This is topic To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/9701.html

Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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


 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
But marriage in the modern American sense is not a universal human institution; indeed, marriage as it is practiced is rather a new and unique practice in human history an society. So this seems rather (cough) off base and unreasonable.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
So many "snide" responses possible, so little motivation.

[Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pete, do you agree that his people have been the victims of deliberate family destruction? If so, who deliberately did it?
 
Posted by martel (Member # 3448) on :
 
Just to prove you point, Pete, I too make that argument against ssm...for what it's worth.
Paine, can you clarify what you mean by marriage in the modern American sense?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Good to meet you, Martel.

I think Paine is using "modern" in the sense of "today, from my point of view, as opposed to the point of view of you out of date stodgy conservatives that still think marriage relates to the raising of children." It would be more accurate to refer to this as the "postmodern American sense," i.e. the latest most faddish view of marriage (even if most of the world hasn't caught on yet) rather than the views of the actual modern era which ended in the late 1960s.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
It's not just folks like me and Martel on the marriage defense side that see ssm as an attempt to completely bury the idea of a child needing a father and a mother.

Gloria Steinem sings the praises of SSM because it would destroy the link between relationships and raising children. SHE DID NOT EVEN MENTION GAY RIGHTS in the interview.


More recent examples of nihilism supporting ssm:

The Bay Windows article titled "To Your Battle Stations" says:

quote:
"Whether you are just coming out, transgender, heterosexual or ideologically opposed to marriage, you do not want to see this campaign [referring to the amendment to reverse the Goodridge atrocity] in Massachusetts."
That's an interesting admission, isn't it? That persons that want to see marriage destroyed, should support ssm?

See also the "Alternatives to Marriage" project which supports ssm as a step on the way to replacing marriage with a totally different system that embraces a "full range" of family types.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

That's an interesting admission, isn't it? That persons that want to see marriage destroyed, should support ssm?

Only if you think it's an "interesting admission" that people who want to see homosexuals lynched should oppose it.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
I mean as in the sense of that being protected by conservatives

as universal and natural.

As compared to the variety of social structures known to history, anthropoloy, and sociology.

For instance Sparta, praised in another thread here, had a ery different idea of family than is envisioned by the claim of universl natural family structure.

It is pretty clear that same sex marriage will only serve to strengthen society, protect children, and overall creates no harm and many benefits.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Sparta did not refer to their weird family structure as "marriage," Paine. Give different names to different family types.

Marriage is fairly universal, but I don't see anyone saying that it's natural.

Getting rid of the idea of real marriage is, in itself, an ill effect.
 
Posted by Michelle (Member # 3237) on :
 
Pete - I apologize if anything I have said could miscontrued as taking your feelings on this matter lightly

However,

I am divorced and also the mother of two illegimate children which many of you have made remarks that shed light on your feelings, that you hold my unwed union and the production of my children in contempt.

If only I could cover my children's ears, so they could never hear the crap that come out of your mouth! (Not exclusively your mouth, Pete. In fact, I think you refrained from the bar jokes I have seen around this forum.)

I cannot support you, nor condemn you for feeling the way that you do about the definition of marriage. I'm afraid my opinion is bias.
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
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.”
Sounds to me suspiciously like the dude is trying to imply that we're just a few gay marriages away from making gayness so cool that lots of people in future generations will choose to live in sinful same-sex relationships. If the dude's so worried about children having mothers and fathers, he can go back to tackling the problem of single-parent families.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Since many cultures don't have any structure like marriage, ergo it is not universal.

And expanding the definition of marriage is harmful to the structure, how?

One will note that the "structure of marriage" is as intact (or otherwise) in places where same sex marriage is allowed.

I don't see how your claimed harm would ever occur.

[ January 09, 2007, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Your response makes me suspect that there's some misunderstanding at play here, Michelle. Could you quote what I said specifically that offended you?

I don't know about your unwed union, Michelle, so I can't hold it in contempt.

I think that children do better with a mom and a dad than otherwise. Marriage helps accomplish this goal.

The basic universal definition of marriage, i.e. the parts that are the same from culture to culture from before the bronze age all the way until the late postmodern age, have been (1) union of man and woman (2) for life.

Some cultures have ceremonies to celebrate marriages, some do not.

If you've made a commitment to remain with a man for life, then regardless of your legal status, I'd consider that marriage. I think that the ceremony is very useful; I think it's a great idea, but it's not part of the universal definition of marriage.

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

And I strongly believe that we should respect the integrity of other people's families even while encouraging the ideal forms. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who suggests that single moms or same-sex couples should have their kids taken away.

If I spoke in favor of breastfeeding, should mothers who did not breastfeed feel like I'm attacking their families? I think that marriage is the best family form. That doesn't mean that there aren't supermoms out there that overcome the disadvantage with their own special traits -- I've seen that.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
The Bush administration tried to redefine the word "wildlife" to include farmed fish, Paine. Can you understand how "broadening the definition" of the word "wildlife" could harm the structure of environmental protection laws and organizations? It takes the focus off a critical aspect of wildlife.

>99% of the human race is close enough to universal that your objection seems like nit-picking.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
um, support your claim it is 99 percent of the human race, accross history as well as contemperaneusly.

Thanks in advance.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Rallan's up to the same old misrepresentations, I see.

WF said:
quote:
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
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.”

Rallan misrepresented:

quote:
Sounds to me suspiciously like the dude is trying to imply that we're just a few gay marriages away from making gayness so cool that lots of people in future generations will choose to live in sinful same-sex relationships.
[Roll Eyes]

I guess the argument over the definition of marriage is just so powerful that he can never meet it head on.

"gay marriage" requires that we neuter marriage, i.e. redefine marriage so that
quote:
marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers
WF recognizes that these are the slavery-imposed lies that imposed cultural genocide on his people. Like many other African-American leaders, he knows that ending the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow means restoring the ideas that a child needs a father as well as a mother, and that we should contain procreation within marriage. And this new Goodridge fad puts these ideas about marriage under erasure.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Can you give a real life example of any real life harm caused by same sex marriage? As compared to, for example, disresepct of marriage caused by serial divorce and Britny Spears 17 hour marriage?

Thanks in advance.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Locke/Paine, do you mean

Support the fact that New Guinea and a few scattered tribes in Africa and Oceania don't constitute more than 0.2% of Earth's population?

Or support the fact that more humans have lived in the last 300 years than lived in the entire recorded history of the world up to 1707?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, support the fact that marriage existed as near universal accross human history.

You havent done so. Perhaps because it is a mere asumption?

For instance, marriage was not practiced by the vast majority of Europeans in any similar form to prior to the industrial revolution.

