Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Umm the difference is pretty clear.

When a cirminal organization is charged, it is recognized-it exists.

It is not legitimated-it is illegitimit, subject to prosecution.

Like when the darkies married the white girls.

Or when the homosexuals want to marry and get equal rights.

One still notes the utter failure to prove one man/one oman marriage as universal.

To show a harm of ssm.

To show a harm of illigitimit children in Holland.

Thanks for focusing.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look up the term straw man.

quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
That defining them as not-marriage does not make them less real or less alid

Thank you. Now that we've established that, it's clear that defining marriage as the union of man and woman does not in itself make other relationships less real or valid. It just means that other relationships are not marriage. It's a descriptive term.

A word does not violate civil rights.

You have failed to demonstrate that ssus v. ssm constitute separate & unequal or seprate but equal. I'm not sure you even grasp what that means legally.

Show me a civil rights case where the court held there was a right to be called one word, where no substantive rights were involved.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One will note the mormons were not let alone-

And aparently redefining marriage to persecute a minority is ok with you....

While doing so to meet the legal duty for equal protection under the law is verbotan.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The denial of the rights and protections of marriage DOES violate equal rights.

If the government offers a set of immunities and protections to one class of people...

and denies them to another..

That is a violation of equal protection under the law.

Trying to twist my words is rather weak, Pete.

BTW, still waiting

Proof Marriage is universal?

Proof SSM causes harms?

Proof of how illigitimacy in Holland is a harm?

Thanks

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
Show me a civil rights case where the court held there was a right to be called one word, where no substantive rights were involved."

Irrelevant; there are many substantive rights associated to marriage, through all levels of government, and not to "same sex Unions."

For instance the right to make medical decisions when a person is incapactated.

Property and inherritance rights.

Etc etc etc

[ January 09, 2007, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't be ridiculous; ssus can handle all of those things.

I see that you still have no argument at all that is relevant to why ssus aren't OK and why you have some "right" to the word "marriage."

I've shown you damage from changing it: cultural genocide, newspeak. If you don't think that's harm, then go read 1984. Long term harm is what the civil rights leader at the beginning of this thread was talking about.

[ January 09, 2007, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
The denial of the rights and protections of marriage DOES violate equal rights.

If we give all the rights and protections of marriage, then your friend's relationship gets annulled since there's no legal consummation.

Whoops. Guess a same-sex union would have been better for him. So much for your legal advice.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
One will note the mormons were not let alone-

And aparently redefining marriage to persecute a minority is ok with you....

While doing so to meet the legal duty for equal protection under the law is verbotan.

Mormons just wanted to be left alone.

You call being left alone "persecution."

That's a joke.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, because there are many laws tagged to marriage which are not tagged to SSU.

Your literary reference is vague, generic, and not supported by facts.

One will not that when we as a society recognized no white males as people, things got better.

Ending bigotry and descrimination against gays will make it better again.

And one will note, all you have i a vague ad traditio. Nothing solid.

Tyranny in a book and a society making itself more just are not the same thing.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Mormons just wanted to be left alone.

You call being left alone "persecution."

That's a joke."

Um, Pete.

Your a little off base here. If I thought you were trying to be deceptive I would call it a straw man.

The Mormons wanted to be left alone.

I call the Federal harrassment and persecution of their religion and way of life persectuion. You know, when the majority forced the societal construct of one man/one woman marriage down their throats by force? The government hounded tem until they abandoned their religious beliefs.

Your joke loses a bit to anyone in touch with what I said.

One notes you have failed to show marriage as universal. Indeed we have Morans being FORCED to adopt the model.

Another example, an exception disproving the universal nature you claim.

You have failed to show a harm to ssm.

You have failed to show the arm of illigitimate kids in Holland.

[ January 09, 2007, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Um, because there are many laws tagged to marriage which are not tagged to SSU.

You keep saying this and you have yet to prove it. Yawn.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tell you what, Pete.

