Look who’s pushing their marriage agenda in Australia now:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23916409-662,00.html
Super. Oh well, who are we to say it’s wrong?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
- As to why not extend marriage to all consenting adults relationships - asked and answered.
[/quote]
The question was what authority or proof do you have that what you said to be “the right way” for children to be raised actually is? Way to dodge, though.
Well we certainly wouldn’t want this! The fact that the gay community is particularly susceptible to disease is something we can point out as a reason that homosexuality is wrong!
Marriage may indeed have such an influence; I was responding to the idea that anything other than your “right way” would be absolute chaos.
I’m fairly certain people have been cheating on their husbands/wives since marriage existed. As I said before, marriage has been, among other things, a form of political, social, and economic movement.
Isn’t the concept of marriage for love, and the idea that people should choose their partner relatively new? If the traditional marriage is one that is arranged by the family (not just the person), why aren’t you clamoring to go back to that?
So thats the point of marriage? To train people?
No. We need the govenrment not to give special rights and priviledges to certain citizens: regardless of how much those citizens think they are right.
My claims that the government shouldnt offer marriage benefits to heterosexuals but not homosexuals? Or my claim that binary heterosexual coupling may not always be the ideal arrangement for the raising of children?
Its “advantages” as far as that translates to “advantages for heterosexuals”.
So says the one who can (does?) benefit from the privileged status. But I’m sure thats irrelevant, I’m sure even if you were gay you’d see the importance of heterosexual marriage and wouldnt want to go mucking it up asking for equal rights.
Good point. Our culture should change.
[quote]
That doesn’t mean we should categorically damn those relationships, I certainly don’t - but there isn’t a reason to exalt them with the same privileges of a relationship that enjoys the history, cultural influence, and social advantages of binary heterosexual marriage.[/quote]
Perhaps you’re right: The problem is that our culture, and society, are built with binary heterosexual relationships as a given. They should be changed.
Its funny how much resistance there will always be to social progress.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Look who’s pushing their marriage agenda in Australia now:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23916409-662,00.html
Super. Oh well, who are we to say it’s wrong?[/quote]
Big surprise, eh? Unfuckingbelievable.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Look who’s pushing their marriage agenda in Australia now:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23916409-662,00.html
Super. Oh well, who are we to say it’s wrong?
Big surprise, eh? Unfuckingbelievable.[/quote]
If everyone within those relationships is consenting, whats the problem, exactly?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Look who’s pushing their marriage agenda in Australia now:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23916409-662,00.html
Super. Oh well, who are we to say it’s wrong?
Big surprise, eh? Unfuckingbelievable.
If everyone within those relationships is consenting, whats the problem, exactly?[/quote]
Do you anything about marriages in Arab countries?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Look who’s pushing their marriage agenda in Australia now:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23916409-662,00.html
Super. Oh well, who are we to say it’s wrong?
Big surprise, eh? Unfuckingbelievable.
If everyone within those relationships is consenting, whats the problem, exactly?[/quote]
Yes, it’s consenting. The woman (usually the daughter) gives consent to marry the person her father has chosen or else she consents to end up like these poor girls:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329
Oh, forgot to add, marriage at six and consummation at 9 fits their definition as well:
I’m sorry PRCal, I thought the issue was simply polygamy. I honestly just glanced over the article; sincerely apologize about that.
Would you agree then that arranged marriage is wrong?
I dont even think we need to discuss the topic of marriage at 6, etc.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sorry PRCal, I thought the issue was simply polygamy. I honestly just glanced over the article; sincerely apologize about that.
Would you agree then that arranged marriage is wrong?
I dont even think we need to discuss the topic of marriage at 6, etc.[/quote]
Oh, you’ll be discussing it. We all will. Just wait.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Tell you what: I’m not re-writing the articles contained in the links that you’re refusing to read. Read the links, particularly the first. Then if you have particularized issues, ask.
I know very well that you haven’t read them, because not all of what’s in the links agrees with my positions, and you haven’t pointed this out, which would be the first thing you would do if you had read them. So go along like a good little chap and read up; and if you won’t, to borrow a Briticism, bugger off.
http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
First link doesnt seem to work.