[ January 09, 2007, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Britney's 17 hour whatever was not a "marriage," according to the court. It was nullified. That means that no legal marriage occurred. That's how I see ssm as well.

Since I don't believe in such a thing as a same-sex "marriage", it would be silly for me to posit that it could harm anything.

I do see that the idea of a child needing a father and a mother motivates all sort of real life benefits to children and to society. I'd like to preserve this idea. That means opposing measures that would make it impossible to communicate the idea.

quote:
Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
For instance, marriage was not practiced by the vast majority of Europeans in any similar form to prior to the industrial revolution.

Are you basing that argument on what I said about the universal definition of marriage, or are you basing the argument on a straw man definition?

Prior to the industrial revolution, Europeans still included livelong union and "man and woman" within their definition of marriage.

Next?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
well, your beliefs and bigotries are no reason for social policy. You have nothing, no real world harms..


Just irrational fears and hatred towards others.

Had a good friend. When his parents found out they were gay his mom told him they would rathe rhe was a serial murderor.

They disowned him, took his college money and gave it too the 700 club.

They would't answer the door after his grandmothers funeral. Fine "Christians"

Of course, he could not marry his life partner

So when he came down with an allergic drug reaction, and was hosptitalized, his partner had no legal rights to make health decisions.

His parents sure did. And he died, maybe through a lack of care.

His body taken away, his partner not allowed to know where it is even.

And THAT is real. Time for simple justice.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
There is no universal definition of marriage-

If there was, it would be, err-

Universal.

If it taint universal, it aint universal. It is that easy.

And it was completely unknown until, say, what, a few thousand years ago at most? And the purpose was to secure property inherritance, another social construct.

Your claims of universality and "natural" marriage are flawed and unsupported by fact.

[ January 09, 2007, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Umm, support the idea that your sad story is somehow relevant to my question of whether we should use the word "MARRIAGE" for a same-sex union.

Can't do it, can you? Your argument is based in misrepresentation, like most ssm arguments.

If he could form an SSU with his partner, as in Vermont or Scandinavia, then he'd be fine. You're more to blame than I am when that happens to people, because you'd rather run around alienating people who support same-sex unions than forge a compromise that would help people like him.

Are your self-pity and bitterness really more valuable to you than the security of your family? Are guys like the one you describe more useful to you as martyrs than as actual people? Why do you toss their lives away over a simple word, when you make as if to sympathize with them?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, it is relevent actuall to the issue of justicce and whether a desciriminitory law is justified.

And SSU do not have the inherrent set of legal rights codified into marriage.

Your claim to self pity is interesting. And the martyrdum whine, a fine red herring...

I would sugest you focus on the arguments, and not mke spurious personal attacks. My friend is dead, that is fact not self pity. I would show you his grave but his christofascist parents have ept it secret.

Does it distract from your failure to support your claim marriage is universal, rather than a social construct meant to pass on property (itself a non-universal concept?)

I thought not.

Does it distract from your lack of a real life harm for SSM, where it exists?

I thought not.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
lol, oh god... I have the feeling I'm going to be reading this thread for about 20 more pages [Frown]
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Seems a pretty clear 14th Ammendment issue.

Indeed many of the arguments made against SSM are the same used against misegenation.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I would sugest you focus on the arguments, and not mke spurious personal attacks."

That's a hypocritical thing for to say in the light of your "bigot" accusation.

Stop repeating that foolish straw man. The danger, like I've said, is not any ss"m" but the threat that changing the definition everywhere, over time, will cause us to lose the capacity to communicate the real idea of marriage.

Look to the illegitimacy rates in the Netherlands to see what happens when you start to neuter the marriage idea. But true eradication of ideas takes generations.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Indeed many of the arguments made against SSM are the same used against misegenation."

Umm, please support that assertion with actual quotes from an anti-miscegenation source that uses the same argument that I have made.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
I appologize for observing your opinion seems based on bigotry. You have not manifested such overtly, and I was wrong to make that observation.

Although it is not a red herring, but crucial.

So like, when we changed the definition of "man" to include first white women and then black men and then browns, that was a danger and a bad thing?

When we changed the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment" to disalow torture and the death penalty for petty crime, this was bad?

As to illigitimacy rates, who cares? There society as a whole has less violence lower infant mortality, higher literacy, etc.

Infact rather a tautological argument; since illitiamcy is based on marriage. Doesn't sow any HARM.

In Iceland most children are raised without "marriage." No stigma, healthy and happy society.

Oh, another examle where the universal nature of marriage, ain't.

[ January 09, 2007, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
pete, you forgot, "thank you in advance"
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
""Indeed many of the arguments made against SSM are the same used against misegenation."

Pete asks

Umm, please support that assertion with actual quotes from an anti-miscegenation source that uses the same argument that I have made.

My answer-

No thanks, I would do that if I had said "Many of Petes arguments are the same as those used to support anti missegenation laws."

My claim stands, as is.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
[redundant response deleted]

[ January 09, 2007, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: The Drake ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Apology accepted and appreciated. Your apology also knocks out my suspicion that you were Locke, so I guess we can proceed more civilly.

quote:
So like, when we changed the definition of "man" to include first white women and then black men and then browns, that was a danger and a bad thing?
??

That's not a question of definition. That's a restriction against certain marriages. The law that you can't marry more than one person, or marry your own sister? Those are restrictions from marrying. If you walked into virginia with someone of another skin color and said you were married, they threw you in jail. Don't confuse with an illegal marriage with a relationship that is not marriage by definition.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
There used to be a restriction against people of differnt races marriage,

Just as today laws ban people of the same sex from marrying.

At that time, the interacial marriage was defined as not being "real."

As to being anyone else, I am merely me. That is obnoxious enough for most, I am not a fan of the sockpuppet.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Your claimed harm is the danger of redefinition. I have provided examples of where such redefinition was good and neccesary to the creation of a more just society.

Leaving you with an ill conceived appeal to tradition.

Proof "marriage" is in fact a universal?

Proof ssm would and has created real world harms?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Fine. Please support that assertion. Identify the anti-ssm source and the anti-miscegenation source that employ at least one identical argument.

"And SSU do not have the inherrent set of legal rights codified into marriage."

You want the legal right to an annulment in the State of New York should you and your partner fail to have coitus? Because that's one of the inherent rights codified into marriage.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I have provided examples of where such redefinition was good and neccesary to the creation of a more just society."

No you did not. Redefinition of marriage was not necessary; the same could be accomplished through SSUs. You have yet to provide a single example where a more just society requires ss"m" rather than ssus.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Pete asks:
"Fine. Please support that assertion. Identify the anti-ssm source and the anti-miscegenation source that employ at least one identical argument."

