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 7)

 - 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
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hrm. You certainly haven't proved your assertion that marriage created paternal identification. While donald is working on his proof, would you mind proving your assertion? Since your entire argument hinges on this point, I'd love to see some evidence for your assertion.
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 seekingprometheus:
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.

Agreed.

{gets bored and stops reading when SP starts accusing me of "sophistry." So much for sticking to purpose.}

[ January 20, 2007, 06:17 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:
Originally posted by Everard:
Hrm. You certainly haven't proved your assertion that marriage created paternal identification.

I'm not the one trying to overhaul society here. It's got to be one or the other, and burden is on those that want the change.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't assign burden. I said your argument rests on certain premises. If you want us to buy your argument as valid, then establishing those premises would seem to be in your arguments interest.

I also don't buy your premise that anyone is trying to overhaul society, so I reject your claim that SSM proponents have the burden of proof, since SSM proponents are simply trying to remove bigotry from our laws. (A premise you don't buy, which is why I am not asserting any particular burden of proof right now, but nor am I buying into any particular claims about who has theburden of proof).

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 
Sorry for letting some folks distract me with that inane argument over which came first. The point that's actually relevant to the discussion is that the marriage institution propagates the importance of a father's relationship to his children. To effect cultural genocide against African-Americans, slavers and other white supremacists enacted laws and rules that prohibited or made it very difficult for black people to marry. That's what the quote at the top of the thread refers to. By screwing with people's minds about what marriage means, marriage neuterers are helping to stretch out the most enduring legacy of slavery: fatherlessness.

again:

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



[ January 20, 2007, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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:
Sorry for letting some folks distract me with that inane argument over which came first. The point that's actually relevant to the discussion is that the marriage institution propagates the importance of a father's relationship to his children.
Have you demonstrated the latter point? You've argued that history shows this, but backed away from this the instant people challenged you for evidence of it; instead, you've now twice quoted some guy who agrees with you, which isn't really all that helpful. In fact, I think the whole discussion of "which came first" came out of your assertion that the original purpose of marriage was to remind fathers of their obligations, and the rest of us simply questioned that claim. If you're willing to retract that claim, there's no need for us to have that conversation -- but if would then become useful for you to demonstrate some other evidence that the purpose of marriage is nowadays to keep fathers chained to their children.
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 
Of course, we could put Pete's last quote in context:
quote:
"My religious tradition says (homosexuality) is an abomination. Don't come to me asking society to attribute to a same-sex union the term 'marriage.' It's a misnomer. Have your same-sex union; have your contracts. But don't confuse my young people into thinking they don't need one another. Don't tell my young women they don't need a man.

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

On the flip side of the coin:
quote:
I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

Coretta Scott King
Noted community leader and civil rights activist
Co-founder of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy.
Wife of Martin Luther King, Jr.


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-

[Exploding]

Jeezus!

I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.

This isn't the first time you have taken personal insult and used it to justify ignoring the issue. And you and I have only engaged one another twice.

If you would have actually read my response, you would have seen that I am actually interested in examining the support you offer for your argument. I want to hear your argument.

But insisting that the discussion be couched in terms that imply a foregone conclusion undermines the integrity of the discussion.

Sophistry is legitimately effective at winning a point in many fora. Take insult if you will, but I was actually complimenting you. You have an incisive understanding of the linguistic constructions that can be used to inexorably drive your point. I consider myself a very skilled sophist, and I take pride in my command of persuasive language. But my use of sophistry usually betrays a lack of respect for the perceptive abilities of my interlocutor (thus I usually only use it when I don't agree with the position I'm contending or I don't believe my opponent is capable of understanding the intricacies of a more valid line of argument).

Our discussion started on and hinges on this idea:

1) The union of man and woman for life is the apparently optimal arrangement for founding the base social unit of the family.

2) The state should promote institutions that are optimal for society by giving them a "unique sanctity of a legally and socially recognized special status" (since the issue at hand is "marriage," it must be held here that recognizing a unit as "marriage" confers that special status).

Conclusion: The state should only recognize the apparently optimal arrangement (form) of heterosexual union for life as "marriage."

Apparently we tentatively agree on #2, the issue I've been questioning has been the support for #1. When I asked you a question pursuant to support for #1 you responded with:
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.
Talk about unacceptable. Here we are examining the validity of an argument that explicitly posits the recognition of a unit as "marriage" as a "special status" conferred by the state to promote the utilization of such a form, and you turn around and tell me that such a special status cannot be transferred in spite of potential flaws within your supporting argument because of a linguistic construction?