I have linked and supported several claims. You have done nothing of the sort.

So, you prove yours with evidence and tommorow I will prove that, gee, laws speak to marriage and in no way speak to same sex unions.

That you think thi is a barrier, or needs to be proved, shows how out of touch you are with the facts of th the debate.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
I call the Federal harrassment and persecution of their religion and way of life persectuion.

So would I. So did they. That's why they wanted to be left alone.

And that's why your comparison of their actual persecution, to the ssm question, is a complete joke. Lawrence gave you the right to not be harassed as mormons got harassed over their illegal marriages.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-

This is a monsterous waste of time. I generally don't step into palooka-fests, but you're not going to convince this guy, and any SSM proponent reading his arguments won't see the refutations you provide as being relevent to his own arguments, for obvious reasons.

You're going to go another 5 pages with Tom calling you names, occasionally intersperced with an "Um" while you dance semantical circles around him. Please, for pity's sake, let this thread die. It's unworthy of this forum, which has been home to so many much better and more enlightening exchanges on this and other issues.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your last statement is a non sequiter and unresponsive.

The Mormons were actively persecuted for their non conformist marriages.

This shows

1) That your model of marriage is not universal.

2) That opression of those who are different is bad.

Today SS couples are denied the right to marriage. Just as poly Mormon couples were.

They are denied the equal protection of the law.

This is unjust, and bad.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no intent to go "prove" your straw man arguments. Nor to waste my time proving the obvious like that kids need a mom and a dad. If you don't accept that, we'll have to agree to disagree. Just understand that others do believe it, and will act and vote accordingly.

But if you're going to make claims about the 14th amendment and not bother to back them, then your whole case breaks down.

I've shown you cultural genocide and newspeak, so I don't have to show you the additional harms I mentioned, since you don't get the whole mommy daddy thing. Unnecessarily and knowingly destroying a culture's capacity to communicate its ideas is cultural genocide, cultural imperialism, and newspeak. That's harm to me and mine.

Without a 14th amendment proof, you've got no argument at all.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine what a complete and utter pack of lies.

I wont be convinced but through good argments and evidence. Pete has failed to provide them.

You claim I insult him. Please do provide a link to this, friend.

Indeed, until you lanced your personal attack in an attempt to poison the well, this thread has been a pretty straitforward debate-

With most posts directed to arguments, and to some degree at least responsive to what the other person is saying.

I suspect you see the lack of there there in his position. As an advocate, I suppose trying to poison the well looks good ehh?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, you have no proof for their claims. fine, they fall.

All you have i ad taditio fallacy, and te spurious 1984 allusion with not a SINGLE real world example of harms, just your faith it is so.

Sorry, that does not cut it.

Society is no more destroyed by allowing all people equal rights when that person is gay than they are when the person was black. And for you to claim it is, you have to provide evidence-not flimsy unsupported and vague claims.

My friend dead in a hospital is REAL. Your claims are BS.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is your argument that marriage is a universal human institution. Would you like a link to your own paste?

It is your claim that SSM causes harms.

You offer the illigitimacy rates of Holland as a harm. Would you like a link?

those are all YOUR positions, do you refute them?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Your last statement is a non sequiter and unresponsive.

The Mormons were actively persecuted for their non conformist marriages.

This shows

1) That your model of marriage is not universal.

[DOH]

Wrong. Each mormon marriage involved a union of man and woman.


Sheesh!

The regional variation here was that mormon men were allowed to enter multiple marriages.


quote:
2) That opression of those who are different is bad.
And being left alone is not oppression.


quote:
Today SS couples are denied the right to marriage. Just as poly Mormon couples were.
You are not paying attention, and it's breaking your argument. Mormons never wanted a right to have their marriage recognized. They wanted their marriages to NOT be recognized by the government.


quote:
They are denied the equal protection of the law.
Mormons argued that they were denied freedom of religion. That's when the Supreme court dug up the phrase "separation of church and state" out of the writings of the same white sumpremacist that inspired Dredd Scott, a guy that had nothing to do with the writing of the constitution, who had actually been the ambassador to France when the constitution was written, and didn't even know about it until the deed was tone. A guy by the name of Thomas Jefferson. [Big Grin]

quote:
This is unjust, and bad.
Persecution is bad. Being left alone is good. Ask the pligs.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The. Mormons. Were. Not. Left. alone.