[BB: It works]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here I’ll make another bad attempt at logic (just for shits and giggles): Logic would dictate that a smarter person would understand an article better than a more foolish one. This means, if both read the same article, the smarter person would be better able to answer questions about its content and relate examples from the work.
Its clear to you that you’re the more intelligent of the two of us, yet, having read all three articles, and being asked for an example you would have exacted from them, cannot produce a single one.
Clearly, there is no point in me reading them, since, if you cannot find in them an example of gay marriage leading to a decline in either straight marriage or straight procreation (that is not an example of an act of anti-gay bigotry/bias), I have no hope whatsoever.
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s amazing that you can manage to be so right, and yet so wrong, at the same time.
I’m not rewriting them because they’re long, the answers are long, and they require the length to cover the bases of the arguments. That’s why I’m providing the links. I’m not about to spend the time trying to condense and/or re-write them. Read them, or quit asking for what you’ve already been provided. Or again, bugger off.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I asked you to pull one example out of them. Guess that was a lot to ask.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Quite: I’m finished spoon-feeding you. Read.
…
BostonBarrister wrote:
As to yours, again, it’s not simply incentivizing reproduction. It’s also about incentivizing the formation and survival of marriage because of reproduction. See my previous posts.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And legally supporting the idea that the most healthy, stable environment for reproduction and raising children is a one man one woman couple.
BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re not getting it; the use of “incentivizing” for two separate goals is apparently too confusing.
Male/female couples already produce the overwhelmingly vast majority of kids. Those kids would be better off in stable environments with both of their parents present. And society would be hugely better off if the kids were better off. That’s the reason for particularly incentivizing the formation and survival of male/female marriages.
One of the biggest issues in communities mired in crime and poverty is children coming from broken homes, and particularly male children growing up with no male role models or discipline enforcers. (See this for a few paragraphs inadvertently highlighting the point: American Murder Mystery - The Atlantic )
BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should society in general take any risk, for any reason, to extend a behavioral incentive meant to produce a particular effect to a small minority that does not wish to follow the parameters that have been set up for that behavioral incentive?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Because bigotry is bad, supporting it is bad, laws that support it are bad, and supporting laws that support it is bad. Even if the intent was never to legitimize only heterosexual monogamist relationships, if that is the result (which it is), the law is supporting bigotry and should be changed. Even if the “behvioral incentive” has nothing to do with discrimination, if it discriminates (which it does), it should be changed, especially when other laws could easily be enacted that would provide the same incentive without supporting bigotry or discrimination (such as, if you are raising a child, you get benefits, if you aren’t, you don’t).
CappedAndPlanet Mackey, T-Nation Elementary Guidance Counselor: “Mmmm, bigotry is bad, M’kay…”
For some reason, you and people like you think marriage is about what the adults want, or what might hurt their feelings (“The state won’t ‘legitimize’ my relationship with a tax break! The horror!”).
It’s not. Your feelings are irrelevant; something that may be nice to consider, but that are completely separate from the policy goal.
So if taking account of your feelings runs the risk of undermining the policy goal, for whatever reason, tough cookies. Now go cry me a river.
BostonBarrister wrote:
No - if ending a perceived/claimed discrimination has the possible/probable effect of undermining the goal of the incentive, then tough cookies. The general default of our system is majority rule, with a few distinct protections for individual rights that protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Minorities such as homosexuals? From the majority such as christians? Hmmm… maybe you can, now, draw the line between racism/sexism/homophobia.
Those protects exist exactly so that members of the majority cannot simply say “tough cookies”.
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think you missed the point of “a few distinct protections”. Being protected from not getting an economic incentive because you don’t prefer to follow the rules around getting the incentive isn’t one of them.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Not getting a particular tax break is not the tyranny of the majority; getting access to every single governmental spending program is not a fundamental right. And the government’s job is not to give a stamp of legitimacy to each and every social position, irrespective of the government’s policy goals; i.e., if getting “legitimacy” has the potential to undermine the policy goal, tough cookies for the demand for government’s endorsement.