What am I, an idiot? When I called you on sophistry, I did so because I assumed you knew what you were doing. It was my way of saying: "Clever trick, but I've seen that one before."

As I said in my previous post--I think you have an objective argument. It is rare to find an anti-SSM advocate who can articulate an objective argument against it. I'd like to hear yours. We seemed to be exploring it until you tried to bolster it with rhetorical devices--which is fine by me, but don't get grumpy when I call you on it. I'm actually an open-minded person--willing to change my position if objective, logical evidence calls for it. So if you have an argument, how 'bout we stow the petulance and you go about furnishing the support, eh?

I've repeatedly asked how you perceive recognizing the title "marriage" for a given unit as a promotion of such a unit--any comments?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Sorry for letting some folks distract me with that inane argument over which came first. The point that's actually relevant to the discussion is that the marriage institution propagates the importance of a father's relationship to his children. "

If its inane, then perhaps you shouldn't make the argument, and then place the rest of your argument on top of it?

If its true that marriage came after the father's relationship to his children, then fatherhood is a concept that does not need marriage to thrive, and if fatherhood does not need marriage to thrive, then... whats left of your argument, pete? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

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 
It's a little disingenuous of you to accuse me of "sophistry" and then whine about me "taking personal insult," SP. Is that not considered an insult in your neck of the woods?

I'd appreciate if you'd drop the cheap religious shots too.

If you can make an argument without resorting to that sort of crap, then I'll be glad to respond to you. If anyone else thinks that SP has made any salient points and would like to see my responses, likewise, feel free to disintangle them from the rest of his crap and post a concise grown up version. I'd just rather not root through a sewer for coherent arguments to respond to. Life's too short, and I've learned from bad experience to just stop reading when someone does something as crass and tasteless as to curse Jesus on a Mormon guy's blog.

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 
That's not putting anything into context, Donald; you are merely poisoning the well. The argument that I posted does not rely on the man's religion; indeed, I'd never even seen that quote before. But this is typical fare for you guys. Confront you with a completely secular argument against religion, and you turn it into some religious inquisition.
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 
Cheap religious shots. What an ego. In my "neck of the words" the exclamation "Jeezus!" articulates exasperation. Concise articulation is my intent, my time is not spent crafting comments that may or may not have an effect on your religious sensibilities.

And no--sophistry ain't an insult either, it's a term for a rhetorical technique.

Why do you take everything so personally?

Now, for your information, I haven't made an argument on this issue yet--aside from explaining why the rhetorical devices you use to frame the argument only serve to obfuscate the issue.

My posts here have been to try to understand your argument. I think I understand the construction of the argument, but every time I ask for support of your major premise you either ignore me or slip off into rhetoric which seems to imply your own argument doesn't even need to be made in the first place. (And then you take personal exception when I point out the dodge).

I'm left wondering if you have any support for your argument.

Pete, we all understand that you believe that marriage refers only to a "union of man and woman for life." Great. Thanks for the opinion. Now do you have any support for your claim that state policy should reflect your definition?

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 seekingprometheus:
Cheap religious shots. What an ego.

Click.

That's really too bad that your dimestore analysis of my personality prevents you from addressing the argument, oh poorly named "seeking prometheus." It's a pity, because a few days ago you actually had me believing you were up for the sort of in depth arguments about SSM that I've had with some folks (but clearly not with others) on this site. I was sorry to see you suddenly buckle under and start spewing personal attacks. Perhaps you should change your sig to "Seeking Jerry Springer."

Next?

[ January 21, 2007, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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:

Cheap personal shots and dimestore psychoanalysis. Guess you can't deal with the argument.

Pete, his point was that you don't seem to HAVE an argument.

In case you've missed it, here's the issue:
1) You have claimed that marriage arose in order to keep fathers with their children, and that this is why you think the mechanism of marriage should remain gendered today.
2) People have challenged your assertion that marriage arose in that manner or for that reason.
3) You have not responded to that challenge.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 
Nice try, Tom, but I answered that already:


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Sorry for letting some folks distract me with that inane argument over which came first. The point that's actually relevant to the discussion is that the marriage institution propagates the importance of a father's relationship to his children. To effect cultural genocide against African-Americans, slavers and other white supremacists enacted laws and rules that prohibited or made it very difficult for black people to marry. That's what the quote at the top of the thread refers to. By screwing with people's minds about what marriage means, marriage neuterers are helping to stretch out the most enduring legacy of slavery: fatherlessness.

again:

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


So far the only response to that was Don's cheap little well-poisoning about Fountroy's religion. No one's disputed the facts that:

1. Certain persons effected cultural genocide against African Americans by helping to eradicate the culture of fatherhood from among them, and they did so specifically by discouraging African-American men from marrying African-American women, and from fulfilling the responsibilities of marriage.

