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 4)

 - 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 
Pete, going to support your claims?

"A complete waste of m time"= "An embarrassing spanking that reveals to observers tat my position has no rational suport."

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"A complete waste of m time"= "An embarrassing spanking that reveals to observers tat my position has no rational suport."
For what it's, this observer vehemently disagrees with Pete AND saw no such "spanking" in this thread.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 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 
Well, Matt, look closer.

His main points were answered.

When he was asked for evidence to support his claims, he shucks and jives and refuses.

When he asks for evidence, it is provided in spades and he just ignores it all.

Until he can show a real harm to ssm, he has nothing.

[ January 09, 2007, 03:50 PM: 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 
Thank you, Matt. It's true; I have no interest at all in same-sex spanking. [Smile]

That, and it's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone that refers to some of my ancestors as "darkies" and some of Paladine's ancestors as "wops," while in conversation with us. [Frown]

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 
Reposting this so that sp doesn't have to seek it through that Paineful pile on page 3.


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.

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. The courts seem more friendly to same-sex couples, though.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
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.
I'll grant you that opposite-sex marriages are the optimal family form, but how much better are they? Is it just a little better or a whole lot better? Because if it is just a bit better, then this argument doesn't hold up. If it is only a little bit better, why exclude "marriages" that are almost as good?

quote:
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.
Were these studies based on single-sex "marriage" households? In other words, were there two males or two females "parents" present for upbringing? Becuase if there were only one parent, then these disadvantages may be the result of not having enough parents present. If that is the case, then SSM would help alleviate the problem, because it would encourage two-parent households in certain, limited cases.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 Wayward Son:
quote:
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.
I'll grant you that opposite-sex marriages are the optimal family form, but how much better are they? Is it just a little better or a whole lot better? Because if it is just a bit better, then this argument doesn't hold up. If it is only a little bit better, why exclude "marriages" that are almost as good?
We don't know how much better they are, and until we do know, we should not make irreversible changes to the meaning of marriage.

Additionally, even if ssus were as good or better than marriage, by virtue of being different, they'd inevitably be better at some things and worse at others. That's enough rational basis to justify calling them by different names.

Finally, since they obviously require some different rules, different names would make sense to maintain those separate internal functions.

quote:
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.
------
Were these studies based on single-sex "marriage" households?

Yes.


quote:
In other words, were there two males or two females "parents" present for upbringing?
No, I don't think so. That's why I said we need more comparative studies against mm and ff unions before we make irreversible changes.

quote:
Becuase if there were only one parent, then these disadvantages may be the result of not having enough parents present.
That would not explain the consistent four separate results sets for each gender combo.

quote:
If that is the case, then SSM would help alleviate the problem, because it would encourage two-parent households in certain, limited cases.
My guess is that it would help alleviate the problem, but not remove it completely. I'd also bet that the FF couples that find their kids a godfather figure, would further mitigate the problem. But you must take into account that without a distinct MF marriage concept, that these women would not have it in their heads that the child needed a father figure. The idea of marriage benefits all of society. Even when you're missing parts, you can mitigate damage when you understand what you are missing.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But you must take into account that without a distinct MF marriage concept, that these women would not have it in their heads that the child needed a father figure. The idea of marriage benefits all of society. Even when you're missing parts, you can mitigate damage when you understand what you are missing.
Erm. I get where you're going with this, but I'm not sure it's the idea of marriage that informed my ensuring that my kids knew their dad (actually it was my kid who is responsible, but that's another story). I try to ensure that my children have access to close relationships with a variety of sorts unlike myself--it's one of the reasons we make such an effort to ensure they have lots of time with their grandparents, and part of what informed our choices of godparents. I'm pretty sure all these folks don't add up to traditional marriage, at least not our culture's version. [Smile]

I think that a variety of family models is a positive that doesn't confuse anyone. Nuclear families don't take anything away from the extended family, and recognizing the value of the extended family doesn't thereby devalue families that by choice or by necessity don't have any "extensions." Just as the notion of "family" is a bit more elastic and durable than some people think it is, so too IMO is the idea of "marriage." (er, those are non-snarky quotes, there)

Anyway, carry on--didn't mean to t/j.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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 
Fun, you're *not* the only one I've heard that story from. Different same-sex couples come to that sort of resolution from different angles, but that's where a lot of them end up. You didn't use the term "father figure," but other ones did. I also know two male-male couples that

1. got a female friend of theirs to bear each of their children, so that the kids would be related to each other.
2. first kid from sperm from one of the men, and 2nd kid from sperm of the other one.

