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 6)

 - 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
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 
Paine, I'm not sure whether your "shucks and jives" jab was more racist allusion (like the stuff you said on page 4 about "darkies" like my ancestors), or whether you're just fumbling with the language. I am not ashamed of my mixed ancestry. If you want to actually offend me, painting me as Uncle Remus will probably not do the trick.
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 
Another personal attack.

Darkies is a reference to the rcist nature of anti miscegenation laws.

shuck and Jives is a reference to dishonest use of language in order to clowd issues.

Neither is addressed to you personally, as I hope you know. Throwing the race card is both shameful and spurious. Frankly, I haveni idea and less concern with your ethnic makeup.

What you might be ashamed of is your refusal or inability to support your claims with evidence.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Correct. Like I said, the Netherlands is relevant to my ultimate concern. I'm just not sure how the Netherlands are relevant to this particular argument, as in "To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm."

Do you remember what "this argument" is?

The quote makes a wider argument than you do, since it brings in race, and more explicitly takes issue with the "sexual revolution."

But I think I've stayed on topic. You (and he) decry the sexual revolution for what you claim to be its negative effects on children and families. I applaud the sexual revolution for what I claim to be its positive effects on children and families. Since we are, in fact, debating which set of values leads to healthier, happier society, I wish to examine the actual track record of a more liberal society in comparison to the U.S. I think the evidence favors the former.

While looking at empirically, I'm also trying to provide the proper context by defended and explicating the actual values of the sexual revolution. I'm thereby suggesting that personal responsibility and personal happiness, far from being at odds with each other, are in fact inextricably related - you can't have one without the other. The sexual abandon that many associate with the detritus of the sixties is, in fact, a product of great social unhappiness and a lack of self-knowledge, and the best corrective to this is the intellectual and emotional elevation of sex and love - in all its forms - to something more than "Sterile recreational wanking" or a means (and duty) to procreate. Moderation must be learned though the responsible pursuit of personal experience. I'll leave it to you to say if this makes me a classic Aristotelian or a radical leftist.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 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 
Ah. Sorry for not following. So you see the Netherlands as the ultimate manifestation of sexual revolution values? Does that include or not include sporking children? I refer here to the Netherlands reducing the age of consent to 12.


quote:
The sexual abandon that many associate with the detritus of the sixties is, in fact, a product of great social unhappiness and a lack of self-knowledge, and the best corrective to this is the intellectual and emotional elevation of sex and love - in all its forms - to something more than "Sterile recreational wanking" or a means (and duty) to procreate.
And you don't think that marriage involves more than a "means or duty to procreate"? The 1960s invented love out of broad cloth?

Surely you aren't suggesting "intellectual and emotional elevation of sex and love" is a sexual revolution value not previously contemplated, and yet to survive requires being associated with a word that's thousands of years old? A new whine that can only be poured into an old bottle?

Why do you have to sabotage Mr. Fauntroy's fatherhood project and make it impossible to restore to his community that which our country stole from them? Why can't you give your new ideas, a new word?

If sexual revolution ideas are better like you said, then why do we need "the establishment" to force them on people, man?


quote:
Moderation must be learned though the responsible pursuit of personal experience. I'll leave it to you to say if this makes me a classic Aristotelian or a radical leftist.
Sounds like the decaf-lite version of "the road of excess leads to the place of Wisdom, from Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell." [Smile]

Trouble is, you forget that it's a shotgun marriage of heaven and hell, since this stuff isn't coming in through persuasion, but through coercion and fraud. Neutered marriage is being touted as "the right of gays to marry," as if this is what marriage always meant, and that we're just conveying a restricted right, rather than changing the right to make it conveyable. The whole debate is set up to dupe people into ignoring what they are giving up.

[ January 11, 2007, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

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

The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16 . They happen to take as a greater offence sexual abuse of someone younger than 12, which I do not consider to be an irrational
position.

quote:
The age of consent is 16. Sexual intercourse with minors under age 12 is a criminal offense. The Public Morality Act also allows for the prosecution of sexual abusers of children between the ages of 12 and 16 without requiring that affected parties file a complaint. The law imposes penalties on prostitution activities involving minors; maximum penalties are 6, 8, and 10 years' imprisonment for sex (in the context of prostitution) with minors under ages 18, 16, and 12, respectively.
next:

quote:
And you don't think that marriage involves more than a "means or duty to procreate"?
Isn't that what I've been saying all along. And, no, I don't think the 60's "invented" - but I do think it helped to democratize it. It's just a fact of history - you know it as well as I do. For most of history, marriages were often arranged as matters of necessity, and the personal preferences of the betrothed often had to take a back seat to circumstance, necessity, or the needs of other family members. Do you dispute this? Our modern society puts a much greater emphasis on self-hood.

quote:
Surely you aren't suggesting "intellectual and emotional elevation of sex and love" is a sexual revolution value not previously contemplated, and yet to survive requires being associated with a word that's thousands of years old? A new whine that can only be poured into an old bottle?

Why do you have to sabotage Mr. Fauntroy's fatherhood project and make it impossible to restore to his community that which our country stole from them? Why can't you give your new ideas, a new word?

Why didn't we call it something else when women were given equality under the law? Because that is a far more radical re-invention of marriage than opening it to gays. The traditional marriage is based on propertarian notions, in which the woman-property is given by one family to another family - which his why she drops her father's name and takes her husband's. In many cultures today, and for a long time in our own, the consent of the woman was not even asked in the wedding ceremony. That is traditional marriage, as it has existed for a thousand years. A marriage based on legal equality is wholly new and recent, and yet we still call it marriage.

quote:
If sexual revolution ideas are better like you said, then why do we need "the establishment" to force them on people, man?

Nothing is forced on anybody. There is no force involved, on anyone. People are still free to marry according to their church teachings, and their own conscience. It is the exact opposite of force. How can the legal protection of someone else's rights force anything on you?

quote:
Trouble is, you forget that it's a shotgun marriage of heaven and hell, since this stuff isn't coming in through persuasion, but through coercion and fraud. Neutered marriage is being touted as "the right of gays to marry," as if this is what marriage always meant, and that we're just conveying a restricted right, rather than changing the right to make it conveyable. The whole debate is set up to dupe people into ignoring what they are giving up.