2. That #1 shows that attacking marriage and telling men that they aren't a necessary part of a family, leads to fewer men behaving like responsible fathers.

3. That children and families suffer when fewer men act as fathers.

Since you obviously have no counterargument, it makes a sad sort of sense for you guys to try to focus the argument back on some chicken-egg question from the stone age that neither of us can prove one way or another. Why don't you take that one to another thread and pretend like you've won the argument?

[ January 21, 2007, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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 
What evidence do you have for #1 beside Fauntroy's claims? He's hardly an unbiased observer, and frankly I suspect him of making excuses based heavily on his own biases.

Moreover, I'm not sure why you think gay marriage would lead to those men who are parts of a family deciding that they aren't part of a family. Do you believe that people debating whether or not they should stay by the side of their "baby-mama" are going to say to themselves, "Heck, even gay people get married, so marriage can't be all that important."

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 
When you quote someone else's theory, Pete, it doesn't magically become a fact. Everything in that quote is pure conjecture on his part.

As for the 'poisoning the well' bit - since your post quoting Rev. Fauntroy was not an argument in any way, but instead an appeal to authority, it is valid to question on what basis your 'expert' came by his position.

Thankfully, Fauntroy comes out and tells us why he believes same-sex marriage is wrong - because he believes "homosexuality is an abomination." If you did not previously know it, now you do.

As for the whole chicken and egg thing - I completely agree. It's unprovable. Which is why when you make such silly claims people will point them out to you; not just because you are building your house of cards upon this foundation, but more importantly because you are highjacking the debate by making unfounded stone-age claims.

I do not accuse you of consciously trying to redefine the historical roots of marriage. However, the net result is that unless these false statements that you and others make with such consistency and frequency are countered, there is a risk that eventually they will become accepted as a given.

Now you know [Smile]

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 use the exclamation "Jeezus" and you call it a cheap shot at your religion. How does that follow? Why do you assume that it's a personal attack on your religion?

You may be offended because of a special religious significance you attach to all variations of that particular bi-syllabic verbal construction, but why do you immediately assume that it is intended as a cheap shot aimed at insulting you?

Same goes for the sophistry bit. What I say essentially is that you are deviating from the argument by using linguistic constructions to lead to an unsupported conclusion, and you take it as a personal attack. Why?

I showed very clearly how the construction you employed can be reversed to lead to the opposite conclusion. I didn't even censure you for employing such a device, I rather remarked on how effective such a tactic can be, expressed admiration for the brilliant construction, and simply observed that such a device cannot be accepted from either side of the issue in legitimate discourse.

Why do you respond as if I am personally attacking you?

Do you think that disagreement with your conclusions or criticism of your arguments indicates personal malice against you?

I really don't understand this.

For the record: I have not personally attacked you. (The only possible exception to this might be my use of the words "What an ego" with which I intended to convey my frustration with someone who takes an exclamation I make and twists it into an intentional personal attack. I do think that it is incredibly self-absorbed to assume that someone else intends to offend you when they exclaim "Jeezus" in exasperation. Sorry, but that's how I see it.)

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What evidence do you have for #1 beside Fauntroy's claims? He's hardly an unbiased observer, and frankly I suspect him of making excuses based heavily on his own biases.
You don't believe that when Africans were brought here their nuclear family units were disrupted? That fathers were often separated from mothers and children? That the modern welfare state effectively offers financial incentives for lower-class, disproportionately black families to break up and live in different households?

The past 300 years or so are very clear with respect to this matter. One of the major forces which have regretfully turned American blacks into something of a permanent underclass is the dissolution of the family as an institution. This was caused, in large measure, by the practices of slave owners who would break up families and a government which would offer incentives towards the same end.

The result is that a terribly large amount of black youth in this country grow up without their father. Being a member of a family teaches you certain things. Your father teaches you what a man should be; your mother teaches you what a woman should be. The dynamics of the relationships between family members inform your view of how people (in a family unit and elsewhere) ought to treat each other.