CappedAndPlanIt:
The governments job is to protect the rights of its citizens.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Citizens don’t have the right to specially tailored tax incentives, or to force other citizens to label their relationships in a certain manner.
BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, just out of curiousity, what’s your view on affirmative action, which actually does cross over one of those supposedly inviolate categories of discrimination, and for arguably negative effect?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m pretty sure the group that has seen the most benefit from affirmative action is white women. How do you feel about that?
BostonBarrister wrote:
I couldn’t give two sh*ts; not even one, really. Now how about answering?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Nah.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly when said minority is not having its freedom to act impinged in any meaningful way?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Read what I said above about how the current marriage laws legitimize one form of relationship, thus illegitimizing all others.
I think what you meant to say was “impinged in any technical way”. Because, yes, gays can still form couples, however, due to the fact that they cannot marry, their relationships are seen as illegitimate, which is meaningful.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Again, government’s job is not to convey social “legitimacy.”
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So why are you allowing them to do so?
BostonBarrister wrote:
They’re not doing so, except in your mind, and in the de-constructed world of soc majors everywhere. “If the government won’t force everyone to recognize my marriage, I’m not legitimized! There must be something against this in the Constitution, because I think it’s wrong!”
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Its not about the government forcing anyone to do anything. Its about the government not recognizing one while refusing to recognize the other.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Or illegitimacy. In either case, it’s an implied perception - hardly something that necessitates a policy change. Really, not even anything that should be considered.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Incorrect.
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, quite correct - your feelings are irrelevant. The government’s job isn’t to prevent your hurt feelings, caused by your internal perceptions.
BostonBarrister wrote:
And I wrote precisely what I meant: gays’ freedoms are not impinged in any meaningful way.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sure, as long as you aren’t gay, and don’t care much about their rights, its not meaningful at all.
BostonBarrister wrote:
You’ve yet to come up with something they are being prevented from doing. Your only argument boils down to hurt feelings.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
They are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Gays can form couples, hold themselves out as married, have a private ceremony, purchase property together, leave property to each other, contract for all the other contractual rights enjoyed by spouses. Their freedom to act isn’t impinged.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“hold themselves out as married”? Please.
BostonBarrister wrote:
No one is stopping them from labeling themselves however they please, or having a private ceremony.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Except for that whole “not recgonizing it as legal” thing… minute detail, to you, I’m sure…
BostonBarrister wrote:
People’s feelings of legitimacy are not the provence of governmental policy; not only are your feelings your own problem, but the government really shouldn’t be in the business of trying to dictate what should be considered legitimate or illegitmate socially.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Agreed. And by structuring their definition of marriage the way they have, they are dictating what is considered legitimate or illegitimate socially. They should stop.
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, the policy doesn’t take account of individual perceptions of “legitimacy” precisely because they are irrelevant and not the provence of governmental policy.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Isn’t part of your argument that allowing gays to marry will make straight marriages less socially legitmate? Why should the government worry about that?
BostonBarrister wrote:
And the fact that you, or others, want to attribute some immeasurable and inchoate legitimizing effect, irrespective of intent, to a government action really isn’t pertinent.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
False.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Your individual feelings of illegitimacy are irrelevant.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Claiming that my stance is based only on feelings isn’t true, nor is repeating it going to make it true.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Seriously, this just sounds like whiny bullcrap to me. “Oh, we need the government to recognize us in order to be legitimate - you’re violating our rights by making us feel bad!” The answer is: Grow a pair, live your life and don’t look to everyone else to legitimize yourself and what you want.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ignorant.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Your entire response just confirmed the impression I had above. Your whole position is essentially that you have a Constitutional right to prohibit the government from hurting your feelings.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What do my feelings have to do with this? I’m not gay, I’m not interested in marrying another man. So, where are my feelings hurt here?
BostonBarrister wrote:
If you were to somehow get your wish, and the USSC ruled along the lines of the CA court that not only must homosexual couples be offered each and every incentive made available to heterosexual couples, and also that it must be labeled “marriage” and not “civil union” or something else, and then Bill and George tell someone “We’re married!” and people answer “Hey, congratulations!” if currently over half of them are really thinking “EEEEEWWWWW!!! YUCK!!!” there is nothing you can do about that.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Its funny that most of the anti-gay marriage argument is so heavily based on feelings.