Again, still dodging the issues.

Multiple marriages are not "variations" they are completely different cups of tea.

One will note again, Sparta.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
It is your argument that marriage is a universal human institution.

And I qualified that, and said that it's the universal institution of human civilization. See above. You have yet to show a single counterexample. New Guinea tribes and isolated African tribes are not large complex postagricultural societies.

quote:
It is your claim that SSM causes harms.
By redefining marriage, which is newspeak and cultural genocide. Proved that.

quote:
You offer the illigitimacy rates of Holland as a harm. Would you like a link?
If you question that, I'm not going to waste time arguing the obvious with you.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
The. Mormons. Were. Not. Left. alone.

That's what I said. [DOH]

quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Multiple marriages are not "variations" they are completely different cups of tea.

[DOH]

Think harder, Paine.

Each marriage consisted of a union between a man and a woman, and a lifelong promise. Sound familiar? That's the UNIVERSAL DEFINITION.

[ January 09, 2007, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Tom.

It's just that the arguments you've made here have been made in 2 million other threads, mostly in more well-reasoned and articulate fashion. I realize that this might sound a bit uncharitable, but I'd suggest you look back at older threads that have dealt extensively with this issue before proceeding.

I made no personal attack on anyone. I called this discussion a palooka-fest, unworthy of this forum. It is. Your friend being dead doesn't make SSM good or people who oppose SSM bad. Pete would support a situation which would have improved your friend's life in every forseeable way in which marriage could have. He just wants to call it something else and make some common-sense adjustments.

It's not the same sort of argument white racists made against civil rights. It's not the same sort of argument trotted out there by people who hate them queers. It's not about "equal rights", no matter how much you might want it to be. Pete's argument is about language, about words like "husband", "wife", "father", and "mother".

His arugment is about the effect those words and things have on a culture and the harm that could be visited upon society and those who live therein by their abrogation. And yes, it's speculative. He can't prove it with past experience.

There's a reason for this. Past experience in this field doesn't really exist, claims about a few isolated tribes in the almost-forgotten past aside. Any argument about the effects changing marriage would have on society are NECESSARILY speculative since it hasn't happened here yet.

And you want him to prove it with.....links to what, exactly? Give me a break.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Pal.

To me, asking where the harm is in cultural genocide and newspeak is asking someone to prove that rape is harmful. It's self-evident: rape, cultural genocide, and newspeak are HARM in and of themselves. Forcible violations of the human spirit.

What harm they *cause* might be speculative, and vary from case to case. But they are harm, in and of themselves.

[ January 09, 2007, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do question the illigitimat children in Holland are a problem, per se

If you fail to argue, it is becase you cannot.

Again, compare them-

Infant mortality, poverty rate, drug use, alcoholism, literacy, hunger, any social standard.

hmmmmmmmm

what is the problem
You just assume it.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
P, you dont want to read the thread?

Easy answer. Dont.

Personal attacks (which is what you made, with your snide second post as well) are unaceptable and harmful to discussion.

And actually, since there have been places with SSM, he should ave some real world data to back his claims.

Which he does not. Go fig.

And yes, the arguments of those against SSM are eerily similar to those made to justify misegination. Denying it does not change it.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can tell you why rape is harmful, and with no reliance on "self evidency."

But I will grant rape is harmful. The IMPACTS of rape can be shown, and the point argued on that basis. Indeed it is you ability to articulate some of those harms that makes such a fine contrast with your ongoing inability to do so for ssm.

so where are your real word harms?