The advantages of this family structure are evidenced by its emergence and predominance in virtually every advanced civilization on the planet. Fauntroy's point is that people have messed with the traditional family in the past, and that this sort of messing has contributed to the problems his people have faced for generations. His point is that the traditional family needs to be promoted, because bad things have happened when it's been attacked.

And that's precisely what SSM proponents advocate; they want to deprive marriage of the special place it occupies in our society by expanding it to include other types of family units which it frankly wasn't designed to contain. And there are a good deal of good arguments for doing so.

But to pretend that throwing a wrench in marriage and the family structure to which it gives rise hasn't been done before, or that grave harm hasn't been visited upon cultures wherein a man and a woman committed for life has not predominated as the cornerstone of a family unit, or that the African-American community in particular has not born witness to and been a victim of this harm is beyond absurd. These are demonstrable historical facts.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For the record: I have not personally attacked you. (The only possible exception to this might be my use of the words "What an ego" with which I intended to convey my frustration with someone who takes an exclamation I make and twists it into an intentional personal attack. I do think that it is incredibly self-absorbed to assume that someone else intends to offend you when they exclaim "Jeezus" in exasperation. Sorry, but that's how I see it.)
Ahah. So you haven't attacked him personally, except when you did. But it was okay then, because you were just calling it like you saw it. Glad you were clear. [Wink]

Edited to Add: Snark aside, you knew you were dealing with someone with fairly thin skin (no offense Pete). You characterized his arguments as "sophistry", which carries heavy pejorative connotations, regardless of the spirit in which you intended it. When you saw that he was likely to take things personally, you vented your frustration by taking a shot at his ego, and now you're wondering how he could possibly have not reacted well to that? [DOH]

It's like a tobacco user wondering why he's having these silly breathing problems after reading the warning label.

[ January 22, 2007, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 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 
Over and over now I've pointed out what this argument boils down to:

1) The union of man and woman for life is the apparently optimal arrangement for founding the base social unit of the family.

2) The state should promote institutions that are optimal for society by giving them a "unique sanctity of a legally and socially recognized special status" (since the issue at hand is "marriage," it must be held here that recognizing a unit as "marriage" confers that special status).

Conclusion: The state should only recognize the apparently optimal arrangement (form) of heterosexual union for life as "marriage."

You've agreed with me that this is the argument. I haven't deviated from examining this issue except to point out that personal definitions of the scope of the term marriage are irrelevant to the issue of determining state policy.

The issue of paternity falls within the scope of this construction, since you claim it is part of the benefit you suggest inheres (only) in the traditional marriage form. In my opinion, DD and TD bring up a valid criticism of this argument insofar as they observe that such a theory is unproven. Your demand that they prove their counter-theory may be justified, but without clear evidence proving the superiority of either theory, we seem compelled to declare this matter inconclusive.

Personally, I would further criticize your assertion by noting that even if your theory is correct, and the idea of fatherhood did historically arise appurtenant to the traditional practice of marriage, you have not provided sufficient reason warranting the belief that extending the scope of the marriage tradition would undermine the deeply embedded social concept of fatherhood. Does the act of encouraging homosexuals to marry somehow result in heterosexual fathers refusing to acknowledge their responsibilities to their children? In order for this argument to hold weight, you would have to provide compelling reasons for believing that such a deconstruction of the fatherhood concept would ensue--instead of simply noting that it is impossible to prove that such an event would not occur.

I would say that, as this stands, this is very weak support for your conclusion.

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 Paladine:
quote:
What evidence do you have for #1 beside Fauntroy's claims? He's hardly an unbiased observer, and frankly I suspect him of making excuses based heavily on his own biases.
You don't believe that when Africans were brought here their nuclear family units were disrupted? That fathers were often separated from mothers and children? That the modern welfare state effectively offers financial incentives for lower-class, disproportionately black families to break up and live in different households?
Thank you, Paladine. Whether or not you agree with me, I'm relieved that someone here at least understands my arguments and isn't snowed under by the well-poisoning leftspeak.

It's a sad thing what passes for a college education these days.

[ January 22, 2007, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not a problem. [Wink]

I do have some questions about your argument, however.

First off, I think men are more naturally inclined to be fathers than your argument would lead me to believe. I'm something of a guardian by nature; I instinctively want to protect and to guide. I think other men feel similar instincts to a large extent, and that the role of men in marriage is an outgrowth of these instincts.