“But straight people wont feel as much pressure to get married. But straight people wont feel like they’re doing the right thing. But straight people wont feel comfortable with gay marriage. But straight people wont feel the same desire to conform to gender roles. Waaah.”
BostonBarrister wrote:
Grow a pair, live your life and don’t look to everyone else to legitimize yourself and what you want. Your position is not even about tolerance - it’s about forced acceptance.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Does it have to be pointed out again that I’m not gay?
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marriage is not all benefits - it’s also restrictions on freedom and imposition of responsibilities. Gays are finding this out, even without the tax break:
And unfortunately, from at least this perspective, youngish heterosexuals (no need for child marriage - just consider the decade of a person’s 20s) are increasingly opting out of accepting marriage and its attendant costs.
In Europe, which is at least a generation ahead of us in terms of undermining the normative expectations of marriage, they are having a fertility crisis ( http://www.nidi.knaw.nl/en/output/2006/sso-2006-03-nidi-beets.pdf/sso-2006-03-nidi-beets.pdf ) begotten at least in part by a marriage crisis ( http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/ch2.htm ).
Is this related to gay marriage? Maybe ( https://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp ); maybe not. But unless you can demonstrate it won’t, why should society take the risk of exacerbating the negative trends it’s trying to stem?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Why are you so insistant on the idea that the government must (or should) continue incentivizing procreation through marriage? Worst case scenerio is that the government has to find another way to incentivize procreation; would that be so difficult?
BostonBarrister wrote:
As I have explained ad nauseum, it’s not just incentivizing procreation. It’s also incentiving the formation and survival of marriages because of the tendency to procreate. It’s a feedback loop. If you create traditional marriages, there will be procreation; but there will also be potentially procreative activity irrespective, some of which will actually be procreative.
So you want to form traditional marriages around that, for separate reasons. Note the multiple goals. For some reason you like to ignore everything but incentivizing procreation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What would happen if the government didnt incentivize marriage at all, do you think? Not really making a point there, just curious.
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s already been weakened through no-fault divorce and the slow erosion of social pressure to marry. It would just bring further weakness to the institution (precisely because there are a lot of costs involved - particularly from the male perspective…).
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Anyway, them incentivizing different forms of marriage would still include incentivizing the traditional form.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Not if being inclusive undercut the incentivizing effect for traditional marriage. That’s the entire point.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Right.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I can’t demonstrate that it will or won’t, and that is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate that it will, for reasons other than homophobia, then its no different than a hiring manager asking you to prove that hiring a black employee will not negatively affect business (on the grounds that the only reason hiring a black employee would negatively affect business would be people acting out of racism – not because sexual preference is the same thing as race). Why should he take the risk?
BostonBarrister wrote:
Um, again, not racism. And a horrible analogy irrespective.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yes, its such a stretch to use compare someone making a decision based on fear of the results of a bigoted response with a decision being made based on fear of the results of a bigoted response.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Racism has played a central role in American history; homophobia has not. Racism has an enduring economic impact on its victims; homophobia does not. Plenty of gays are impoverished, but most of them are racial minorities.
Homosexuals have never been legally segregated or denied the right to vote. But apparently you want to them to have Constitutional protection from having their feelings hurt as the tangential effect of a governmental policy.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So your argument there is that… homosexuals havent suffered enough? Would you have a different outlook if homosexuals had been refused the right to vote, or had been enslaved, or had genocide attempted against them?
BostonBarrister wrote:
Suffice it to say that what you claim is irrelevant is the only relevant thing in the above paragraph. You can’t demonstrate a meaningful impingement of freedom.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The impingement to freely choose which consenting adult they will marry.
BostonBarrister wrote:
And in countless ways people need to endure ineligibility for government spending programs because the small amount of discrimination in each case is immaterial - just as any in this case would be, were it present. Every time the government spends money on a program it is discriminating against everyone who does not meet the eligibility standards. When it subsidizes farmers, it discriminates against non-farmers, and makes them all feel illegitimate… the horror.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Should the government then be allowed to determine who may or may not become a farmer?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
For what reason are people protected, by the government, against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc?