My answer:

Um, I believe I said similar arguments. For a discussion touching the similarity look here.

http://www.pacificcitizen.org/amicusbrief.htm

IT is pretty clearly stablished. Especially the slippery slope of the antis of both. Let the nigs marry white women and pretty soon you will have people marrying monkeys.

sound familiar?

"And SSU do not have the inherrent set of legal rights codified into marriage."

You want the legal right to an annulment in the State of New York should you and your partner fail to have coitus? Because that's one of the inherent rights codified into marriage."

Um, if I get married it will not be to aother man. But all people should have the same legal protections, yes thank you. Would you like a link to the 14th Ammendment?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
SSU's do not provide the same legal immunities and protections.

what you have is seperate and unequal. Again, very familiar.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
IT is pretty clearly stablished. Especially the slippery slope of the antis of both. Let the nigs marry white women and pretty soon you will have people marrying monkeys.

sound familiar?

No.

Please show me an example of a anti-ssm source that seriously argues that ssm will actually lead to people marrying monkeys.

Surely you comprehend the difference between arguing by analogy and a slippery slope argument.

I've seen people use the animal marriage argument as an example of what it means to change the definition of marriage, as opposed to changing restrictions on marriage. People use arguments like that because some ssm proponents play stupid, and talk as if the issue was about "allowing gays to marry" rather than about changing the definition of marriage so that such an absurd phrase made sense. You draw on other absurd examples. It's not a slippery slope argument.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, are you unaware that anti ssm people have arged tat SSM will lead to marriage with animals? Seriously?

Will try to find that link for you.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
And yes, the argument that if you let blacks marry whites (or ssm happen) it will lead to interpecies marriage and necrophilia is a slippery slope argument.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
SSU's do not provide the same legal immunities and protections.

Prove to me that Scandinavian SSUs don't have the same protections as Scandinavian marriages.

Alternately, admit that youve made a foolish and unwarranted generalization.




quote:
what you have is seperate and unequal.
No. Separate and unequal refers to different facilities. SSUS use the same court system as real marriage uses.

What you have is NOT SEPARATE and NOT EQUAL. The state has different interests in same-sex couples than in male-female couples, interests pertaining to reproduction.

But since the 14th amendment applies to individuals, not to couples, your argument is moot as well as faulty.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Then show me specific language in a serious anti-ssm source that specifically uses the words "will lead to."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
do it. Find the link.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
One notices the assertion of weasel words to allow you to keep shifting...

oh, that one isn't serious..."

"Oh, that one doesn't use the specific words."

I suspect you are aware and are merel quibling.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I am aware of non-serious arguments, e.g. argumentum ad absurdem, but anyone who grasps the basics of logic understands the difference between a slippery slope and an argumentem ad absurdem. That doesn't mean that you understand it, so I used the word "serious." That's what I have to do with people who use terms like "weasely" to describe a logical argument that they disagree with but can't disprove.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
They do not have the same immunities and protections under US law, now do they?

Again, pointless quibbling to ustify injustice.

And it is individuals who for marriages. Denying some the right is unjust, and unconstitutional under the 14th Ammendment.

The same thing that struck down anti miscegenation laws, btw.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
The bigots who made those slippery slope arguments were quite serious.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
No one is denied the right to marry for being gay.

The 14th amendment does not allow you to REDEFINE marriage. That's where people bring in bestial analogies that in your inability to grasp simple logical concepts, you mistake for slippery slope arguments.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Stop bluffing and link me, if you think that these sources are at all relevant to this thread. And if they aren't relevant, then please stick to relevant arguments.

[ January 09, 2007, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
The 14th amendment only says that all persons have the same rights. No person has the right to redefine marriage.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/01/16/jewish_group_oks_same_sex_marriage/

"The leader of the Orthodox opposition to the Jewish Community Relations Council vote, Rabbi Gershon C. Gewirtz of Young Israel synagogue in Brookline, declined to comment. The Coalition for Marriage referred calls to Rabbi Chaim Schwartz of Agudath Israel of New England, an Orthodox advocacy organization, who said, "This is an issue we believe is bringing about decadence in society." "It's not that we do not believe in the civil rights of gay couples -- we believe each person should be able to live in this great country -- but we don't believe in calling it marriage," Schwartz said. "It's morally incorrect, and what's next? Bestiality? Marrying a dog? Marrying your cat?"
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, Pete. I am kind enough to provide you links, attacking me because I do not do so lickety split is assinine. I have a life, and the fact you are unaware of a basic common dnamic of your side of a debate does not make my failure to have readymade evidence a "bluff."

Indeed, if my laundry was not taking longer than I hoped you would not have gotten it today.

When Marriage is defined in a way that descriminates, people not only have a right but a duty to alter the definition to a more just one.

Your statement to the contrary is empty rhetoric. It is a non-sequiter statement. The 14th Ammendment guarantees equal rights under the law, laws which deny equal rights under the law must be ammended until they do.

[ January 09, 2007, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
My friend was denied the right to marry his chosen life partner.

Just as, sa, a black man wishing to marry a white woman was denied his right to marry under anti missegenation laws.

The fact he could marry someone else does not change the fact that his right to marry the person of his choice was denied him.

And her.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Doesn't sound like he's making a serious argument that this will lead to that. Sounds like a poorly worded argument ad absurdem. His focus is on "we don't believe in calling it marriage."


I don't see anywhere in your first link where anyone says anything like: "It's not that we do not believe in the civil rights of miscegenated couples -- we believe each person should be able to live in this great country-- but we don't believe in calling it marriage."

They were out to actually stop black/white couples from calling themselves married or living together as married. This guy's arguing against the use of a word, not actions. That's not a similar argument at all.

It's kind of a contemptible argument, to say that some rabbi on the other side of the country opposes the same thing that you do, and his argument bears a superficial resemblance to the argument of a bigot. What is this, arguing by six degrees of separation?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Like I said, Weaseling. He sounde perfectly serious to me. And this rabble rousing rhetoric is hardly unique, typical of the dehumanizing rhetoric of the homophobes.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten.

You made a claim marriage was universal. Still waiting for proof.

You claim harms to SSM. I asked you for proof.

Good links, please.

And thanks in advance. By your own standards, you are very slack. Where IS our evidence?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You can't have a "right" to something that's a contradiction in terms.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I answered that stupid straw man multiple times on page one.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
The fact that pro-ssmers can't show more than isolated tribes and castes that don't have a version of marriage that involves those two elements is proof enough. You don't think that's universal? Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Pete, your not even writing complete posts any more.

A peron has a right to qual protection under the law. In the staus quo that is denied. SSM will solve that, while creating no real harms.

Union does not kick in the equal protection of the law.

And you still havent answered those questions. Where is your proof that marriage is universal? Indeed, you admit exceptions and I have provided others.