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

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that men do have protective instincts. Marriage nurtures, harnesses, channels, and focuses these instincts which otherwise would rarely find application. The existence of a marriage culture makes even an unmarried man more likely to behave in father-like ways.

Boys in gangs also guide and sometimes protect each other. Men in hunter gatherer clans, with no concept of marriage, are focused more loosely on the tribe as a whole. It works for that sort of simple unspecialized sort of life. It doesn't work so well for a complex and highly specialized society such as our own.

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

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you think it's only possible to nurture, harness, channel, and focus those instincts in the context of a marriage culture, or do you believe that, given society's current level of sophistication, it's possible to do so outside that context? While marriage may have been necessary to get us where we are, do you believe it's necessary to keep us here? Assuming you do, why?
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 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 
Paladine-

Pete hasn't been railing against my observation about his ego. He's been characterizing my use of the terms "Jeezus" and "sophistry" as personal attacks--which they were not.

My acknowledgement that one might reasonably consider my observation that it takes a great deal of self-absorption to read the exclamation "Jeezus" as a personally aimed attack to be personally inclined neither acknowledges such a statement as an attack nor does it undermine my point. It acknowledges the possibility that a reasonable person may construe that statement as an attack, while underscoring the absurdity of construing the previous comments as personal attacks. [Razz]

As for Pete's thin skin:

1) I'm fairly new here. The majority of my participation has occurred during a time where Pete was not actively posting (due to law school, as I understand it). So first and foremost, I don't see why I should be expected to immediately understand an anomalous idiosyncrasy, and secondly...

2) I don't believe that inappropriate behaviors or mannerisms should be countenanced by modifications to normal behavior. If my four year old throws a temper tantrum every time I use the word "bed," it doesn't follow that I should eliminate the word from my vocabulary in order to appease him. Throwing a temper tantrum over the use of the exclamation "Jeezus" is no different.

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 Paladine:
Do you think it's only possible to nurture, harness, channel, and focus those instincts in the context of a marriage culture, or do you believe that, given society's current level of sophistication, it's possible to do so outside that context?

I believe that our society's current level of sophistication only exists and can only be maintained so long as the marriage culture maintains an influence.

{notes that SP is still yapping about personal stuff rather than addressing the argument} [Frown]
SP, I don't care why you said it or how you rationalize it. If you're not aware that kind of talk offends a number of sincere Christians, that speaks poorly of your upbringing. Now please stop justifying yourself and either move on with the discussion, or push off.

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-

Any time you want to get back to the matter at hand, feel free to answer any of the unanswered questions you left sitting to accuse me of being "personal."

The most repeated unacknowledged question:

How do you see the state's recognition of the term marriage as meaning exclusively "union of man and woman" as promoting such a union?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  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 
You know, I'm always amazed how it's only possible to engage in a conversation with Pete by telling him that you agree with him first. [Smile] I mean, I know how it works; my most productive conversations with him have been ones in which I've leapt to his defense first, and then engaged on other issues. But I think it's a shame that it's necessary.

[ January 22, 2007, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 seekingprometheus:
The most repeated unacknowledged question:

How do you see the state's recognition of the term marriage as meaning exclusively "union of man and woman" as promoting such a union?

Because as Goodridge proved, when the state redefines marriage as anything else, it first has to deny the relevance of procreation to marriage. Change the state's interest in the marriage institution, and that changes the whole relationship. Marriage has evolved to fit the specific needs of the man/woman couple, including critical rules like PoP. "Broaden" the definition of marriage and the institution will evolve towards other purposes less clearly suited for the man and woman and their potential children.

If you have other relevant questions buried in the posts where you insulted me, feel free to post them clean and I'll answer them.

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:

Because as Goodridge proved, when the state redefines marriage as anything else, it first has to deny the relevance of procreation to marriage.

Don't you mean the hypothetical potential for procreation? Because we've already established that procreation itself is irrelevant to marriage.

[ January 23, 2007, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

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 
...hypothetical potential for unassisted accidental procreation
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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 
But since Pete's pro-choice, that leaves us with "hypothetical potential for unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation."

Which is why, when reduced to that, I think the real motivation is to ensure that gender distinctions are maintained in society.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Which is why, when reduced to that, I think the real motivation is to ensure that gender distinctions are maintained in society."