People have a right to marry someone they are in love with. You would deny the right of a homosexual to be married to someone they want to be married to. Oh, sure, they could marry someone of the opposite gender, and then get their sex on the side. Is this pro-family? Try it out, Pete. Go find someone you know who is gay, and tell them that, under the current law, they have the same right to get married that you do (i.e., to a member of the opposite sex, as you've argued before). See what happens. Tell them that if they get married to the man or woman they truly love, that it will be a coercive fraud that destroys the meaning of your own marriage. Say it sincerely, with a straight face, to a homosexual you consider to be a friend. Then get back to me.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 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 do you mean by democractizing the right or duty to procreate?

quote:
People have a right to marry someone they are in love with. {and proceeds to build your case based on that conclusory premise}
Circular logic. This thread argues against redefining the word marriage. You have constructed an argument premised on the a neutered meaning of the word marriage.

"Tell them that if they get married to the man or woman they truly love, that it will be a coercive fraud that destroys the meaning of your own marriage"

Straw man. That's not my argument, and I've said multiple times that is not my position. Why don't you read what I said, and address my actual argument, or make another thread where you can argue with your straw man and leave me out of it.

It makes no difference to my argument whether zero same-sex couples get a marriage license for their relationship, or whether ten million do. The harm comes when the law changes the definition of marriage so that "marriage" has nothing to do with procreation, and ceases to recognize that children need mothers and fathers.

That little stunt you just pulled where you inserted your definition of marriage into what you claimed to be my position -- that's exactly the threat of newspeak. That people like you will change the meaning of words to make it impossible for the rest of us to communicate the idea of real marriage. Neutering the laws of marriage would put people like you in a position to implement that sort of brainwashing on a massive scale.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Marriage has always just meant a loving union of two people, but some evil bigots used to not let gay couples express their relationship in marriage. Some of these bigots are still out there, children. Are any of them your parents?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First of all Pete, stop trying to escalate this and make it out like pulling some kind of Orwellian mind-game on you. You're an adult - this kind of hysteria is beneath you.

I'm addressing your "point," along with what you've clearly stated to be the premisis behind it.

quote:
What do you mean by democractizing the right or duty to procreate?

I was referring to democratizing personal choice, and pursuit of love and romance as an individual ideal.

Contrary to what you've been arguing - and this is the point I've made repeadely and which you still don't get - marriage has already been re-defined to encoumpass homosexual unions, though we have yet to legall recognize it. The right of homosexual to marry necessarily follows from the legal equality of men and woman. Once marriage ceased to be premise on gender inequality it became a fundamentally different thing. Until the twentieth century, a "marriage of equals" was an oxymoron. Marriage was a heirarchical insitution, based in every concievable way in the legal status of men over women. When this was overturned our civilization changed completely. We now take it as a given that marriage is a choice, a matter of mutual consent. This was not the case before the legal equality of women in western society. There were many, many people who argued that giving women legal equality would destroy families, and thereby destroy western society. Before equality, a man had to ask a woman's father for permission to marry. This was not simply good manners, it was often a legalnecessity. The woman had to serve and obey her husband - this was codified in the wedding ceremony, and the law as well. A woman who had an abusive husband was practically powerless. .

This sad state of affairs only changed when, in the twentieth century, we embraced the sanctity of individual choice, and slowly but surely altered the institution of marriage to its current state. Our current definition of marriage, both in popular culture and in the law, requires mutual consent. Marriage exists to publicly declare love and commitment - whether the couple has children or not.

quote:
It makes no difference to my argument whether zero same-sex couples get a marriage license for their relationship, or whether ten million do. The harm comes when the law changes the definition of marriage so that "marriage" has nothing to do with procreation, and ceases to recognize that children need mothers and fathers.

There is absolutely no reason why legitimized gay marriage would change the definition of marriage so that it has "nothing" to do with reproduction. That is a straw man. Being married means that you are in the best, most secure possible position to have children. You get married first. And then, if you want, you have children. That's how it works.

This stuff about children "needing mothers and fathers"...you're taking what is at best a weak correlation (if any) between parental gender and childhood well-being, and acting as if it is a huge categorical difference, so great that it is sure to make or break any child's upbringing. Is a tough lesbian so different from a male dad, as to so radically affect a child's upbringing? Seriously? And looking at it legally - can a society which grants equal rights to men and woman still codify into law that men and women are so categorically different from one another that their relationship in love is categorically different from a same-sex relationship? That men and women are legally speaking equal before the law as individuals, but fundamentally different legal concepts when they get married? It's impossible - once you accept a premise of legal equality between men and women, you turn marriage into something else than what is was before. The re-definition has already occured - the right of gays to marry existed as soon as men and women were equals, even if the right is not currently recognized (just as whites and blacks had the right to marry, even though the right to do was not recognized in many states - those states were then violating the actual inherent rights of individuals, as you yourself have said).

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 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 should know by now that I don't use the word marriage to describe unions that do not involve both a man and a woman. Like most courts in the USA and in the world, most people in the USA and in the world, I continue to define marriage in a way that includes a man and a woman. Don't go sticking your neutered definition of marriage into a sentence and claiming that it's my position.

I didn't actually accuse you of an "Orwellian mind game" because that would imply motives, but if you think the shoe fits, then wear it.

As for "has been redefined," I don't fall for that passive voice garbage. Joey the janitor could "redefine" dog as cat, and that would give you the basis to say that dog "has been redefined" as cat. Please be more accurate.

[ January 11, 2007, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You should know by now that I don't use the word marriage to describe unions that do not involve both a man and a woman. Don't go sticking your neutered definition of marriage into a sentence and claiming that it's my position. I didn't actually accuse you of an "Orwellian mind game" because that would imply motives, but if you think the shoe fits, then wear it.

I didn't do what you claim I did. It's not "my" definition of marriage. Nor is the other "yours". We are not arguing - I hope - in favor of our respective baseless preferences, but in favor of what we each deem to be the objective truth.