But when I asked them if they introduced the woman to their kids as their mother, they declined to answer the question. It was a friendly situation, mind you; we went on to exchange recipes and stuff. They just knew my politics and probably knew what I'd do with it ... which to me suggests the answer was yes, they told the kids this was their mom.

That's a good thing!

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 know those quotes weren't snarky. I don't mean to peg you either when I use them; it's to not be misunderstood.

I agree that family is elastic and durable.

But erasing the gendered aspect of marriage is a change that erases a major part of the purpose and function.

We agree that there are different kinds of family. Why put my kind under erasure? Why can't we continue to acknowledge difference?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Said the father to his children:

This is your third newest mom!

Tradition!

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But erasing the gendered aspect of marriage is a change that erases a major part of the purpose and function.

We agree that there are different kinds of family. Why put my kind under erasure? Why can't we continue to acknowledge difference?"

Why is recognizing all family structures as equal in the eyes of the law erasuing your kind of family? Why can't we acknowledge differences socially, without declaring one legally superior to the other?

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 dont see an advantage to different-sex marriages that are severely disfunctional and healthy same sex marriages.

Of course, Pete offers assmptions otherwise.

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 
Traditon, tradition.,,

Ad tradito fallacy, enshrined..


Tradition, trad..

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why is recognizing all family structures as equal in the eyes of the law erasuing your kind of family? Why can't we acknowledge differences socially, without declaring one legally superior to the other?"

Ev,

Do you consider taking the word 'marriage' out of the legal contracts between any two people justifiable? That way marriage stays with religions (which I think it rightfully belongs)

Sorry, I won't bother explaining why since you've definitely heard every single argument, I just wondered what you thought about it.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"marriage"

It's word with special meaning to many. Let them have it and let all other unions be called something else.

A rose by any other name, after all.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  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'm following along, and I assure you I won't miss any posts specifically addressed to me--I simply intended to let you know that any points that you might make during your exchanges with a certain ethereal poster may not be on my radar.

I will compose a more adequate response when I have time to sit and focus, but for now I'll say that we do seem to be pretty much on the same page anent what is entailed in your argument.

When it comes to evidence of the superior results of the "more optimal" form under discussion, you've so far mentioned:

"Gets a job, keeps a job, stays out of prison, stays out of mental institutions."

Two questions:

Do you have current evidence of superior results in any other criteria?

...and...

Do you have a handy link to information regarding the studies behind this evidence? (I'm not a stickler on this point--at least not in internet chat--I'm just curious if you have a link to some concrete data so we have a more tangible grip on the precise composition of your support.)

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 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 
How do you recognize different family forms without a word to do so?

Removing a distinct govt. recognition of marriage for what marriage actually means, removes the special protections that were designed specifically for that relationship, like the Presumption of Paternity, etc. That means that the government intrudes more on the relationship between husband and wife. Presumption of paternity exists to prevent certain intrusions.


Reproductive issues create a distinct interest for the government's involvement in marriage than in other types of relationships. Different interest means a different sort of contract. Might be very similar in most particulars, but it's unacceptable to deemphasize the issues that relate to reproduction, since that's the state's primary purpose for involving itself in marriage in the first place.

Does anyone pretend that our government would regulate marriage if people reproduced by budding rather than through sex?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm just going to take a second to point something out. Forgive me if it's already been done - I was going to read the rest of the thread, but I look out the window and see a hugely wild storm that means I need to get my booty going and get the chickens in.

But: it looks like the current objection to same-sex marriages is that giving full marriage rights to same-sex couples somehow weakens "the idea that children need a mother and a father." And even if we leave totally aside the question of whether a child raised by two men or two women has a substantially and necessarily less-high-quality upbringing than does a child raised by one man and one woman, this still is not really a valid point.

All children need a mother and a father. Yes. In fact, as point of biological fact, each child HAS a mother and a father -- whether or not that child is being raised primarily by a mother and a father or by a mother and an extra mother or by a father and another father or (as happened in my case) by a mother, a father, another mother, and another father.
Of all of the same-sex couples I know raising children right now (and it's actually kind of a bunch), I can't think of *any* who don't actively include both biological parents in the child's life. In one case, for instance, the kids' father lives on the other side of the country, but holidays are spent together and the kids talk to their dad and their half-siblings on the phone all the time. In another, the biological mother is a dear and loved friend of the parents who comes over and spends time with the kids constantly.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that this idea that children raised by same-sex couples are raised in some fictional bubble where they don't have a mom and a dad is not, in my admittedly incomplete experience of the world, based in fact. I think that most same-sex couples having children in fact use their creativity and love to find solutions that enrich their children's lives.
I understand that this view of things is not necessarily any rosier in the eyes of those of you who think that the nuclear family in a single-family detached home, daddy going to work and mommy staying home with the dishwasher and the vacuum cleaner is the Only Right Way for things to be. I mean, if there's only one right way, then everything else is by definition wrong.