BostonBarrister wrote:
Now that’s an interesting question - and you would do what to someone’s ability to refuse to interact with gays for religious reasons? Catholic charities refusing to allow gay couples to use their services to adopt children?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Interesting question.
BostonBarrister wrote:
To answer your question, particular rights are protected by our system. The Constitution specifically protects people from discrimination based on race, based on the Civil War Amendments (13, 14 & 15). It protects an individual’s right to freely exercise his religion (1st Amendment). The USSC has made up a discrimination protection for gender - though not as strong as that for race.
Those were the specific categories that either the people (religion, race) or the USSC (gender) have deemed important enough to require that they be considered by the government when it is enacting its general policies. Nowhere to be found: sexual orientation - or fatness, ugliness, age, freckles, or any other characteristic that might be disfavored or discriminated against by the majority.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thanks for avoiding the question. I’ll ask again: why? Dont tell me that “those were the specific categories deemed important enough”, and answer my question as to why those categories were deemed important enough.
BostonBarrister wrote:
But really, I’m not addressing any more questions of yours on this until you read the linked articles.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, I’ll try to get around to them over the next few days.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Damn, I forgot: Bugger off until you read them.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Meh. Skimmed over them. One of these days I’ll probably pull out the relevant parts and respond to them.
Do you reckon maybe there’s a way for the government to give equal rights (actual equal rights) to gays on the issue while not undermining the original incentive? Maybe that should be the focus of our discussion.[/quote]
CappedAndPlanIt:
I started to respond to your “response” (which I quoted solely to preserve, so you couldn’t go back and change it), but I stopped. You’ve skipped over many points, ignored evidence, refused to read proffered material, refused to answer questions or even provide a source for an answer (in the quoted post above, where ever there are two consecutive quotes sections by me, you didn’t respond).
You either deliberately or stupidly misconstrue general points (as if I cared if you were gay or not… it was a generic “you”, making an obvious generality). The only thing I’ll note is that the first link works now, and worked before.
All you do is sit there with your hands over your ears, stamping your little foot and screaming “bigotry, bigotry, la la la la!” You try to operate from some moral pedestal - to the point that you define your position as “progress” from people as benighted as Thunderbolt and me - without addressing, or even acknowledging, any concerns about societal effects.
You’re a religious zealot - the religion of our lady of the politically correct - pushing your viewpoint, condeming any disagreement as blasphemy/bigotry, and you can’t see outside your little kaleidoscope filter of reality.
I enjoy debating with intelligent people interested in discussing issues - you don’t seem to want to, or can’t, qualify.
If anyone else disagrees with me, feel free to let me know. Or if anyone worthwhile wants to discuss, I’d be happy to continue.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We are talking about a general rule - that parents who created the child should be incentivized to take care of that child. Period.
[/quote]
I’m just asking the appropriate gadfly questions here. Like this doozy:
If, as a general rule, biological parents do not, statistically, raise better children on average than non biological parents, than why should we incentivize such a process? If it holds no advantages, why should we give incentives to do it?
If, ceteris paribus - all other things being equal - biological parents do no better than any other type of two parent setting, why is an incentive necessary or efficient? Why am I asking the same exact question in three different ways?
[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:
We are talking about a general rule - that parents who created the child should be incentivized to take care of that child. Period.
Beowolf wrote:
I’m just asking the appropriate gadfly questions here. Like this doozy:
If, as a general rule, biological parents do not, statistically, raise better children on average than non biological parents, than why should we incentivize such a process? If it holds no advantages, why should we give incentives to do it?
If, ceteris paribus - all other things being equal - biological parents do no better than any other type of two parent setting, why is an incentive necessary or efficient? Why am I asking the same exact question in three different ways?[/quote]
I will be presumptious enough to answer for Thunder, who can of course feel free to tell me I’ve completely missed his point.
However, his statement is compound: 1) People who have children 2) should be incentivized to raise them.
So, if that’s the set up, then your question requires some further information. Do you mean biological parents don’t tend to do a better job than adoptive parents? Or do you mean that breaking up a biological two-parent unit and leaving the children with one biological parent is no better?