"Neutered" is your word. I am explain that when someone's rights are considered with reference to their being human and not a man or a woman, certain things follow from that necessarily. If some one is a person first, and a man or a woman second, and a gay or a straight third (take careful note of that ordered heirarchy), and one's rights are derived by virtue of being human - then the sub-categories of "human" are irrelevant to human rights.

Women's equality is not simply the categorical elevation of woman to stand on the same level as men. It completely re-orders the definition of "man" as much as it does "woman." If men and women have equal legal rights, then they are legally equivalent entities, not separate entities that happen to be equal.

Once women are equal in status to men in marriage, marriage becomes gender-neutral. The traditional (pre-equality) concept of gender relative to marriage (or almost anything else) existed for one reason: to ennumerate that persons rights and expectations relative to society. Gender distinctions in marriage rights have no meaning or purpose if they do not specify different legal entitlements.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 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:
Gender distinctions in marriage rights have no meaning or purpose if they do not specify different legal entitlements.
Like the presumption of paternity. So you would strip couples of their basic right to not be sued by some loser that said he had sex with the wife, and disrupt the marriage with a lawsuit and paternity testing? Just because a marriage that recognizes the reality of where babies come from doesn't fit your rigid symmetrical idea of "equality."

I think that's dumb.

The verb to neuter, as applied to words and ideas, means to make a word gender-neutral. That's not "my word;" that's what it means. Sorry if the world is inconvenient to your argument; if you want to make a new one, then you'll have to show that your ideas are better.

[ January 11, 2007, 04:23 PM: 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:
Is a tough lesbian so different from a male dad, as to so radically affect a child's upbringing?
I don't know. We need time to study the matter; it's a new question. Can same-sex couples provide kids with as good of an environment, or perhaps better, for some purposes? And why a couple? Isn't coupling something designed around the heterosexist model? Isn't the only rational secular basis for rules against marrying your aunt Mabel premised on the biological threat of incest? I can't think of any rational and secular basis for applying such heterosexist rules apply to same-sex couples.

Rules like PoP and anti-incest rules make good sense and have a strong secular basis for enforcement in marriage, but not among same-sex couples.

[Kick in the ass to the first moron that says that I've made a slippery slope argument. I'm pointing to the laws to explain what marriage is, and what it should remain. We should not enforce rules that become irrational when applied against same-sex couples, nor should we take away perfectly rational and useful rules from married couples. Satisfying KidB's rigid and mindless construction of "equality" just isn't worth the cost.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

Rules like PoP and anti-incest rules make good sense and have a strong secular basis for enforcement in marriage, but not among same-sex couples.

[/QB]

It only makes sense for fertile couples with the intention to reproduce. We have given the benefit of marriage to heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce since the founding of this country, starting with our first president. It hasn't destroyed the union or civilization yet.

[ January 11, 2007, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: NSCutler ]

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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 NSCutler:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

Rules like PoP and anti-incest rules make good sense and have a strong secular basis for enforcement in marriage, but not among same-sex couples.


It only makes sense for fertile couples with the intention to reproduce.[/QB]
You are wrong. Unlike same-sex couples, heterosexual couples do not need INTENT to reproduce, in order to reproduce.

If they did, then marriage as an institution would not be as necessary. People would be able to plan things out, without needing the government to lay out the default rules, just in case.


quote:
We have given the benefit of marriage to heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce since the founding of this country, starting with our first president.
The state has neither the capacity nor the constitutional power to determine whether the husband and wife are "heterosexual" by inclination, nor whether they are fertile.

Run a search on the phrase "sterility straw man" on the search page before you embarass yourself by taking that argument any further [Big Grin]

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]It hasn't destroyed the union or civilization yet.[/i]

Nor would it destroy the union or civilization if some gay men signed themselves as women on the wedding licence form. I have no problem with don't ask don't tell marriage. So long as we preserve the purpose and definition of real marriage, society will survive all the mockeries.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Like the presumption of paternity. So you would strip couples of their basic right to not be sued by some loser that said he had sex with the wife, and disrupt the marriage with a lawsuit and paternity testing? Just because a marriage that recognizes the reality of where babies come from doesn't fit your rigid symmetrical idea of "equality."

I think that's dumb.

It is dumb. That's not what I said. Try to follow this distinction - laws that are applied on the basis on gender are derived on the basis of being human, not on the basis of being male or female.

(Yes, I'm sorry, but it's rather like that scene in Life of Brian.

"I want to have babies."
"You can't have babies, Stan. You haven't got a womb."
"I want to be a woman...It's my right as a man.")

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is a tough lesbian so different from a male dad, as to so radically affect a child's upbringing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. We need time to study the matter; it's a new question. Can same-sex couples provide kids with as good of an environment, or perhaps better, for some purposes? And why a couple? Isn't coupling something designed around the heterosexist model? Isn't the only rational secular basis for rules against marrying your aunt Mabel premised on the biological threat of incest? I can't think of any rational and secular basis for applying such heterosexist rules apply to same-sex couples.

Traditionally, children are not raised by "couples" but by extended networks of mothers, aunts, older siblings, etc. The modern "dad" is nowhere to be seen in the traditional model.

But as a matter of fact, I do (the horror!) favor the right of marriage "trios". I know a threesome that has held together duogamously for fifteen years and remain together now. I do not think that allowing this arrangement such as this would be widley abused - the legal responsibilities of marriage to one person are scary enough, but to two? Only the most seriously committed would even consider it.

Anyway, that incest is not a biological threat to same-sex siblings is not, in any way shape or form, argument against gay marriage. A marriage has a series of legal obligation that only apply in certain circumstances that may not apply to many or even most couples. I am legally required to take care of my wife if she gets sick. The law does not apply as long as she is healthy. What's the problem? This seems like a non-issue.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

Run a search on the phrase "sterility straw man" on the search page before you embarass yourself by taking that argument any further [Big Grin]

Read it. Still don't buy it. If society benefits from rewarding infertile couples for remaining in stable relationships and keeping their sexual activity within those relationships, the same benefit applies regardless of the sex or gender of individuals. The only 'benefit' not shared equally is that of assuring that heterosexuality is considered the norm. And I'm pretty confident that it will remain the norm no matter what government does, even in the Netherlands.
Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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:
If society benefits from rewarding infertile couples
No; apparently you didn't read it carefully. I listed several specific types of infertile couples and explained specifically how each type listed provided the same essential benefit to society, i.e. increasing the society's proportion of children raised by a father and a mother.