Hence, not universal or natural. Just a social construct, meant to enable tranfer of property.

One would note stil no response to the issue of why illigitimacy in the Netherlands is a harm.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, Pete-
you made the positive assertion that marriage is universal. It is your burden to prove it.

So far you have offered the counter exception of Polynesia and New Guneia.

And the Netherlads, it seems.

I added pre-industrial Europe, where Marriage was generally for the wealty landowners and DEFINITLY not a peasent thing. And Iceland.

Now, of course it is not my burden to disprove your claim, but yours to support it. I would note that making a claim of categorical universality maks the first counter examle daming, but I still await your proof otherwise.

Which if successfully supported, would merely amount to argument ad traditio. But do go on if you wish.

[ January 09, 2007, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
A peron has a right to [e]qual protection under the law.

That is true.

quote:
In the staus quo that is denied. SSM will solve that, while creating no real harms.
Please write more coherently.


quote:
Union does not kick in the equal protection of the law.
Please write more coherently.

quote:
And you still havent answered those questions. Where is your proof that marriage is universal? Indeed, you admit exceptions and I have provided others.
It's universal to what most of the world today calls civilization. Every large-scale complex society has had a definition of marriage that included gender diversity (man and woman) and a promise to remain together for life. I'm not interested in going back to the stone age. If that's how you want to live, then paddle your canoe to New Guinea.

quote:
One would note stil no response to the issue of why illigitimacy in the Netherlands is a harm.
The question seems too goofy to answer. If you don't acknowledge that children raised only by one mom aren't generally as well prepared for the world as the children of married parents, then there's no sense in even reasoning with you. I can't be bothered to look up the bloody obvious.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Um, Pete-
you made the positive assertion that marriage is universal. It is your burden to prove it.

So far you have offered the counter exception of Polynesia and New Guneia.

[Roll Eyes]

WRONG. Despite Margaret Meade's idiotic rantings, marriage has been alive and well in Polynesia since before the first honkies arrived.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
And the Netherlads, it seems.

Wrong again. It will take a couple generations to fully wipe out the idea of marriage as union of man and woman in the netherlands, but the damage is underway, as the marriage/population and illigitimacy numbers show.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Your europe example was a straw man. What the hell do peasands and nobility have to do with "man and woman for life." You aren't even addressing the universal definition that you are pretending to argue against. Do you even understand what a definition is?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, sorry I don't see what you aren't following


The law guarantees eaqual protection.

In the status quo, people are denied that. Like my friend, who could ot marry his life partner and who thus lacked the immunities and rights of marriage.

Same sex marriage would end this innequality.

It would create no harms. Certainly you have failed to show any, and this is your big issue and you have had several hours. So until you provide a harm, we must presume no harm exists.

Same sex UNIONS are not marriages.

Thus they will not provide the same legal immunities as marriages do under Federal, State, and Local laws.

Clear enough, or shall I pull out the speak and spell?

My question of what harm illegtimacy demonstrates stands. So kid are illegitimit. So what?

What is the harm?

What is the Dutch rate of child abuse, teen suicide, violence against children, drug use, teen pregnancy, illiteracy, and infant mortality? How many Dutch children live in poverty? How many are homeless per capita? How many experience hunger, per capita?

Want to bet how they compare to the USA?

so, what is the harm? Or in Iceland?

Many civilizations have not had what you call marriage. Several do not today. You still dodge providing proof of your claim.

[ January 09, 2007, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Um, sorry I don't see what you aren't following


The law guarantees eaqual protection.

To persons.

Any person can marry.

No person can change the definition of marriage.

No equal protection violation.

You can't make judgments about what Loving v. Virginia meant without reading the case. Have you actually read Loving v. Virginia or did you read some gay cliff notes version?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Saying "wrong" is not proof. Proof, Pete. Proof.

Proof that there was "one man/one woman" as the dominant form of pair bonding? The fact is that marriage per se did not exist exept amongst the upper classes.

also, could you explain how it is a straw man, even if ot correct? I don't think you know what a straw man is.

Marriage in the modern success is a social construct, hardly universal in the past or today.

Proof that this amounts to marriage in the sense we are talking about-which is the sense of laws, codified immunities and protections which you choose to deny to one segment of society.

Unjustly and without reason.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Repeating a refuted argment without noting it's refutation is rather weak.

Allow me again.

A person denied the right to marry the prson of his choice is denied the right to marry.

As when marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race.

The fact that a black man wanting to marry a willing white woman could marry a person of his own race did not change the fact that he was illegally denied the write to marry...

Hence, the 1th Ammendment violation that was used to dismantle anti missegenation laws.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Many civilizations have not had what you call marriage."

Irrelevant. I said that all civilization (as defined above) have had a definition of marriage that involved a man and a woman and a livelong commitment (the universal definition), and also involved other elements (regional variations on the universal definition).
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
A person denied the right to marry the prson of his choice is denied the right to marry.

Wrong. You can't redefine a legal term for the convenience of your argument. The Supreme Court has NEVER accepted the arguement that a person has a right to marry "a person of his choice." Lots of pro-ssm people pretend that is from Loving v. Virginia. It's not.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
The fact is that marriage per se did not exist exept amongst the upper classes.

Straw man. The universal definition of marriage has nothing to do with social class. The fact is that the society had a definition of marriage that included the two elements that I call the universal definition. People knew what a real marriage was.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
As when marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race.

[DOH]

WRONG; see Loving v. Virginia, where marriage to someone of another race was PUNISHED by a prison sentence. The law had to recognize that the marriage existed in order to punish it.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Still waiting for your answer.

I don't think you know what a straw man is. Your like Vacini in the Princess Bride with is one five dollar word.

Marriage is a social construct, and has existed in many forms, types, names, and variances throughout human history-or not existed at all, under your definition.

One notes that many other combinations of pairing exist in our society alone. That defining them as not-marriage does not make them less real or less alid, it merely perpetuates descrimination.

But to come back onto point, you have failed to provide evidence that marriage is in fact universal as a human practice.

You have failed to show a harm for same sex marriage.

And secondarily, you have failed to show a harm per se for "illigitimacy," or children born outside of marriage.

Just dancing in circles.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Your argument about loving V Viginy is not sound.

The law punishes a person who marries a dog. That does not legitimate the marriage between a man and his dog.

Indeed I think you will find that Virginia not only punished the marriage-it also exempted the people in such a marriage from the protection of laws related to marriage, and the legal immunities rights and duties related to it.

Familiar, isn't it?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Or for another example-when punishing people for rachateering, the illegal organization is not thus recognized and legitimated.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Look up the words legitimize and recognize, and see if you can tell the difference.


quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Or for another example-when punishing people for rachateering, the illegal organization is not thus recognized and legitimated.