Obviously, I think the second scenario is by far the most important one to ponder.
And also, we need to think about it not in terms of any particular anecdotal case, but in the aggregate.
I’d say that, in the aggregate, two-biological-parent units are better than the alternative, which is what you end up with if you have biological parents producing kids without forming units that stay together to raise them.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I enjoy debating with intelligent people interested in discussing issues - you don’t seem to want to, or can’t, qualify.
If anyone else disagrees with me, feel free to let me know. Or if anyone worthwhile wants to discuss, I’d be happy to continue.[/quote]
I was going to reply, but I’m getting tired of this as well. Take care, sir.
The crux of my opposition of making legal marriage rights exclusive to heterosexual couples is this: to legally define marriage as such, and restrict who may enter into such a contract based on sexual orientation, is discrimination. Hence, I’m against it.
I’m aware that the legal redefinition of marriage may have adverse affects on society; it still does not justify legal discrimination, as such. Nothing will.
As I’ve said before, if a system, or culture, or society, is structured in such a way that discrimination is necessary, the problem is the system/culture/society. Not those who oppose discrimination.
The main argument against gay marriage seems to be that, within our current structure, legitimizing and exalting the binary heterosexual couple leads people to believe that forming said couples is “the right thing to do”.
And that this belief will lead them to do so, to procreate, and to raise the children they produce. “Grow up, get married, settle down, have kids, be a family,” is the story promoted.
While this in itself is not wrong, the side effect of legally discriminating against homosexuals is. As I asked BB (and was ignored), I think the main focus should be to find a way to incentivize reproduction and stable family units without legal discrimination against homosexuals or those who would enter into other arrangements.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I started to respond to your “response” (which I quoted solely to preserve, so you couldn’t go back and change it), but I stopped. You’ve skipped over many points, ignored evidence, refused to read proffered material, refused to answer questions or even provide a source for an answer (in the quoted post above, where ever there are two consecutive quotes sections by me, you didn’t respond).
You either deliberately or stupidly misconstrue general points (as if I cared if you were gay or not… it was a generic “you”, making an obvious generality). The only thing I’ll note is that the first link works now, and worked before.
All you do is sit there with your hands over your ears, stamping your little foot and screaming “bigotry, bigotry, la la la la!” You try to operate from some moral pedestal - to the point that you define your position as “progress” from people as benighted as Thunderbolt and me - without addressing, or even acknowledging, any concerns about societal effects.
You’re a religious zealot - the religion of our lady of the politically correct - pushing your viewpoint, condeming any disagreement as blasphemy/bigotry, and you can’t see outside your little kaleidoscope filter of reality.
I enjoy debating with intelligent people interested in discussing issues - you don’t seem to want to, or can’t, qualify.
If anyone else disagrees with me, feel free to let me know. Or if anyone worthwhile wants to discuss, I’d be happy to continue.[/quote]
You said it better than I could. I came into this looking for a good exchange on the issue, and Cap’n PlannedIt has only proved himself to the be the human proof of the law of diminishing returns. Cap’n PlannedIt is as ignorant and ideological as the folks he claims he stands against. A good faith debate is a wasted effort.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I started to respond to your “response” (which I quoted solely to preserve, so you couldn’t go back and change it), but I stopped. You’ve skipped over many points, ignored evidence, refused to read proffered material, refused to answer questions or even provide a source for an answer (in the quoted post above, where ever there are two consecutive quotes sections by me, you didn’t respond).
You either deliberately or stupidly misconstrue general points (as if I cared if you were gay or not… it was a generic “you”, making an obvious generality). The only thing I’ll note is that the first link works now, and worked before.
All you do is sit there with your hands over your ears, stamping your little foot and screaming “bigotry, bigotry, la la la la!” You try to operate from some moral pedestal - to the point that you define your position as “progress” from people as benighted as Thunderbolt and me - without addressing, or even acknowledging, any concerns about societal effects.
You’re a religious zealot - the religion of our lady of the politically correct - pushing your viewpoint, condeming any disagreement as blasphemy/bigotry, and you can’t see outside your little kaleidoscope filter of reality.