Please don't mangle what I said into some nonsensical generalization. Can you show how recognizing "marriages" between men would increase the proportion of children raised by a father and a mother?

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 KidB:
[QUOTE] (Yes, I'm sorry, but it's rather like that scene in Life of Brian.

"I want to have babies."
"You can't have babies, Stan. You haven't got a womb."
"I want to be a woman...It's my right as a man.")

Don't be sorry. [Big Grin] I'm just amazed that you think that example makes *your* point. Seems to me that it highlights the absurdity of your neutered logic.

(If you don't like the n-word, then please suggest another simple verb in the English language that means to strip gender from a word or idea).

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:
Anyway, that incest is not a biological threat to same-sex siblings is not, in any way shape or form, argument against gay marriage.
Agreed. It's an argument against neutered marriage, because it shows that stripping gender concepts from marriage is idiotic. We need rules to apply to husband/wife couples, but these rules would be unconstitutional to apply to same-sex couples, because the state has no compelling interest to tell an adult man that he can't boink his uncle. See Lawrence v. Texas, which spells out that the state does have an interest in preserving marriage, but not in regulating private sex between two men or two women. Why? Do you have to ask? [DOH]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, that incest is not a biological threat to same-sex siblings is not, in any way shape or form, argument against gay marriage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. It's an argument against neutered marriage, because it shows that stripping gender concepts from marriage is idiotic. We need rules to apply to husband/wife couples, but these rules would be unconstitutional to apply to same-sex couples, because the state has no compelling interest to tell an adult man that he can't boink his uncle. See Lawrence v. Texas, which spells out that the state does have an interest in preserving marriage, but not in regulating private sex between two men or two women. Why? Do you have to ask?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not an argument against "neutered" marriage either. The state, in preserving marriage, does not regulate sex between any married couple. Adultery is not illegal. But aside from that, I'm not getting why you think the changes needed to make gay marriage constitutional would render the gay marriage un-marriage like. Certain regulations which are necessary for heteros would simply not be applicable. And so...the sky falls, and locusts swarm, because of this?

This comes back to the point I was making about rights being derived from being human, not from being male or female. Laws are derived from a notion of universal human rights, they apply where only where there is a basis for application. A woman might have certain rights or priveleges that a man doesn't (say, time off working after giving birth). But - pay attention! - those rights are derived from her "person-hood", not her "woman-hood." Rights are universal to all persons - gender is a matter of specific circumstance. Please let me know if you need a further explanation of this distinction, and why it matters.

At any rate, you now seem to be defining "marriage" by what it restricts, rather than what it asserts. The restrictions are a consequence of the marriage, but do not define marriage. If our government allowed an incestuous hetero marriage, would that change the definition of marriage?

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 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:
The state, in preserving marriage, does not regulate sex between any married couple. Adultery is not illegal.
You are wrong. See Lawrence v. Texas (saying that marriage is a special case which justifies the few continuing jurisdictions where adultery is illegal)


quote:
But aside from that, I'm not getting why you think the changes needed to make gay marriage constitutional would render the gay marriage un-marriage like. Certain regulations which are necessary for heteros would simply not be applicable.
If you can have some rules not applicable, then it's a different set of rules. Once you admit that rigid symmetry is not necessary, then you've ceded the whole point. There's a set of rules that applies to married couples that cannot apply to same-sex couples. That justifies preserving the current definition of marriage.


quote:

And so...the sky falls, and locusts swarm, because of this?

Leave your religion out of this if you can; we're talking about language, culture and law here.


As for your womanhood v. personhood rationale, I understand why it's important to you (because if it were true you would be right). But it's all wishful thinking. If you want that in the constitution, there's an amendment process to go through.

quote:
At any rate, you now seem to be defining "marriage" by what it restricts, rather than what it asserts.
Nope. See the first post. Neutered marriage cuts off the most important assertions about marriage. That's why we fight it.

quote:
If our government allowed an incestuous hetero marriage, would that change the definition of marriage?
Nope! Nor would it change the universal elements of the definition if it allowed a woman to enter into multiple marriages with the same time. Those involve restrictions on marriage -- age, incest, exclusivity.

If you expanded the definition to include corporate takeovers ("corporate marriages"), that would be a change in the definition from the status quo. A corporation is a legal "person" in the US. I'm not concerned with persons marrying corporations or any nonsense like that; there's no slippery slope here. Just illustrating the difference between a banned marriage (like an incestuous or bigamous marriage) and a relationship which is not marriage by definition.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You are wrong. See Lawrence v. Texas (saying that marriage is a special case which justifies the few continuing jurisdictions where adultery is illegal)

A few exceptions does not change my point in the least.

quote:
If you can have some rules not applicable, then it's a different set of rules. Once you admit that rigid symmetry is not necessary, then you've ceded the whole point. There's a set of rules that applies to married couples that cannot apply to same-sex couples. That justifies preserving the current definition of marriage.

But the same set of rules doesn't even apply to married couples in Texas and married couples in New York! You've just given an example thereof (adultery). There are also significant variations in divorce law, common-law marriage, etc. You make no distinctions between the specific rules, and the principles from which they are derived. It is the principles that are relevant to the discussion here, not technicalities.

quote:
As for your womanhood v. personhood rationale, I understand why it's important to you (because if it were true you would be right). But it's all wishful thinking. If you want that in the constitution, there's an amendment process to go through.

Where in the Constitution are women's rights derived from a different set of precepts than men's rights? The legal equality of men and women is based on the philosophical precept of human equality - i.e., sameness of both genders relative to state power.

quote:
Nope. See the first post. Neutered marriage cuts off the most important assertions about marriage. That's why we fight it.