Thank you. If you think harder about the example you just provided, you'll see that you proved my point. If not, get help.

The law has to recognize the organization, but this does not legitimize the organization.

For years, Brigham Young escaped prosecution for bigamy because his numerous marriages did not fit the law's DEFINITION of marriage (which required a legal ceremony in addition to other elements I mentioned).

To prosecute mormons, the feds had to pass laws that recognized marriages without a legal ceremony as marriages for the purpose of prosecuting them.

That's the difference between something not marriage by definition, and something that's an illegal marriage. It's the difference between going to jail, and just being left alone.

Is that a difference you can grasp?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Umm the difference is pretty clear.

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

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

Like when the darkies married the white girls.

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

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

To show a harm of ssm.

To show a harm of illigitimit children in Holland.

Thanks for focusing.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Look up the term straw man.

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

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

A word does not violate civil rights.

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

Show me a civil rights case where the court held there was a right to be called one word, where no substantive rights were involved.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
One will note the mormons were not let alone-

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

While doing so to meet the legal duty for equal protection under the law is verbotan.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
The denial of the rights and protections of marriage DOES violate equal rights.

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

and denies them to another..

That is a violation of equal protection under the law.

Trying to twist my words is rather weak, Pete.

BTW, still waiting

Proof Marriage is universal?

Proof SSM causes harms?

Proof of how illigitimacy in Holland is a harm?

Thanks
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
"
Show me a civil rights case where the court held there was a right to be called one word, where no substantive rights were involved."

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

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

Property and inherritance rights.

Etc etc etc

[ January 09, 2007, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Don't be ridiculous; ssus can handle all of those things.

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

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

[ January 09, 2007, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
The denial of the rights and protections of marriage DOES violate equal rights.

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

Whoops. Guess a same-sex union would have been better for him. So much for your legal advice.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
One will note the mormons were not let alone-

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

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

Mormons just wanted to be left alone.

You call being left alone "persecution."

That's a joke.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, because there are many laws tagged to marriage which are not tagged to SSU.

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

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

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

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

Tyranny in a book and a society making itself more just are not the same thing.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
"Mormons just wanted to be left alone.

You call being left alone "persecution."

That's a joke."

Um, Pete.

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

The Mormons wanted to be left alone.

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

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

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

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

You have failed to show a harm to ssm.

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

[ January 09, 2007, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Um, because there are many laws tagged to marriage which are not tagged to SSU.

You keep saying this and you have yet to prove it. Yawn.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Tell you what, Pete.

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

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

That you think thi is a barrier, or needs to be proved, shows how out of touch you are with the facts of th the debate.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
I call the Federal harrassment and persecution of their religion and way of life persectuion.

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

And that's why your comparison of their actual persecution, to the ssm question, is a complete joke. Lawrence gave you the right to not be harassed as mormons got harassed over their illegal marriages.
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
Pete-

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

You're going to go another 5 pages with Tom calling you names, occasionally intersperced with an "Um" while you dance semantical circles around him. Please, for pity's sake, let this thread die. It's unworthy of this forum, which has been home to so many much better and more enlightening exchanges on this and other issues.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Your last statement is a non sequiter and unresponsive.

The Mormons were actively persecuted for their non conformist marriages.

This shows

1) That your model of marriage is not universal.

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

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

They are denied the equal protection of the law.

This is unjust, and bad.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I have no intent to go "prove" your straw man arguments. Nor to waste my time proving the obvious like that kids need a mom and a dad. If you don't accept that, we'll have to agree to disagree. Just understand that others do believe it, and will act and vote accordingly.

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

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

Without a 14th amendment proof, you've got no argument at all.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Paladine what a complete and utter pack of lies.

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

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

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

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

I suspect you see the lack of there there in his position. As an advocate, I suppose trying to poison the well looks good ehh?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
So, you have no proof for their claims. fine, they fall.

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

Sorry, that does not cut it.

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

My friend dead in a hospital is REAL. Your claims are BS.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
It is your argument that marriage is a universal human institution. Would you like a link to your own paste?

It is your claim that SSM causes harms.

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

those are all YOUR positions, do you refute them?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Your last statement is a non sequiter and unresponsive.

The Mormons were actively persecuted for their non conformist marriages.

This shows

1) That your model of marriage is not universal.

[DOH]

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


Sheesh!

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


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


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


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

quote:
This is unjust, and bad.
Persecution is bad. Being left alone is good. Ask the pligs.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
The. Mormons. Were. Not. Left. alone.

Again, still dodging the issues.

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

One will note again, Sparta.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
It is your argument that marriage is a universal human institution.

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

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

quote:
You offer the illigitimacy rates of Holland as a harm. Would you like a link?
If you question that, I'm not going to waste time arguing the obvious with you.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
The. Mormons. Were. Not. Left. alone.

That's what I said. [DOH]

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

[DOH]

Think harder, Paine.

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

[ January 09, 2007, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
Sorry Tom.

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

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

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

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

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

And you want him to prove it with.....links to what, exactly? Give me a break.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks, Pal.

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

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

[ January 09, 2007, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
I do question the illigitimat children in Holland are a problem, per se

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

Again, compare them-

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

hmmmmmmmm

what is the problem
You just assume it.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
P, you dont want to read the thread?

Easy answer. Dont.

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

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

Which he does not. Go fig.

And yes, the arguments of those against SSM are eerily similar to those made to justify misegination. Denying it does not change it.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
I can tell you why rape is harmful, and with no reliance on "self evidency."

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

so where are your real word harms?

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

Cause by your logic it wold have.

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

[ January 09, 2007, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You're the one that's bringing up these standards. If you've got studies to show, then show them.

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


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

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

[ January 09, 2007, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Divorce rates of marriage are up. so what?

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

We know how?

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

how do they compare with the USA?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Pete, stop asking for evidence until you provide one in support of your earlier claims. Or do you repudiate them?

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

BTW, how can the families of illigitmate children result in higher divorce rates? I mean, if they are illigit then there is not a marriage yes? That makes no sense at all.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
BTW< many of the figures can be found in the CIA world book. Good night.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You're the one trying to overhaul society, and change the meaning of marriage for no particular purpose that you can articulate. Burden of proof is on you, bub.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Um, the particular purpose I artulated is equal protection under the law.

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

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

Did I mention that their house was sold and half the proceeds given to the Chritifasct parents?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Which meets my burden of proof. Yours for your claims stands.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
Pete-

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


First and foremost:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, I'm interested in seeing where this goes.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
By the way Pete--I should mention that I have no intention of plodding through your exchanges with TPG. No offense to you, but I've run across his prodigious verbosity before, and--impressed as I may be at such remarkably zealous garrulity--I have neither the time nor the inclination to subject myself to that again.