I enjoy debating with intelligent people interested in discussing issues - you don’t seem to want to, or can’t, qualify.
If anyone else disagrees with me, feel free to let me know. Or if anyone worthwhile wants to discuss, I’d be happy to continue.
You said it better than I could. I came into this looking for a good exchange on the issue, and Cap’n PlannedIt has only proved himself to the be the human proof of the law of diminishing returns. Cap’n PlannedIt is as ignorant and ideological as the folks he claims he stands against. A good faith debate is a wasted effort.[/quote]
CappedAndPlanIt, not Cap’n PlannedIt.
Thought crossed my mind today: If the reasons for restricting legal marriage to heterosexuals are (1)to encourage procreation and (2) to encourage those who procreate to stick around and raise the child(ren), why are those against gay marriage equally against polygamy?
Would an arrangment of a man and two or three women not produce children? Or even a woman and two men (though polyandry is much less common than polygyny)?
What advantage would having two people to raise a child be as compared to three to raise him or her? I can think of some advantages to having more parents (more time, more money, etc).
So, being as marriage is all about kids and the incentivizing of forming and continuing healthy social units for the raising of kids, why shouldnt the government give the same benefits to polygamous couples (provided at least one member of each sex is involved)?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
We are talking about a general rule - that parents who created the child should be incentivized to take care of that child. Period.
Beowolf wrote:
I’m just asking the appropriate gadfly questions here. Like this doozy:
If, as a general rule, biological parents do not, statistically, raise better children on average than non biological parents, than why should we incentivize such a process? If it holds no advantages, why should we give incentives to do it?
If, ceteris paribus - all other things being equal - biological parents do no better than any other type of two parent setting, why is an incentive necessary or efficient? Why am I asking the same exact question in three different ways?
I will be presumptious enough to answer for Thunder, who can of course feel free to tell me I’ve completely missed his point.
However, his statement is compound: 1) People who have children 2) should be incentivized to raise them.
So, if that’s the set up, then your question requires some further information. Do you mean biological parents don’t tend to do a better job than adoptive parents? Or do you mean that breaking up a biological two-parent unit and leaving the children with one biological parent is no better?
Obviously, I think the second scenario is by far the most important one to ponder.
And also, we need to think about it not in terms of any particular anecdotal case, but in the aggregate.
I’d say that, in the aggregate, two-biological-parent units are better than the alternative, which is what you end up with if you have biological parents producing kids without forming units that stay together to raise them.[/quote]
Good answer. However, by allowing other kinds of marriages, you are still encouraging two people that create kids to stay together. They won’t get the benefit apart, but they’ll get it together. I don’t see how gay marriage ruins this set up.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thought crossed my mind today: If the reasons for restricting legal marriage to heterosexuals are (1)to encourage procreation and (2) to encourage those who procreate to stick around and raise the child(ren), why are those against gay marriage equally against polygamy?
Would an arrangment of a man and two or three women not produce children? Or even a woman and two men (though polyandry is much less common than polygyny)?
What advantage would having two people to raise a child be as compared to three to raise him or her? I can think of some advantages to having more parents (more time, more money, etc).
So, being as marriage is all about kids and the incentivizing of forming and continuing healthy social units for the raising of kids, why shouldnt the government give the same benefits to polygamous couples (provided at least one member of each sex is involved)?[/quote]
Quite simply because most people want it done their way or no way.
People arguing against something different don’t care about western civilization, it comes down to bigotry and fear of that which is different. They quote Biblical passages and cite that Western society was formed (apparently) around Judeo-Christian marriage.
Well like it or not, other religions and beliefs exist, and to argue that the law should discriminate against them is bigoted.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So, being as marriage is all about kids and the incentivizing of forming and continuing healthy social units for the raising of kids, why shouldnt the government give the same benefits to polygamous couples (provided at least one member of each sex is involved)?[/quote]
Sounds like those soccer games where every kid gets a trophy, win or lose.
You might as well not even recognize any marriage at that point. It just becomes any imaginable arrangement (and number) of adults, eligible for benefits, so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings.