no foundation in logic, history or public policy.