I apologize if this forces you to re-touch on topics already mentioned--and feel free to cut and paste ibidem as it were--but I thought I ought to let you know--I'll be scanning this thread like a an email inbox without a spam filter.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Ah, and the gratutious personal attacks.

<yawn>
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thank you for not reading any of that Paineful exchange. My exchanges with Paine were entirely a waste of my time; glad you did not waste yours on it. Paladine's the only one to say anything useful in the whole exchange.


quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Pete-

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


First and foremost:

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Adapting your wording:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Ideally, I think that judges and legislators should be sensitive to ideas that come from the gay community with regard to new and different regulations within marriage, since equity requires that we take reasonable expectations into account when interpeting interpretation of any contract. It's possible that gay and lesbian couples themselves may have different reasonable expectations; it might be a good idea to have three separate bodies of similar but non-identical law, evolving on diverging tracks: marriage, MM unions, and FF unions.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I'd like to explain what I meant by "ideally" in that last paragraph:

On a practical basis, I recognize Funean's concern that at this time, in some jurisdictions, giving legislators power to regulate special rules for same-sex couples might result in intentional sabotage and mischief. [Frown] The courts seem more friendly to same-sex couples, though.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Pete, going to support your claims?

"A complete waste of m time"= "An embarrassing spanking that reveals to observers tat my position has no rational suport."
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
"A complete waste of m time"= "An embarrassing spanking that reveals to observers tat my position has no rational suport."
For what it's, this observer vehemently disagrees with Pete AND saw no such "spanking" in this thread.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Well, Matt, look closer.

His main points were answered.

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

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

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

[ January 09, 2007, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thank you, Matt. It's true; I have no interest at all in same-sex spanking. [Smile]

That, and it's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone that refers to some of my ancestors as "darkies" and some of Paladine's ancestors as "wops," while in conversation with us. [Frown]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Reposting this so that sp doesn't have to seek it through that Paineful pile on page 3.


quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Pete-

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


First and foremost:

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Adapting your wording:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

On a practical basis, I recognize Funean's concern that at this time, in some jurisdictions, giving legislators power to regulate special rules for same-sex couples might result in intentional sabotage and mischief. The courts seem more friendly to same-sex couples, though.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Let's say "apparently optimal" rather than ideal. Inferring from history, and from the study that we've given this matter, the universal elements of marriage appears to give that institution advantages over every other family form that we've examined. I recognize that we have not yet had time to properly examine same-sex couples as a parental unit, it it may be that time will show them equal or better. But until we've had time to observe, real marriage remains the apparently optimal family form.
I'll grant you that opposite-sex marriages are the optimal family form, but how much better are they? Is it just a little better or a whole lot better? Because if it is just a bit better, then this argument doesn't hold up. If it is only a little bit better, why exclude "marriages" that are almost as good?

quote:
When we compare them to children raised with a father and a mother in the home, boys raised without a father suffer from one particular set of disadvantages; boys raised without a mother suffer from a second set of disadvantages; girls raised without a father suffer from a third distinct set of disadvantages, and girls raised without a mother suffer from a distinct fourth set of disadvantages. (Ericson; Piaget; Freud also examined distinct gendered relationships as part of the maturing process). Together this data implies that both boys and girls obtain distinct benefits from being raised by a father, and from being raised by a mother, and that these benefits are cumulative.
Were these studies based on single-sex "marriage" households? In other words, were there two males or two females "parents" present for upbringing? Becuase if there were only one parent, then these disadvantages may be the result of not having enough parents present. If that is the case, then SSM would help alleviate the problem, because it would encourage two-parent households in certain, limited cases.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Let's say "apparently optimal" rather than ideal. Inferring from history, and from the study that we've given this matter, the universal elements of marriage appears to give that institution advantages over every other family form that we've examined. I recognize that we have not yet had time to properly examine same-sex couples as a parental unit, it it may be that time will show them equal or better. But until we've had time to observe, real marriage remains the apparently optimal family form.
I'll grant you that opposite-sex marriages are the optimal family form, but how much better are they? Is it just a little better or a whole lot better? Because if it is just a bit better, then this argument doesn't hold up. If it is only a little bit better, why exclude "marriages" that are almost as good?
We don't know how much better they are, and until we do know, we should not make irreversible changes to the meaning of marriage.

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

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

quote:
When we compare them to children raised with a father and a mother in the home, boys raised without a father suffer from one particular set of disadvantages; boys raised without a mother suffer from a second set of disadvantages; girls raised without a father suffer from a third distinct set of disadvantages, and girls raised without a mother suffer from a distinct fourth set of disadvantages. (Ericson; Piaget; Freud also examined distinct gendered relationships as part of the maturing process). Together this data implies that both boys and girls obtain distinct benefits from being raised by a father, and from being raised by a mother, and that these benefits are cumulative.
------
Were these studies based on single-sex "marriage" households?

Yes.


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

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

quote:
If that is the case, then SSM would help alleviate the problem, because it would encourage two-parent households in certain, limited cases.
My guess is that it would help alleviate the problem, but not remove it completely. I'd also bet that the FF couples that find their kids a godfather figure, would further mitigate the problem. But you must take into account that without a distinct MF marriage concept, that these women would not have it in their heads that the child needed a father figure. The idea of marriage benefits all of society. Even when you're missing parts, you can mitigate damage when you understand what you are missing.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
quote:
But you must take into account that without a distinct MF marriage concept, that these women would not have it in their heads that the child needed a father figure. The idea of marriage benefits all of society. Even when you're missing parts, you can mitigate damage when you understand what you are missing.
Erm. I get where you're going with this, but I'm not sure it's the idea of marriage that informed my ensuring that my kids knew their dad (actually it was my kid who is responsible, but that's another story). I try to ensure that my children have access to close relationships with a variety of sorts unlike myself--it's one of the reasons we make such an effort to ensure they have lots of time with their grandparents, and part of what informed our choices of godparents. I'm pretty sure all these folks don't add up to traditional marriage, at least not our culture's version. [Smile]

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

Anyway, carry on--didn't mean to t/j.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Fun, you're *not* the only one I've heard that story from. Different same-sex couples come to that sort of resolution from different angles, but that's where a lot of them end up. You didn't use the term "father figure," but other ones did. I also know two male-male couples that

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

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

That's a good thing!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I know those quotes weren't snarky. I don't mean to peg you either when I use them; it's to not be misunderstood.

I agree that family is elastic and durable.

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

We agree that there are different kinds of family. Why put my kind under erasure? Why can't we continue to acknowledge difference?
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Said the father to his children:

This is your third newest mom!

Tradition!
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"But erasing the gendered aspect of marriage is a change that erases a major part of the purpose and function.

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

Why is recognizing all family structures as equal in the eyes of the law erasuing your kind of family? Why can't we acknowledge differences socially, without declaring one legally superior to the other?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
I dont see an advantage to different-sex marriages that are severely disfunctional and healthy same sex marriages.

Of course, Pete offers assmptions otherwise.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Traditon, tradition.,,

Ad tradito fallacy, enshrined..


Tradition, trad..
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
"Why is recognizing all family structures as equal in the eyes of the law erasuing your kind of family? Why can't we acknowledge differences socially, without declaring one legally superior to the other?"

Ev,

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

Sorry, I won't bother explaining why since you've definitely heard every single argument, I just wondered what you thought about it.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
"marriage"

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

A rose by any other name, after all.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
Pete-

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

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

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

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

Two questions:

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

...and...

Do you have a handy link to information regarding the studies behind this evidence? (I'm not a stickler on this point--at least not in internet chat--I'm just curious if you have a link to some concrete data so we have a more tangible grip on the precise composition of your support.)
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
How do you recognize different family forms without a word to do so?

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


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

Does anyone pretend that our government would regulate marriage if people reproduced by budding rather than through sex?
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
I'm just going to take a second to point something out. Forgive me if it's already been done - I was going to read the rest of the thread, but I look out the window and see a hugely wild storm that means I need to get my booty going and get the chickens in.

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

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

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

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

Well, that wind just keeps getting wilder out there. But I just wanted to comment on what was at least a perceived inaccuracy in the perceptions of others.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Do you consider taking the word 'marriage' out of the legal contracts between any two people justifiable? That way marriage stays with religions (which I think it rightfully belongs)"

Yes. I think this is the ideal situation.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
"Does anyone pretend that our government would regulate marriage if people reproduced by budding rather than through sex?"

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

Since our own government regulations regarding marriage evolved from this same basis, it shouldn't be a big stretch to imagine such rules for plant people [Smile]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"How do you recognize different family forms without a word to do so?"

This relies on the false assumption that words that have meaning dissapear when the government doesn't use actively use them.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
I think that most same-sex couples having children in fact use their creativity and love to find solutions that enrich their children's lives.
I've already said that on this and on other threads. What you're missing, is that creativity and love operate within a context of culture and world view. Same-sex couples find the "opposite-sex godparent" & other for their children, because their creativity is informed by the existence of a marriage ideal, and the idea that the child needs a father and a mother.

Destroy the ideal and you screw the kids of same-sex couples just the same as you destroy everyone else. That's why real anthropologists used to take a principled stance against cultural imperialism. You don't know the culture well enough to see what depends on what. Let people make their own choices; don't walk in like the great white god and reorganize their world because you know best.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Not now, SP. [Frown] I'm not a social scientist.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"is informed by the existence of a marriage ideal, and the idea that the child needs a father and a mother."


Two very seperate ideas, I might point out.
 
Posted by Jordan (Member # 2159) on :
 
quote:
Pete:
Does anyone pretend that our government would regulate marriage if people reproduced by budding rather than through sex?

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

Does anyone pretend that people would want the government to recognise SSM if nobody was homosexual?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I absolutely belive that, Jordan. If gays did not exist then someone would have invented them. [Smile]

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

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

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

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

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

[ January 09, 2007, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
" If we buy the Goodridge logic"

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

Then read the goodridge decision, located here

[ January 09, 2007, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
That's Ev's classic attempt to derail the topic. Drag in some quote out of context from another discussion to discredit me rather than addressing what I'm talking about here. If I counterargue, the topic derails.

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

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

Cheap poisoning the well, Ev. Shame on you. Go away.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
The usage of the fourteenth amendment in the goodridge decision is primarily in regards to equal protection under the law, the implicit right to privacy, the fact that the law cannot tolerate prejudices, and is brought in tangentially to reference the right of women to serve in the military.

How people want to read that WRT the equal rights amendment, thats up to them... but I'd still suggest they read the decision, rather then listen to what you have to say, since you've demonstrated a strong inability to read the goodridge decision accurately.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Please stop trying to derail the thread, well-poisoner. I already answered your silly argument on previous threads.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

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



 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Getting government out of the marriage business and instead having government unions (in many forms) and let religion handle marriage.

Of course many laws would have to be altered, ehh?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
His link is good, though, SeekingPrometheus, in case you want to verify for yourself that Goodridge basically twists the 14th amendment to function as the first half of the ERA (i.e. the power to courts to toss out laws that aren't rigidly symetrical with respect to gender, but not the part that gave Congress the right to enact new laws to enforce their concepts of gender equality)

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Pete, can you prove that there is anyone trying to destroy marriage? I mean, your utter failure to provide evidence for any of your claims makes me doubt whether you will or can here.

But let us try,
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Pete, Ev.

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

Could you reference any of the most notable sections of that?
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Also, could we clear up the legal aspects of Presumption of Paternity?
 
Posted by WeAreAllJust LooseChange (Member # 3411) on :
 
None of the posts I have seen regarding pro and againsta SSM opens up this point of view:
"You are the father or mother of 2 nice young people, a son and a daughter. You have spend all your life teaching them what's right and what's wrong in the world in the best practices of your Christian beliefs.
Then one day your son/daughter comes home and says - Mom (Dad), I've decided to make it official - please meet my boyfriend / girlfriend/ We plan to get "married" tomorrow, so I invite you to our celebration."

What would you like to do for your child?
I for one, no matter what and how did this wrong thing (in my believes) happen - would like what's best for him/her.
And what's best for my child, who has chosen a same-sex partner is for society or government to provide them with the same level of protection and benefits as for other married couples.
It doesn't matter a squat that I don't approve it and would have never ever wanted this to happen and that I've spent my days hinting that my child should choose a partner from the opposite sex.
Because at the end - it's a personal choice. And as such should be respected by a society respecting freedom of the individual.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
What's your question about PoP?

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

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

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

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

And to twist the laws to make them "equal" would make them insanely inequitable.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Tommy-
I'd strongly recommend reading the link, if you're really interested. Its long, but worth it.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Sorry, I missed the proof of how marriage is actually under attack. Got anything to prove it?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Sorry, I missed the proof of how marriage is actually under attack. Got anything to prove it?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
[DOH] Here you go again, Paine. The concurring opinion makes clear this attack is about chuch doctrine and practices as well as law.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I know we don't see eye to eye on this issue at all, pete, but I think we can both agree that worrying about paine is a waste of time. I don't think anyone here is reading what he writes anymore to better understand ANYTHING. He's just noise.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Well, while we're agreeing on things, Ev, I second your recomendation that people read the Goodridge case rather than taking my word -- or anyone's word -- for anything.
 