Has cultural genocide occured where people recognized that people include the darkies and wops?

Cause by your logic it wold have.

No real world harms, you have NOTHING except vapor and fantasy.

[ January 09, 2007, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're the one that's bringing up these standards. If you've got studies to show, then show them.

Divorce rates per marriage in the Netherlands are also up, as I've linked to in past threads. That's a harm where a child's family is broken up. Even if you pretend that a child's just as well off born to a single mom and not knowing his dad.


I showed that cultural genocide was harmful right on page 1, top of the thread. You don't see harm? Read.

quote:
Has cultural genocide occured where people recognized that people include the darkies and wops?
Please stop making BIGOTED racial slurs against people that include my black ancestors and Paladine's Italian ancestors. How dare you lecture me about personal attacks while tossing racial epithets at us?

[ January 09, 2007, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Divorce rates of marriage are up. so what?

Where is the harm? Why is a family being broken up bad? As compared to bad families taying together?

We know how?

Teen crime, suicide, drug use, hunger, poverty, etc-

how do they compare with the USA?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, stop asking for evidence until you provide one in support of your earlier claims. Or do you repudiate them?

That marriage is universal, that SSM cause harms, that illigitimacy is harmful.

BTW, how can the families of illigitmate children result in higher divorce rates? I mean, if they are illigit then there is not a marriage yes? That makes no sense at all.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW< many of the figures can be found in the CIA world book. Good night.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're the one trying to overhaul society, and change the meaning of marriage for no particular purpose that you can articulate. Burden of proof is on you, bub.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, the particular purpose I artulated is equal protection under the law.

The harm of the tatus quo is the denial of the protections of marriage to part of the population.

An example is the horrible things that happened to my friend and his SO.

Did I mention that their house was sold and half the proceeds given to the Chritifasct parents?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which meets my burden of proof. Yours for your claims stands.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-

I've been waiting for an SSM thread. [Smile]


First and foremost:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here, but it seems to me that in the position you support, there is a conflation of the issues of procreation and socialization/child-rearing.

This begins in the source you cite:
quote:
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.
Here we have two distinct issues: 1) The role of marriage in procreation, and 2) The role of marriage child-rearing/socialization. (The importance of noting such a conflation may seem minor at first, but I suspect it will come into play if we really examine the anti-SSM position you advocate).

(The draconian demands of my current schedule may not allow me to "really examine" this position over the next little bit--but I'll proceed with probably unfounded optimism nonetheless).

Now, forgive me if I oversimplify here Pete, but I believe we're arriving at the pith of this matter here:

quote:
I believe that same-sex unions should confer a sense of legitimacy to the families of same-sex couples.

And I strongly believe that we should respect the integrity of other people's families even while encouraging the ideal forms.

As I understand it, your position is that the "ideal form" of family is that founded upon a traditional marriage--i.e. lifelong committed union of monogamous male and female (correct me if I'm wrong here). Therefore, the traditional foundation for this "ideal form" deserves the unique sanctity of a legally and socially recognized special status in order to encourage individuals to utilize this form.

Your support for this position is its historical pervasiveness and evidence that children raised within this form...have advantages over children raised in other forms? (Is that right?)

Further support has been been proffered in the form of special knowledge contained within the heart of one Walter Fauntroy, but I assume we can dismiss this evidence for the time being, no? [Big Grin]

Have I got this right so far? Please feel free to correct any misapprehensions in order to obviate the cries of "straw man."

And if I am correct so far, please expatiate upon the nature of the advantage you claim is conferred to children raised within the "ideal form." Precisely what criteria are we using to determine that traditional marriage produces "more ideal" results?