But really, all the children I know who are being raised in loving and committed same-sex unions are doing great. Better, in fact, than a lot of children of opposite-sex unions with whom I am acquainted - if only because kids of same-sex unions are almost never unwanted accidents.

Well, that wind just keeps getting wilder out there. But I just wanted to comment on what was at least a perceived inaccuracy in the perceptions of others.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Do you consider taking the word 'marriage' out of the legal contracts between any two people justifiable? That way marriage stays with religions (which I think it rightfully belongs)"

Yes. I think this is the ideal situation.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Does anyone pretend that our government would regulate marriage if people reproduced by budding rather than through sex?"

I'm sure you meant believe rather than pretend but, yes, I can imagine one scenario if
a) These plant-people had a tradition of 'coupling' in some fashion and
b) Said coupling had as a main component the accumulation of wealth as well as
c) The inheritance of said accumulation to one's own offspring.

Since our own government regulations regarding marriage evolved from this same basis, it shouldn't be a big stretch to imagine such rules for plant people [Smile]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How do you recognize different family forms without a word to do so?"

This relies on the false assumption that words that have meaning dissapear when the government doesn't use actively use them.

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:
I think that most same-sex couples having children in fact use their creativity and love to find solutions that enrich their children's lives.
I've already said that on this and on other threads. What you're missing, is that creativity and love operate within a context of culture and world view. Same-sex couples find the "opposite-sex godparent" & other for their children, because their creativity is informed by the existence of a marriage ideal, and the idea that the child needs a father and a mother.

Destroy the ideal and you screw the kids of same-sex couples just the same as you destroy everyone else. That's why real anthropologists used to take a principled stance against cultural imperialism. You don't know the culture well enough to see what depends on what. Let people make their own choices; don't walk in like the great white god and reorganize their world because you know best.

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 
Not now, SP. [Frown] I'm not a social scientist.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"is informed by the existence of a marriage ideal, and the idea that the child needs a father and a mother."


Two very seperate ideas, I might point out.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete:
Does anyone pretend that our government would regulate marriage if people reproduced by budding rather than through sex?

That's possibly now my favourite Pete quote. [Big Grin] In response:

Does anyone pretend that people would want the government to recognise SSM if nobody was homosexual?

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 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 
I absolutely belive that, Jordan. If gays did not exist then someone would have invented them. [Smile]

Sure, I think the ssm movement would have less traction if all the people in same sex unions were bi or Anne-Heche-Heteros, but the nihilists would somehow drum it up. And it would be easier for people to fight the ssm movement if they didn't hold your relationships and families as human shields.

But ssm is just the latest (and second- or third-most dramatic) complication in a very long war. It's not the fault of gays that a bunch of psychotic heteros (an odd coalition of pornographers, educators, and social scientists) have been trying to destroy marriage since the 1960s. Neutering the idea of marriage, and saying it has nothing to do with raising children, would make the floor into the new cieling. We can't accept that. We've been struggling for ways to reverse the of the sexual revolution --- divorce rates, promiscuity, etc. -- and will continue to struggle. It's not about gays and their relationships. But the war would still proceed if the nihilists didn't have gay families to use as human shields.

Sure, the war may have seemed low key for a few years as the right chased after abortion (big mistake obviously, that got nowhere). But this isn't really more heated than the battle over the "Equal Rights Amendment." That was a nice sounding piece of propaganda, but when you think about the laws involved. ERA would have required the government to draft women along with men, and arguably would have given men the "reproductive right" to abortion (never mind that it's in the woman's body), and other atrocities based on the dogma that a man and a woman have exactly the same roles in society despite reproductive realities.

Goodridge mangles the 14th amendment in order to accomplish exactly the same goals as the ERA: i.e. to force the changes of the sexual revolution into federal constitutional law, i.e. set them in stone, as explained in the first quote. They lost on the ERA; they are getting old and people now realize that the sexual revolution was a screwup. So now the nihilists attempt to amend the US constitution without the bother of consulting Congress.

It's not about gays. Nihilists are using this movement to push the ERA into the constitution without going through the Amendment process. If we buy the Goodridge logic, then government cannot respect gender differences even with respect to laws that drastically affect how children are raised. It's about saying that men and women are interchangeable, both legally and socially.