You're still whistling in the dark. Marriage has been neutered for more than half a century. Name one material or legal right or privelege of which you are deprived the moment a gay wedding occurs next door to you.

quote:
If you expanded the definition to include corporate takeovers ("corporate marriages"), that would be a change in the definition from the status quo. A corporation is a legal "person" in the US. I'm not concerned with persons marrying corporations or any nonsense like that; there's no slippery slope here. Just illustrating the difference between a banned marriage (like an incestuous or bigamous marriage) and a relationship which is not marriage by definition.
That's just funny. I take it, then, that you oppose banning gay marriage? That would require affirming its existence. Woops! Or you could pass an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, without mentioning gay marriage at all. Woops! Again! Marriage (says you) is already defined that way, so the amendment would be totally redundant!

Btw, I'm all in favor of repealing the personhood of corporations if it prevents my wife from leaving me for Haagen-Daaz.

[ January 11, 2007, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 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 
K:The state, in preserving marriage, does not regulate sex between any married couple. Adultery is not illegal.

P:You are wrong. See Lawrence v. Texas (saying that marriage is a special case which justifies the few continuing jurisdictions where adultery is illegal)

K:A few exceptions does not change my point in the least.

Oh?


quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
As for your womanhood v. personhood rationale, I understand why it's important to you (because if it were true you would be right). But it's all wishful thinking. If you want that in the constitution, there's an amendment process to go through.

Where in the Constitution are women's rights derived from a different set of precepts than men's rights?
Ninth Amendment, which implies that the people (which includes both men and women) retain other longstanding rights that preexist the constitution, and that other rights may exist unenumerated having been taken for granted or simply not contemplated.


[snip your inexcusable straw man, since I never made that argument and stated clearly that number of relationships formalized was irrelevant to my argument; that a change in law was the issue]

quote:
If you expanded the definition to include corporate takeovers ("corporate marriages"), that would be a change in the definition from the status quo. A corporation is a legal "person" in the US. I'm not concerned with persons marrying corporations or any nonsense like that; there's no slippery slope here. Just illustrating the difference between a banned marriage (like an incestuous or bigamous marriage) and a relationship which is not marriage by definition.

--------
That's just funny.

The Goodridge dissent didn't think so, neither did the Indiana Supreme Court. You should get out and do some more reading.


quote:
I take it, then, that you oppose banning gay marriage? That would require affirming its existence.
That's right, and if you were paying attention, you'd know that already. I support the MFA and other measures that remove any pretext that some judges think they have for distorting the 14th amendment as a justification for neutering marriages.

quote:
Or you could pass an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, without mentioning gay marriage at all.
"Because a child needs a father and a mother, the United States recognizes marriage as the union of man and woman for life."

quote:
Woops! Again! Marriage (says you) is already defined that way, so the amendment would be totally redundant!
You should do more reading. This isn't the first time that people have amended the constitution in response to a ruling they disagreed with from the Supreme Court.

That last sentence was actually worth reading [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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-

Alas, my schedule does not seem to permit me to maintain my end of a smooth dialogue online. Nevertheless, I am still interested in this discussion (stuttering though it may be on my end).

As of my last post, we were still in the process of getting on the same page as to precisely what you position is.

Here's what I understand so far:

This:
quote:
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 correct, but we have amended "ideal form" to read "apparently optimal form."

Assuming appropriate latitude being given to explore the meaning and ramifications of these pillars of support (for instance, we will assume that understanding the cogency of the proof provided by the idea of "historical pervasiveness" will require a studied application of evolutionary theory and it's implications), I take it that I am correct in surmising that these two elements:

1) The historical pervasiveness of the traditional marriage form, and...

2) Evidence that children raised within the structure entailed by such a traditional form derive an advantage (one not demonstrated to be replaceable by other means) from such a form.

...represent the basis of your claim, si? (In other words, in a previous post I jestfully alluded to the the additional evidence Fauntroy claimed to have in his heart--but I'm assuming that you don't rest your case upon such evidence. I assume that you believe your case is well founded in the objective evidence entailed in the two aforementioned items of support.)

If you have additional items of support, now would be the time to put them on the table.

Assuming no categorically different form of support to be forthcoming, I think that we are on the same page so far.

Next item: I asked for a set of criteria according to which the claim is being made that children raised within the structure of traditional marriage have been conferred a valuable advantage. The criteria you offered were:

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

Thus, if I follow correctly, your claim is that, statistically, children who were raised in an environment of traditional marriage perform better in these criteria, and that we should infer that such a superior performance is caused by, rather than simply correlated to, the traditional marriage structure.

I'm sure that we'll examine the validity of such an inference shortly, for now, I'd like to know if you have any additional relevant criteria according to which children raised within the structure of traditional marriage perform better.

And a final question: Assuming the validity of your arguments, what exactly is the benefit we seek to provide to the traditional marriage form?

Since this has been a long post, I'll re-cap the three questions I've asked:

1) Do you have any other evidence to support your claim other than the two broad items that have been mentioned?

2) Are there any additional criteria you would like to add according to which we can judge the performance of the social product (children)?

3) What precisely is the benefit you are trying to procure/maintain for the traditional marriage form?

[ January 19, 2007, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

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 
"1) The historical pervasiveness of the traditional marriage form,"

Emphasis on pervasiveness across cultures that did not interact; i.e. that different cultures developed and maintained similar features independently, much as porpoises and fish developed fins independently. This is evidence that the structures fill an important function.

"2) Evidence that children raised within the structure entailed by such a traditional form derive an advantage (one not demonstrated to be replaceable by other means) from such a form."

Correct. Not yet demonstrated, at least.

"And a final question: Assuming the validity of your arguments, what exactly is the benefit we seek to provide to the traditional marriage form?"

Even if the above two arguments turn out to be mistaken, we should still preserve the idea of marriage as "marriage." Two reasons for this:

3. New ideas should have new words. "Traditional marriage" is misleading and unacceptable; it does not clearly refer to the union of man and woman for life. The word "marriage" carries that idea. The state shouldn't get into the business of Newspeak and culturan genocide, stomping out cultural ideas, etc. If the word "marriage" comes to signify nothing but "union of two persons" to most of the population and completely loses the connotation of children, etc., then fine; the state can recognize changes to the word's meaning.