Well, after all, the sperm/ova inseminate/gestate distinction is, if not the only, at least the salient distinction between mammalian genders. The rest are mostly differences of degree (more or less muscle mass, more or less curvature via muscle/fat tissue placement, more or less body/facial hair, et cetera).

Does traditional marriage define gender or gender define traditional marriage? So long as persons of reproductively compatible gender choose to marry and raise kids within the already existing sanctions of traditional marriage, will they not, by definition and tautological fait accompli, choose to marry and raise kids within the already existing sanctions of traditional marriage? Irregardless of what their non-reproductively compatible fellow citizens may choose to do with their arrogation of traditional marriage? Or have gays and others been advocating to deny traditional marriage to consenting adults of opposing gender?

Oh well, never mind the question. I really only stopped in for the petty satisfaction of noting that, given half a chance to believe he's being singled out for personal attack, Pete at Home is still inclined to be a horse's ass with a wicked kick.

Moral: just because a fella's talking out of his ass doesn't mean you should step up and reply to the nether source. Liable to get a cracked shin or worse. Talk to the face even if the face is talking behind -- and beneath -- itself.

More dignity all around. And safer for the shins.

Before Pete places his custmary vuture comment en suite, I note that while I do look and flap like a wily old buzzard, I wouldn't touch that corpse with a ten-foot beak. That cadaver has been so thoroughly picked and puked it's not worth carrion over.

I go now, but leave the ancient conundrum:

What's the difference between a tail feather and a wing feather?

It's a matter of a pinion.

Up, up ... and AWAY!!!!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 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 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
But since Pete's pro-choice, that leaves us with "hypothetical potential for unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation."

Change "accidental" to "unplanned," and you're right.

Do you really believe that the number of children born from unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation is so small, DonalD? Or is that the sort of fact that you don't bother to consider when playing these word games?

Why does preserving gender distinctions WITH RESPECT TO REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES get your briefs in such a knot? Do you lie awake at night gnawing your sheets at the "injustice" that men don't have the right to demand abortion of their offspring? Poor baby.

[ January 23, 2007, 05:30 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 
"Why does preserving gender distinctions WITH RESPECT TO REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES get your briefs in such a knot?"

Thats a pretty poor interpretation of what everyone here arguing for SSM is doing.

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 
Briefs in a knot? I'm not the one screeching in upper case, Pet. [Smile] I get it. You don't like me.

But to your question - since I didn't say that the "number of children born from unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation" is small, why do you suggest that I did?

And before trying to claim that your question was just a question, you worded it as follows: "Do you really believe..." as if from my statement that could be reasonaby inferred.

At any rate, if you're finished with your distractograms, why not trying to address some of the points you've been dodging for the past few pages?

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 DonaldD:
Briefs in a knot?

despite my irritation with you, I did change "panties" to "briefs", hoping that you'd get the pun.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I get it. You don't like me.

On the contrary, if I had no respect for your intellect (which you've established on other threads), I'd not be upset to see you selling your mind short like this:


quote:
But to your question - since I didn't say that the "number of children born from unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation" is small, why do you suggest that I did?
Obviously, because the very next line that you said indicated that you considered the group not worth protecting, and therefore, you inferred that my true motive was discrimination.

quote:
And before trying to claim that your question was just a question, you worded it as follows: "Do you really believe..." as if from my statement that could be reasonaby inferred.
Given your two statements taken together, your cluster of qualifications plus your motive inference, I see no other reasonable inference.

I also note that you have dodged my question of whether you really believe what you clearly implied.
Do you really believe that the number of children born from unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation is so small, DonalD? Or do you admit that the state has a compelling interests to protect the welfare of such children?

In the USA, even when the state has a compelling interest to act, it still has a duty to use non-coercive means if such means would be effective. Defining marriage as the union of man and woman, and encouraging such lifelong unions, is a time-proven, non-coercive means which does not invade substantive rights.

Since men and women continue to make unplanned babies together, without assistance or coercion, and since they are likely to continue to do so absent (unconstitutional) government action, states should continue to recognize and promote marriage as the union of man and woman, and should continue to develop and refine the rules of marriage in order to maximize the proportion of children raised by a father and a mother.

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 
Pete, if we promoted abortion in order to dramatically reduce that number, would you consider gendered marriage less essential?
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 
Pete, you've outdone yourself this time.

How do you get "group not worth protecting" from me pointing out that a) you accused me of making that very claim and b) you weren't simply asking a question?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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