P.S. Bear with me if I'm slow in responding--I'm busy, but I am excited about exploring this topic with you. One of my first posts on this forum was in a thread I dug up between you and Jordan on this subject...but alas, there was no real response--I think you were busy with Law School, and no one else was interested. I'm sure, of course, that you are wrong here, but I think we agree quite curiously on a main point which I would express thusly: "society" is right to encourage efficient forms of production/reproduction and not obligated to provide equal incentives to forms less ideal to such a purpose. (I'm sure your language would be different, but I feel that the idea is the same).

In any case, I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way Pete--I should mention that I have no intention of plodding through your exchanges with TPG. No offense to you, but I've run across his prodigious verbosity before, and--impressed as I may be at such remarkably zealous garrulity--I have neither the time nor the inclination to subject myself to that again.

I apologize if this forces you to re-touch on topics already mentioned--and feel free to cut and paste ibidem as it were--but I thought I ought to let you know--I'll be scanning this thread like a an email inbox without a spam filter.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, and the gratutious personal attacks.

<yawn>

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for not reading any of that Paineful exchange. My exchanges with Paine were entirely a waste of my time; glad you did not waste yours on it. Paladine's the only one to say anything useful in the whole exchange.


quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Pete-

I've been waiting for an SSM thread. [Smile]


First and foremost:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here, but it seems to me that in the position you support, there is a conflation of the issues of procreation and socialization/child-rearing.

Agreed. Many-pro-ssm folks take our obvious statement that marriage exists to regulate procreation, and act as if that we've posited a causal relationship, i.e. that marriage somehow is involved in procreation, rather than relating to it. That would be like saying that income taxes are involved in an individual's production of wealth. Income taxes may affect how we choose to produce wealth, but it's not involved in the production.


quote:
This begins in the source you cite:
----------
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.
--------
Here we have two distinct issues: 1) The role of marriage in procreation, and 2) The role of marriage child-rearing/socialization.

You phrased 1 incorrectly. He posits a relationship between marriage and procreation, but not a specifically causal relationship; marriage does not play a role in procreation; marriage influences when and with whom certain people choose to procreate.


quote:
(The importance of noting such a conflation may seem minor at first, but I suspect it will come into play if we really examine the anti-SSM position you advocate).
Absolutely correct! Misstating this relationship is the whole basis of the Goodridge straw man, and a key point in many of these arguments.


quote:
Now, forgive me if I oversimplify here Pete, but I believe we're arriving at the pith of this matter here:
-------------------
I believe that same-sex unions should confer a sense of legitimacy to the families of same-sex couples.

And I strongly believe that we should respect the integrity of other people's families even while encouraging the ideal forms.
----------
As I understand it, your position is that the "ideal form" of family is that founded upon a traditional marriage--i.e. lifelong committed union of monogamous male and female (correct me if I'm wrong here).

That's a good restatement of what I said, but I would like to make a more precise statement of my position than what I said originally. [Big Grin]

Let's say "apparently optimal" rather than ideal. Inferring from history, and from the study that we've given this matter, the universal elements of marriage appears to give that institution advantages over every other family form that we've examined. I recognize that we have not yet had time to properly examine same-sex couples as a parental unit, it it may be that time will show them equal or better. But until we've had time to observe, real marriage remains the apparently optimal family form.

Adapting your wording:

Therefore the time-tested foundation for this apparently optimal form deserves the unique protections of a legally and socially recognized special status in order to encourage individuals to utilize this form.

My support for this position includes marriage's historical pervasiveness among the all of the most complex civilizations, which suggests that marriage provides children with advantages within a complex and advanced society, (although not necessarily within a simple hunter-gatherer society, where concepts of marriage and fatherhood tend not to exist). When we compare them to children raised with a father and a mother in the home, boys raised without a father suffer from one particular set of disadvantages; boys raised without a mother suffer from a second set of disadvantages; girls raised without a father suffer from a third distinct set of disadvantages, and girls raised without a mother suffer from a distinct fourth set of disadvantages. (Ericson; Piaget; Freud also examined distinct gendered relationships as part of the maturing process). Together this data implies that both boys and girls obtain distinct benefits from being raised by a father, and from being raised by a mother, and that these benefits are cumulative.