4. The idea of marriage as tied to procreation, as something that responsible people do *before* having children, affects heterosexual behavior. Recognizing marriage as the union of man and woman allows the government to promote reproductive responsibility without resorting to coercion.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
quote:
3. New ideas should have new words. "Traditional marriage" is misleading and unacceptable; it does not clearly refer to the union of man and woman for life. The word "marriage" carries that idea. The state shouldn't get into the business of Newspeak and culturan genocide, stomping out cultural ideas, etc. If the word "marriage" comes to signify nothing but "union of two persons" to most of the population and completely loses the connotation of children, etc., then fine; the state can recognize changes to the word's meaning.
I'd like to agree with you on this Pete, but I think that all words undergo a natural evolution across time as cultures themselves evolve.

This argument is particularly flawed when we realize that the institution you are referring to as "traditional marriage" has undergone vast changes to arrive at the contemporary version you champion.

Traditional marriage historically refers to an arrangement in which the wife was more akin to property than an equitable partner. Hell, in many ways the male was property as well.

Historically, a vital component of traditional marriage is that it is arranged by external parties (parents). You may casually dismiss such a component as irrelevant, but it isn't. Tevye and his ilk would decry the form of marriage that I assume you are in as non-compliant with vital traditions for reasons very similar to your own objections to the current evolution of the institution. The form you engage in (your own choice of mate) flouts the responsibilities you and the societal matrix reciprocally owe one another. You have put your own choices and preferences above the responsibility you owe to society--over the right of society to choose your mate (just as do gay couples). In the vast social breeding project, you have determined that you, not society, shall best decide the terms of your pairing arrangement. That such a form is now prevalent in occidental cultures does not bely the vast change this represents in the institution, it rather indicates the mutability of the term "marriage."

The real "traditional" marriage--arranged marriage--has a fraction of the divorce rate of the perverted institution the western world has embraced. Arranged marriage truly reifies the conditions implied in a social contract that society may be keen to promote. Many arguments could be made that this is the true "apparently optimal form," but we don't require dater/choosers to come up with a new word for their perversion of the tradition.

I presage an attempt to spin this as irrelevant to the concept of "union of man and woman for life," but that would be a mistake. Everything about the cause you champion screams of a social contract--of the interest that society has in determining the form of the primary breeding/socialization unit. The erosion of the role of society in determining the composition of the marital pairing is precisely the issue--and in a fundamental way the transition of the institution from "arranged" to "individual-choice" is a far more radical mutation than is a transition from "opposite sex" to "same sex." The former makes an enormous leap from an institution wherein breeding/socialization units are explicitly determined by society to an institution where society imposes a few paltry conditions and offers oft-unheeded suggestions, whereas the latter transition only marks the eradication of a single condition society has imposed.

The institution of marriage has changed--drastically. The meaning of the word has evolved.

If you are honestly insistent on this argument, and intellectually honest about the implications, you must be prepared to admit that the majority of marriages sanctified by society in the western world don't actually merit the use of the pure term "marriage."

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 
quote:
4. The idea of marriage as tied to procreation, as something that responsible people do *before* having children, affects heterosexual behavior. Recognizing marriage as the union of man and woman allows the government to promote reproductive responsibility without resorting to coercion.
Please expatiate. How does it affect heterosexual behavior? What do you mean by reproductive responsibility, and what does the promotion entail? This last bit gets at the thrust of my third question: please explain how you see the limitation of the term marriage to the union of man and woman as incentivizing such unions.
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 does idea of marriage affects heterosexual behavior? Well, the whole idea of males as a parent raising a child comes from the marriage institution. No culture has an idea of fatherhood without a concept of marriage as union of man and woman. Most women would still act like mothers to their kids if there was no word for "mother," since motherly behavior is largely programmed and instinctive. Males OTOH don't act as fathers unless there's an institution of marriage that creates that as a norm. Even males who don't get married often feel some responsibilities to "their" children, but the whole idea of responsibility is created by the presence (and normality) of the marriage institution. In subcultures where marriage is less common, men have less tendency to take responsibility for their children. The norms are intertwined.

Even more relevant to your question, the idea of marriage affects the behavior of most heterosexuals by dissuading responsible unpaired persons from reproducing. In US subcultures where marriage has the strongest hold, children are most likely to receive the attention and resources that they need.

quote:
I'd like to agree with you on this Pete, but I think that all words undergo a natural evolution across time as cultures themselves evolve.
Sure. Natural evolution means that the people most tied to the term, those that use the term most as part of their own lives, adapt its usage. That's natural evolution. When the heavy hand of the state comes down to impose a change in the language, driven largely by persons that *aren't* personally affected by the word, that's not evolution; that's Newspeak.

As much as the idea offends me, I could recognize a Christian fundamentalist's argument that the word "christian" has evolved through usage to refer to orthdox sectarian beliefs that have nothing to do with Jesus Christ's actual teachings, hence excluding heretics like me from the term "Christianity." That's not a very strong argument, and there are more compelling counterarguments but it is a valid argument.

There is no valid argument that the term marriage has "evolved" to mean a "union of two persons." The term might evolve to mean that in the future. But at this time, looking at usages in the culture at large, and the means by which this new "definition" is being pushed on the public -- this isn't evolution. It's Newspeak. Calling such intentional manipulation would be intellectualy dishonest, unless you think that "evolution" is synonymous with "intelligent design," and unless you also believe that most people accept what you're touting as the new "evolved" definition of marriage. [Big Grin]

There have been cultures where women were the men's property, but marriage existed in a number of cultures since antiquity where no such coercive relationships existed. The universal aspects of marriage involved 1) a lifelong commitment and 2) union of man and woman. Other details may vary, but those key aspects never changed. Many cultures introduced the idea of women as property, and the idea lasted quite a while, but it was not universal to advanced civilizations; you could always look to some advanced functioning civilization where women had held rights for generations and civilization had not collapsed.

Even if there had been no such cultures, your argument would still fail like that idiotic and antiGodwinian analogy between marriage and slavery, because the fact that an argument is valid does not mean that it's the strongest argument. Even if people had a valid concern that society might collapse without slavery or without degrading women, the horrors of those institutions was such that no ends could justify the means.