[ January 09, 2007, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" If we buy the Goodridge logic"

For those interested in seeing why I think you shouldn't trust Pete on the goodridge decision please understand that Pete says that the goodridege decision says the only reason to oppose SSM is bigotry. He also says that the goodridge decision says marriage is only about love.

Then read the goodridge decision, located here

[ January 09, 2007, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

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 
That's Ev's classic attempt to derail the topic. Drag in some quote out of context from another discussion to discredit me rather than addressing what I'm talking about here. If I counterargue, the topic derails.

Note that Ev doesn't even pretend to disagree with what I said, i.e. that Goodridge reads ERA language into 14th amendment to say that a state marriage law "discriminates" on the basis of sex.

He doesn't even say that I'm wrong; he says don't trust me because of some other argument.

Cheap poisoning the well, Ev. Shame on you. Go away.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The usage of the fourteenth amendment in the goodridge decision is primarily in regards to equal protection under the law, the implicit right to privacy, the fact that the law cannot tolerate prejudices, and is brought in tangentially to reference the right of women to serve in the military.

How people want to read that WRT the equal rights amendment, thats up to them... but I'd still suggest they read the decision, rather then listen to what you have to say, since you've demonstrated a strong inability to read the goodridge decision accurately.

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 
Please stop trying to derail the thread, well-poisoner. I already answered your silly argument on previous threads.

This thread is about issues pertaining to the word "marriage." Not about how your chief justice misrepresented the Loving decision to slur anyone who continues to use the word marriage like this guy uses it:

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
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.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

Walter Fauntroy
Former DC Delegate to Congress
Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus
Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC



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 
Getting government out of the marriage business and instead having government unions (in many forms) and let religion handle marriage.

Of course many laws would have to be altered, ehh?

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 
His link is good, though, SeekingPrometheus, in case you want to verify for yourself that Goodridge basically twists the 14th amendment to function as the first half of the ERA (i.e. the power to courts to toss out laws that aren't rigidly symetrical with respect to gender, but not the part that gave Congress the right to enact new laws to enforce their concepts of gender equality)

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html

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 
Pete, can you prove that there is anyone trying to destroy marriage? I mean, your utter failure to provide evidence for any of your claims makes me doubt whether you will or can here.

But let us try,

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, Ev.

I'm really interested to find out, but I don't have time to read that book you just posted.

Could you reference any of the most notable sections of that?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, could we clear up the legal aspects of Presumption of Paternity?
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
None of the posts I have seen regarding pro and againsta SSM opens up this point of view:
"You are the father or mother of 2 nice young people, a son and a daughter. You have spend all your life teaching them what's right and what's wrong in the world in the best practices of your Christian beliefs.
Then one day your son/daughter comes home and says - Mom (Dad), I've decided to make it official - please meet my boyfriend / girlfriend/ We plan to get "married" tomorrow, so I invite you to our celebration."

What would you like to do for your child?
I for one, no matter what and how did this wrong thing (in my believes) happen - would like what's best for him/her.
And what's best for my child, who has chosen a same-sex partner is for society or government to provide them with the same level of protection and benefits as for other married couples.
It doesn't matter a squat that I don't approve it and would have never ever wanted this to happen and that I've spent my days hinting that my child should choose a partner from the opposite sex.
Because at the end - it's a personal choice. And as such should be respected by a society respecting freedom of the individual.

Posts: 174 | 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 
What's your question about PoP?

Simple version: If your wife has a baby, no outside party can ask for a paternity test or otherwise question the kid's paternity in court, unless you or your wife say it's not yours. You have a limited time period to say it's not yours. If that time passes (1 month, in most states), then neither you nor your wife can question it, either.

The idea is to give a kid a mom and a dad, and keep them in place. Screw genetics. If mom had an affair, or was raped, and decides to keep the kid, the sperm donor has no rights. Marriage trumps biology. More importantly, it means that the judge dismisses the case before it tears the family apart.

The Goodridge atrocity says it can be neutered into a "presumption of parenthood" (see the link), but doesn't explain how NeuteredPoP would work. Kind of buggers the imagination, how you neuter the roles of husband and wife in PoP.

Note under presumption of PATERNITY that if the husband runs off and gets other women pregnant, that it doesn't work in reverse. The wife isn't responsible for children that her husband fathers with other women. That would not be reasonable. Husband can see his wife getting pregnant; wife can't see husband's flings getting pregnant. It's not "equal."

And to twist the laws to make them "equal" would make them insanely inequitable.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tommy-
I'd strongly recommend reading the link, if you're really interested. Its long, but worth it.

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 
Sorry, I missed the proof of how marriage is actually under attack. Got anything to prove it?
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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