[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just because you personally have some interest in the lifestyle. [/quote]
This is precisely it. It’s not because society needs legal recognition of these relationships. The motivation is purely superficial - a personal interest in the lifestyle - and therapeutic.
A definition of the word “well” is in desperate need of existing in the context of this discussion. With the right definition of the word “well”, as used here, a pair of spider monkeys could eventually be said to have the ability to raise children “well”.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Surely you can?
Don’t take the coward’s way out. Just tell me why I am wrong. I’ll wait patiently.[/quote]
sigh
Perhaps you’re not doing this on purpose, but I’m not required to disprove your claim. The burden of proof is on you if you are asserting this as fact.
By attempting to shift the burden of proof to me you are making an argument from ignorance.
Look up the term ‘philosophical burden of proof.’
[/quote]
Says the side that cannot prove that gay marriage is a good societal change.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
A few points, but if we can’t move on to material that hasn’t already been covered ad nauseum, then it’s time to go our separate ways.
-“Equal” as exactly the same, no. Equal as in “equally well” yes. This is getting old and it has been addressed.
-I’m not at all surprised that you don’t know homosexual people or couples who would or have made great parents or people who were raised by homosexuals. If or when you do meet them, you may change many of your opinions.
-I’m not surprised that you don’t think homosexuals can be good parents. But if you don’t know any gay parents or people raised by gay parents, what are you basing this belief on? Do you have studies? Is it primarily a “religious” belief? I’m giving an opinion based on experience and knowledge. What is your opinion based on? How are you coming to such an illogical opinion? What is your basis for belief?
(OTHER POSTERS: save your pseudo-science or conspiracy theories, I’m talking with TB.)
Once again…
[i]The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state’s interest in procreationâ??and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What’s more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state’s desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.[/i]
-It is not “merely for the sake of rewarding their choice”. We’ve gone over this in dozens of threads. Why does this need to be repeated so many times? I feel like a broken record. Many have “listed up” the societal benefits of homosexual marriage. If you believe those do not meet the standard necessary to receive benefits, that is your opinion. But if you believe there are no benefits whatsoever, then you are a fool.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
-“Equal” as exactly the same, no. Equal as in “equally well” yes. This is getting old and it has been addressed. [/quote]
No, it hasn’t been addressed completely, which is exactly why I am asking people like you that, if what you say is true - that children are raised “equally well” by gay parents - then why do we presume that children belong to their biological parents?
If you’re right and I’m wrong, there is no reason for this presumption. It serves no purpose - there is absolutely no reason to give biological parents a place in line ahead of anyone else in law in society viz-a-viz first right of refusal with adoption, constitutional right to children, etc., if biological parents are no better than anyone else in raising a kid.
So, do you support getting rid of the laws based on this (unfounded) presumption? Because your answer matters. If you believe what you say you believe, that is a radical proposition, and I expect that you will put your money (and advocacy) where your mouth is.
I doubt it, because it isn’t inherently personal, it’s a view in the aggregate - I think a child needs two parents, one male and one female.
You, on the other hand, don’t think this is particularly important at all.
Have you met a set of brother and sister that would likely make “good” parents by your definition? Assuming you have - and it’d likely be impossible for you not to have - would it be okay if they entered into publicly-recognized marriage so they could adopt?
You argue from anecdote - I argue from the general. I don’t think in the long run gay couples raise children in the way traditional parents can. It’d be impossible for them to. How could they? Children need (a) the inherent connection of the biological parents, which gay couples definitionally can never provide, and (b) the masculine and feminine roles in a family structure, which gay couples can never provide.
That can’t be substituted by alternatives. And will never be.
You might know a gay parent that has a great job, can clothe and feed a child without trouble and may be a fine person - but that isn’t the issue. I also once thought you wanted to move the bar down as to the standard by which our children should be raised, i.e., gay parenting might not be as good as traditional parenting, but it was “good enough” under the circumstances, but since you think they would raised “equally well” - a downright absurd idea - I was wrong.
[quote]Once again…
[i]The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state’s interest in procreationâ??and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What’s more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state’s desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.[/i][/quote]
I’ll be blunt - I don’t know where this quote came from, but it’s dumb as hell. Marriage doesn’t further the state’s interest in procreation? Seriously? Did someone actually write that? Of course it does - why would be provide tax breaks and exemptions for dependents if not? Why would there be such a thing as “out of wedlock” children if not?
I can’t take this quote seriously - I am dead serious. Any person who is willing to state that marriage doesn’t further the state’s interest in procreation is functioning without a brain stem.
As to whether gay marriage impacts rational marriage - sure it does. It doesn’t encourage heterosexuals to conceive more or less, but it does encourage the children born as a result of said heterosexual activity to be channeled into more and more alternative arranagements other than traditional/rational one man, one woman family structures. Then, traditional/rational marriage loses its exalted status (as we now make clear that one arrangement isn’t any better than another), fewer children are raised in the best arrangement (in complete contradiction to the entire point of marriage), and society is poorer for it.
As for the argument that marriage isn’t about procreation because “we allow the infertile to marry” - that has been cut to ribbons more times than I can count. Gay marriage advocates need to get new material.
Don’t try to talk tough - it doesn’t suit you.
But let’s do an accounting. By your lights, marriage isn’t about procreation. Check. Nor is it about rewarding adults for choosing a monogamous relationship (you just said so). Check. Ok, so not about kids, and not about the adults - so what the hell is it about then?