The fact that some people erroneously predicted calamity should we dispose of slavery or allow women to vote, does not prove that no course of action that we take can possibly lead to calamity. Those experiences do not disprove, say, the dangers or destroying the ozone layer, nor do they disprove the plain and evident fact that every enduring postagricultural society is founded on marriage.

Marriage is the product of evolution; societies without such a structure evidently did not survive the journey into complexity and specialization. That's an intellectually honest statement, since we can look around and not find any independent complex society that doesn't have a concept of marriage as union of man and woman for life. You can't claim your definition as a product of "evolution" since time has not yet shown which definition will endured. A freak genetic mutation that lasts one or two generations and affect fewer than 1% of the population does not represent a full-blown "evolution" of the species.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Males OTOH don't act as fathers unless there's an institution of marriage that creates that as a norm.
I'm wondering why you claim this, Pete. Would you not take care of your children if you weren't married to their mother?

quote:

The fact that some people erroneously predicted calamity should we dispose of slavery or allow women to vote, does not prove that no course of action that we take can possibly lead to calamity.

I think the lesson that should be taken from those examples, rather, is that people are quick to yell "calamity" in response to any cultural change, and they are generally wrong. In fact, I can't think of more than a handful of cases in which they've ever been right.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godot
Member
Member # 2099

 - posted      Profile for Godot   Email Godot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
How does idea of marriage affects heterosexual behavior? Well, the whole idea of males as a parent raising a child comes from the marriage institution.

You assume cause and effect which doesn't make it so. Perhaps males raising a child came into play because moving away from being hunter-gatherers provided males with free time they didn't have before.

quote:
No culture has an idea of fatherhood without a concept of marriage as union of man and woman.
Was there a study about this? Besides, the two occurring together does not guarantee cause and effect. If the concept of money over barter comes about at the same time as fatherhood, does that mean there's a connection (possibly, because then they could develop alimony [Wink] )

quote:
Most women would still act like mothers to their kids if there was no word for "mother," since motherly behavior is largely programmed and instinctive. Males OTOH don't act as fathers unless there's an institution of marriage that creates that as a norm.
As a male with two children, I take offense at that last statement. I would agree that, it appears, that women have a stronger drive to procreate and protect their children, but the rest is speculative.

quote:
Even males who don't get married often feel some responsibilities to "their" children, but the whole idea of responsibility is created by the presence (and normality) of the marriage institution.
To quote a great poet, "I disagree." I don't believe my feelings of responsibility have ANY bearing on my being married. My responsibility is based on my unspoken word that I will care and protect my children for the rest of my life. "Marriage" as an institution is a simple, secular agreement between my wife and I.

quote:
In subcultures where marriage is less common, men have less tendency to take responsibility for their children. The norms are intertwined.
You say so, but proof may be elusive. Are there no competing factors that could possibly account for your purported causal relationship?


It seems your basic argument comes down to (and forgive me if I missed something, but I don't have time to read this entire thread) allowing SSM will cause societal catastrophe. I see no reason to believe that is the case.

I don't have a vested interest in SSM or SSU. I say let's eliminate the word marriage and from now on and require that two people who want to form a "permanent" union can do so by getting (oh let me just pick a word...) "Glued". "Marriage" is protected because it's no longer used and everyone has the same rights as everyone else.

Posts: 444 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  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 
quote:
In subcultures where marriage is less common, men have less tendency to take responsibility for their children. The norms are intertwined. - Pete

You say so, but proof may be elusive. Are there no competing factors that could possibly account for your purported causal relationship? - Godot

Well, yes - one could definitely argue that 'in subcultures where men have less tendency to take responsibility for their children, marriage becomes less common' or even 'No culture has an idea of marriage as union of man and woman without a concept of fatherhood' [Smile]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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 TomDavidson:
quote:
Males OTOH don't act as fathers unless there's an institution of marriage that creates that as a norm.
I'm wondering why you claim this, Pete. Would you not take care of your children if you weren't married to their mother?
Not if I did not consider them "my children." And that sort of thinking is a product of the marriage culture which you seek to eliminate.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Not if I did not consider them "my children." And that sort of thinking is a product of the marriage culture which you seek to eliminate."

"marriage culture" is only one of the myriad factors that create the concept of "my children."

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 Godot:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
How does idea of marriage affects heterosexual behavior? Well, the whole idea of males as a parent raising a child comes from the marriage institution.

You assume cause and effect which doesn't make it so. Perhaps males raising a child came into play because moving away from being hunter-gatherers provided males with free time they didn't have before.
That would explain one culture doing it. Doesn't explain why all cultures would do it. Why would the first priority, once you got new time, be to pull a new family concept out of nowhere and impose duties on yourself that you didn't even have a word for back when you were chasing wooly mammoths? [Razz]


quote:
Most women would still act like mothers to their kids if there was no word for "mother," since motherly behavior is largely programmed and instinctive. Males OTOH don't act as fathers unless there's an institution of marriage that creates that as a norm.
-------
As a male with two children, I take offense at that last statement.

Unless you are a hunter-gatherer male with two children, then you live in a culture with an institution of marriage, and were exposed to the resulting norms, so your offensitivity seems frivolous.

quote:
I would agree that, it appears, that women have a stronger drive to procreate and protect their children, but the rest is speculative.
If you have any evidence that shows that men feel obliged to recognize their lover's offspring as their own responsibility in a culture that has no concept of marriage as union of man and woman, then please cough it up. Better to preserve an order that works, then to change society based on your speculations. Particularly since you can't demonstrate significant harm if we preserve the meaning of "marriage" as union of man and woman.


quote:
Even males who don't get married often feel some responsibilities to "their" children, but the whole idea of responsibility is created by the presence (and normality) of the marriage institution.
--------
To quote a great poet, "I disagree." I don't believe my feelings of responsibility have ANY bearing on my being married.