So far no cries of straw men. You've read what I've said closely, and I've refined and clarified above. Thank you.

quote:
And if I am correct so far, please expatiate upon the nature of the advantage you claim is conferred to children raised within the "ideal form."
I'm not sure. Ericson looked at the distinct needs more closely than anyone, but I'm sure that he's barely touched the surface. When you look at this through the lens of evolution, when you see the same structures evolving independently in different cultures, that's a lot like ecological niches. It's like seeing flippers and fins on porpoises and fish, and concluding that these anatomical structures probably convey some sort of advantage to creatures that live in the water, since two fairly unrelated sets of creatures developed the similar structures. Can you see how that's distinct from an appeal to tradition?


quote:
Precisely what criteria are we using to determine that traditional marriage produces "more ideal" results?
Gets a job, keeps a job, stays out of prison, stays out of mental institutions.

Since preliminary studies on same-sex couples vaguely talked about an anomaly regarding "liberal vies on sex" without being more specific, I'd like to see a study look at issues like:

has ever been required treatment for a venereal disease; child support, domestic violence charges.


quote:
PI'm sure, of course, that you are wrong here, but I think we agree quite curiously on a main point which I would express thusly: "society" is right to encourage efficient forms of production/reproduction and not obligated to provide equal incentives to forms less ideal to such a purpose. (I'm sure your language would be different, but I feel that the idea is the same).
Pretty much, yes. But while I don't see society as obligated to offer SSUs under the 14th amendment, there are other reasons that I think that we SHOULD offer SSUS:

-Andrew Sullivan's arguments about HIV and gay promiscuity, persuade me that some legitimate recognition of same-sex relationships would save lives and reduce destructive behavior. Although homosexual promiscuity is *not* as deadly to society as heterosexual promiscuity (since reproduction isn't an issue), the last decades have shown that the government *does* have some interest, although we have to walk carefully because the Lawrence v. Texas decision limits the government's interest in same-sex relationships in a way that it does not limit govt. interest in heterosexual relationships.

-my understanding of the principles of American contract law (i.e. that we recognize and honor unwritten and unstated contracts where practical, and that the formality, writing, etc. is simply evidence of the agreement, rather than the agreement itself) makes me see an injustice when we refuse to recognize the implicit contract in any two persons who have promised to remain with each other for life. Even if Lawrence v. Texas prohibits us from regulating their private sexual relationship in the way that we regulate real marriage, we should be able to take the mutual promises into account for purposes of dealing with property, etc., lest our probate courts commit injustice. Trouble is that implicit contracts are difficult to enforce and messy. Recognizing same-sex unions, or at least reciprocal beneficiaries, would create a simple method that these people could protect rights that should be theirs by an implicit contract, without putting a court into a position where it feels that it's making up contract terms after the fact.

In the spirit of both the contract clause and the equal faith and credit clause of the constitution, I think that we could justify requiring all states to recognize same-sex unions, hopefully under a name more appealing to those couples, but absolutely not marriage. Such unions could involve all rights and privileges connected to marriage, but should not involve any marriage rules pertaining to sex and reproduction.

Ideally, I think that judges and legislators should be sensitive to ideas that come from the gay community with regard to new and different regulations within marriage, since equity requires that we take reasonable expectations into account when interpeting interpretation of any contract. It's possible that gay and lesbian couples themselves may have different reasonable expectations; it might be a good idea to have three separate bodies of similar but non-identical law, evolving on diverging tracks: marriage, MM unions, and FF unions.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd like to explain what I meant by "ideally" in that last paragraph:

On a practical basis, I recognize Funean's concern that at this time, in some jurisdictions, giving legislators power to regulate special rules for same-sex couples might result in intentional sabotage and mischief. [Frown] The courts seem more friendly to same-sex couples, though.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1