Dead serious question - if it’s not about the kids, and not about rewarding adult monogamy, then what is the point of having it at all? Why aren’t you arguing for the abolition of marriage? By your explanation, it doesn’t appear to serve any purpose.
As for gay marriage, there are no benefits, not when the benefits (whatever they may be) are weighed against the costs.
Look, the gay marriage movement isn’t about enacting an institution for the betterment of society as a whole. It wasn’t conceived of that way, and no one was sitting around looking at a laundry list of public policy problems plaguing the country and then suddenly someone said “hey, you know what would fix all these problems - if we let gays marry!”
The gay marriage movement is about one thing - the (perceived) cultural validation of gay relationships as “equal” to heterosexuals ones. Again, it’s therapeutic - it is designed to make people feel better about themselves.
It doesn’t cure any social ills, it doesn’t make society better, it simply doesn’t do much of anything except help undermine an already undermined institution under attack.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
-“Equal” as exactly the same, no. Equal as in “equally well” yes. This is getting old and it has been addressed. [/quote]
No, it hasn’t been addressed completely, which is exactly why I am asking people like you that, if what you say is true - that children are raised “equally well” by gay parents - then why do we presume that children belong to their biological parents?
If you’re right and I’m wrong, there is no reason for this presumption. It serves no purpose - there is absolutely no reason to give biological parents a place in line ahead of anyone else in law in society viz-a-viz first right of refusal with adoption, constitutional right to children, etc., if biological parents are no better than anyone else in raising a kid.
So, do you support getting rid of the laws based on this (unfounded) presumption? Because your answer matters. If you believe what you say you believe, that is a radical proposition, and I expect that you will put your money (and advocacy) where your mouth is.
I doubt it, because it isn’t inherently personal, it’s a view in the aggregate - I think a child needs two parents, one male and one female.
You, on the other hand, don’t think this is particularly important at all.
Have you met a set of brother and sister that would likely make “good” parents by your definition? Assuming you have - and it’d likely be impossible for you not to have - would it be okay if they entered into publicly-recognized marriage so they could adopt?
You argue from anecdote - I argue from the general. I don’t think in the long run gay couples raise children in the way traditional parents can. It’d be impossible for them to. How could they? Children need (a) the inherent connection of the biological parents, which gay couples definitionally can never provide, and (b) the masculine and feminine roles in a family structure, which gay couples can never provide.
That can’t be substituted by alternatives. And will never be.
You might know a gay parent that has a great job, can clothe and feed a child without trouble and may be a fine person - but that isn’t the issue. I also once thought you wanted to move the bar down as to the standard by which our children should be raised, i.e., gay parenting might not be as good as traditional parenting, but it was “good enough” under the circumstances, but since you think they would raised “equally well” - a downright absurd idea - I was wrong.
[quote]Once again…
[i]The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state’s interest in procreationÃ?¢??and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What’s more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state’s desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.[/i][/quote]
I’ll be blunt - I don’t know where this quote came from, but it’s dumb as hell. Marriage doesn’t further the state’s interest in procreation? Seriously? Did someone actually write that? Of course it does - why would be provide tax breaks and exemptions for dependents if not? Why would there be such a thing as “out of wedlock” children if not?
I can’t take this quote seriously - I am dead serious. Any person who is willing to state that marriage doesn’t further the state’s interest in procreation is functioning without a brain stem.
As to whether gay marriage impacts rational marriage - sure it does. It doesn’t encourage heterosexuals to conceive more or less, but it does encourage the children born as a result of said heterosexual activity to be channeled into more and more alternative arranagements other than traditional/rational one man, one woman family structures. Then, traditional/rational marriage loses its exalted status (as we now make clear that one arrangement isn’t any better than another), fewer children are raised in the best arrangement (in complete contradiction to the entire point of marriage), and society is poorer for it.
As for the argument that marriage isn’t about procreation because “we allow the infertile to marry” - that has been cut to ribbons more times than I can count. Gay marriage advocates need to get new material.
Don’t try to talk tough - it doesn’t suit you.
But let’s do an accounting. By your lights, marriage isn’t about procreation. Check. Nor is it about rewarding adults for choosing a monogamous relationship (you just said so). Check. Ok, so not about kids, and not about the adults - so what the hell is it about then?
Dead serious question - if it’s not about the kids, and not about rewarding adult monogamy, then what is the point of having it at all? Why aren’t you arguing for the abolition of marriage? By your explanation, it doesn’t appear to serve any purpose.
As for gay marriage, there are no benefits, not when the benefits (whatever they may be) are weighed against the costs.
Look, the gay marriage movement isn’t about enacting an institution for the betterment of society as a whole. It wasn’t conceived of that way, and no one was sitting around looking at a laundry list of public policy problems plaguing the country and then suddenly someone said “hey, you know what would fix all these problems - if we let gays marry!”
The gay marriage movement is about one thing - the (perceived) cultural validation of gay relationships as “equal” to heterosexuals ones. Again, it’s therapeutic - it is designed to make people feel better about themselves.
It doesn’t cure any social ills, it doesn’t make society better, it simply doesn’t do much of anything except help undermine an already undermined institution under attack.[/quote]
This is a masterful summary of everything we’ve been hammering (and hammering and hammering…) at over the past couple of months. Very, very well put, tb.