Irrelevant. I said that your feelings of responsibility are derived from the existence of certain norms, and that the institution of marriage in our society is what perpetuates those norms.

quote:
My responsibility is based on my unspoken word that I will care and protect my children for the rest of my life.
Thank you for proving my point: why did you make such a promise, why is it so obvious that it does not even need to be spoken, and why do you even think of them as *your* children? Obviously, because you are influenced by cultural norms and concepts of duty. The marriage culture produces and perpetuates these norms and concepts.


quote:
In subcultures where marriage is less common, men have less tendency to take responsibility for their children. The norms are intertwined.
--------
You say so, but proof may be elusive. Are there no competing factors that could possibly account for your purported causal relationship?

If you have an argument, then make it. If you want to change society, burden of proof is on you, not me.


quote:
It seems your basic argument comes down to (and forgive me if I missed something, but I don't have time to read this entire thread) allowing SSM will cause societal catastrophe.
Nope.


quote:
I don't have a vested interest in SSM or SSU. I say let's eliminate the word marriage and from now on and require that two people who want to form a "permanent" union can do so by getting (oh let me just pick a word...) "Glued". "Marriage" is protected because it's no longer used and everyone has the same rights as everyone else.
If you spoke truthfully that you have no vested interest in SSM or SSUs, then why don't you yield that point? If I'm right and the word's important, then we should keep its meaning as union of man and woman. If I'm wrong and advanced society does NOT require a specific unambigous term for uniting man and woman for life, then there's no harm done by doing so, and by preserving the word we've kept a record of our evolution towards a more enlightened concept of family. The word marriage passes into historical obscurity and we all live hapily ever after in your brave new world.

What's the problem? If the word's not important, then why make it a fighting point?

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 
Ev, please don't scramble the context. Women have always had a concept of "my children." I'm talking specifically about *men* thinking of themselves as fathers.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Ev's right. Anthropologists are far from universally agreed on the "causes" of parenthood; most of what I've read suggests that marriage sprang out of a recognition of paternity (specifically as property rights), and not the other way around.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
quote:
I'm wondering why you claim this, Pete. Would you not take care of your children if you weren't married to their mother? - Tom D

Not if I did not consider them "my children." And that sort of thinking is a product of the marriage culture which you seek to eliminate. - Pete

Marriage was created as a product and not a result of paternal identification. Since marriage was an effect of the desire to protect one's own progeny and property, it goes without saying that this identification preceded implementation of marriage and thus isn't a result thereof (not exclusively of course, these things tend to be recursive).

<edit> d**n you Tom for stealing my post [Mad]

[ January 19, 2007, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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 haven't got time to indite a detailed response at the moment, but suffice to say: your dismissal of the universality of marriage entailing women as property is interesting (and perhaps worth pursuing at another time) but it misses the main point of my argument, and focuses only on an ancillary incidental.

My point: The institution of marriage is variegated and has been historically subject to change. There is support for the idea that the term is broad enough in scope to encompass SSM, our purpose is to determine whether policy should reflect such potential breadth of scope.

The way you frame the issue of the definition of the term is a brilliant instance of verbal jockeying for a partisan philosophical position (I'm highly impressed with your skill in sophistry)--but it is also simply an a posteriori pretense of having a priori grounds.

You imply that the issue of definition is one of an Orwellian state apparatus injecting corruption into a previously intact and self-contained linguistic term. You imply that the term has a natural delimitation and that the malevolent state is attempting to rupture its natural boundaries. Brilliant stance, but brilliant primarily by dint of its partisan sophistry.

I don't really expect to change your mind on this issue--I know that you're quite invested in your position, but I'll submit to you that what you're doing here is assuming a position and then crafting a linguistic foundation that will make such a position tautologically necessary. If you'll step back from the importance you attach to winning this battle, you'll see how this is apparent.

You see--both sides on this issue can perform this trick. Pro-SSM advocates can just as easily claim that the malevolent state is essaying to artificially restrict the natural scope of the term in order to win a battle in the culture war. You point to pervasive historical features as essential, your opponent calls such features arbitrary, examples of instances of the term rather than an essential function of the term, and notes that this manufactures unnatural constraints and imposes them upon the natural core idea of union.

Such a claim on either side turns out to be simply taking a stance and then constructing a personal definition through which one can argue by tautology.

Your words:
quote:
Even if the above two arguments turn out to be mistaken, we should still preserve the idea of marriage as "marriage."
...indicate the true purpose of such a contention. A stance has been taken and the position will not waver even if the support turns out to be flawed. This is a variation of the "I know in my heart..." that marriage is such and such. You are absolutely entitled to maintain your position even if your argument turns out to be flawed, but the object of discussion is to examine the merit of a position.(This criticism applies to your point number 3. Point 4 is tied in to the minor premise "Society should promote behavior that confers an advantage" on which we both agree--though this idea needs to be fleshed out).

I don't mean to be condescending or offensive, but by insisting on such rhetoric as your ultimate bastion, you take yourself out of the arena of dialogue on the issue. The issue at hand is about policy: whether same sex life-long unions should be legally considered a within the scope of the term marriage. Either you're willing to explore the issue or you're not. Insisting from the get-go that the debate be framed in rhetoric that facilitates a positional tautology is tantamount to declaring the issue moot prior to any examination of the opposing positions. It becomes a contest of volume.

Sigh. It's very rare that I encounter someone with objective reasons for opposing SSM. You have an argument--an objective one. It's a tantalizing prospect. I'd like to explore it.

But if this issue is going to descend so quickly into "nuh-uh!"..."Uh-huh!" before we can even examine the merit of your argument, then it isn't really worth my time.

Let's take it as a given that every time you would insist that "marriage" is defined as a "union of man and woman" and that SSUs would require a different term, I would insist that marriage simply means a "union" and that adding superfluous constraints would require a sub-categorical term. OK?

[ January 19, 2007, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

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'm curious as to whether the entirety of that last post in which you began by answering my question (and quoted me) was actually directed entirely at me.

I found much of it interesting but you seemed to imply that I have been brandishing a new definition that I claim has evolved. [Confused] When did that happen? I had made a general claim that all terms evolve and followed it up with another rather general claim that the institution of marriage has evolved, but I made no mention of any new definition. Are you responding to me while thinking of someone else again?

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 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Marriage was created as a product and not a result of paternal identification.

Prove it.
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