Posted by Jordan (Member # 2159) on :
 
One question that came up while reading that document: if the decision to broaden the legal definition of marriage is handed to the legislature, will that decision be just as easily reversible if the tide of popular opinion changes?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Broadening seems to be a one-way trip. How could the tide of popular opinion change, if people lack any means of communicating the original idea? You can't opine what you can't understand. That's the danger of newspeak.


HOWEVER, if the decision was made by the legislature, then there's a public record of when the definition of marriage changed, depending on whether the legislature is honest about what they are doing: changing the definition.

When the decision gets made in the courts, as in Goodridge, they start with the question "do gays have the RIGHT to marry," which sweeps over the whole question of what marriage means. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. That's a lie to future generations that marriage "rights" were once "restricted" from gays. That false history hides what "marriage" really means to us.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Jordan, did you mean "if the legistlature broadens the legal definition" or did you mean "if the judiciary tells the legislature to broaden the legal definition"?
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
Pete, I am reading the decision and not seeing what you are. What specific bitsprove "marriage is under attack?"

Also, your source (and I presume you, am I incorrect?) are aledging a long term, systemic assault on "marriage."

So such a major assault surely has left more evidence than that. Right?

The question of wether barring part of the population from legal rights and protections availible for others seems a fair matter for the courts. Certainly it was when anti-missegenation laws were challenged in courts.
 
Posted by Jordan (Member # 2159) on :
 
quote:
Donald:
Jordan, did you mean "if the legistlature broadens the legal definition" or did you mean "if the judiciary tells the legislature to broaden the legal definition"?

I meant neither. [Smile] I meant "if the legislature is allowed to make the decision". No outcome was prescribed.

quote:
Pete:
How could the tide of popular opinion change, if people lack any means of communicating the original idea? You can't opine what you can't understand. That's the danger of newspeak.

I dislike admitting this, but I'm not sure what you mean. Could you expand upon this a little?


I note that you both believe I was hypothesising that the outcome would be in favour, so perhaps my phrasing accidentally implied this. To clarify, I'm just as interested in whether or not a negative decision would be reversible.
 
Posted by Jordan (Member # 2159) on :
 
Wait, I get it now, Pete.

But I don't think that's the case at all. Just because the legal definition is currently one man, one woman doesn't mean that people aren't postulating alternatives. This debate is only happening because we aren't being limited by oldspeak. If MFA has apparent and disastrous consequences, people will presumably start calling for the legal definition to be changed again.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Here's what I mean:

If the state changes the meaning of the word "marriage" within the culture, that erases the meaning of marriage and replaces it with a new meaning. The previous idea, and all the underlying philosophy and assumptions, are lost. If people cannot communicate the idea of marriage, then the tide of popular opinion can't change in favor of that inexpressible idea.

Of course, if the legislature passes it, then it's going to take longer for people to forget what marriage was, since there's a public record and admission that it was something else. I guess that schools and the media could still brainwash people that marriage has always meant X and speak of those awful days when people would not "let gays marry," to muddy the issue that things used to be different. But the debate to neuter marriage is more destructive when you take it through the courts (which requires them to rewrite history to justify their decisions), than if you take it through the legislature, where they focus on actually *making* changes clear rather than covering up the nature of the change.

So in short, there's more of a chance of popular opinion reversing a legislative change, than of reversing a judicial change.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
Wait, I get it now, Pete.

But I don't think that's the case at all. Just because the legal definition is currently one man, one woman doesn't mean that people aren't postulating alternatives. This debate is only happening because we aren't being limited by oldspeak.

Oldspeak doesn't limit the debate in the sense that newspeak does. You can communicate both ideas in oldspeak. You can only communicate one of the ideas in Newspeak.


quote:
If MFA has apparent and disastrous consequences, people will presumably start calling for the legal definition to be changed again.
That's right. The MFA enshrines oldspeak, wherein people can still rally support to "broaden" the definition of marriage, and reverse the amendment, like they did with prohibition.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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.”

Since Pete put this quote at the very beginning of this thread, I'd like to point out the problem I'm having with it.

First off - and I'm really surprised that no one else has picked up on this yet - I have grave issues with the phrase "Don't confuse my people." This is an infantalizing stance to take, don't you think? I.e. "my people are easily confused". It harkens back to the notion - all-too-rampant in the sixties, and evident in the writings of Malcolm X and other activists - that homosexuality (along with other forms of supposed sexual deviance) is an invention of the white bourgeoise. It is racism, pure and simple.

This leads directly to my next point - that there is an assumption that homosexual orientation is something that can be influenced by social coercion. In other words, legal tolerance of homosexuality leads to more homosexuals (as if heteros can be so tempted to form permanent gay unions they would not otherwise have pursued). I know that Pete is perfectly willing to tolerate gay unions of a sort, but his fears about redefining marriage nonetheless speak to a similar assumption.

Perhaps - if I read him correctly - he is rather afraid that the effect on heterosexual couples will be negative in other ways. In other words, by taking the emphasis of marriage away from child-rearing and emphasisizing sexual love relationships in general, it will lead to a more selfish or self-centered marriage culture, in which the welfare fo children becomes less central to society as a whole.

I however, see the opposite effect. Love and commitment should be a legal and social prerequisite to having children. For most of history, when birth control was both unavailable and/or inadequate, mutual love and attraction as a presrequisite for marriage was seen by most as a foolish, pie-in-the-sky luxury, marriage had to be enforced to make sure that children had parents. One the woman become pregnant (whether as product of genuine sexual love, or simple recklessness) the man had to be made to stay and take care of wife and child. This was when society afford only men a "self" - women were seen as inherently self-less. The male ego had to be restrained and made responsible. This social coercion did not necessarily lead to happiness - nor was it meant to. It was simply in place to make people take responsibility for their actions, to face consequences whether it made them happy or not.

Fine. However, one of the great outcomes of the sexual revolution is the now widespread acceptance that happier parents have healthier children. As such, our modern culture recognizes that women experience desire (i.e. have an ego) just as men do, and encourages planned parenthood rather than accidental parenthood. Our modern view of marriage posits that one should be in love first, and have a secure relationship, before attempting to reproduce. This means that we lead happier lives, and do not have to foist our bitterness about being trapped in an unwanted marriage on our kids. So it seems to me that defining marriage as being about love, first and foremost, would actually benefit children rather than hurt them. In other words, marriage would be defined as "mutual love and lifelong commitment." That would be our social ideal. It may lead to children or it may not. But at least by putting sexual love first, you create a cultural climate in which people learn to take love and sexual happiness seriously, as something socially important.

Children with single parents are not the victims of re-defined marriage. Unplanned children come about when two people took risks that were not appropriate for their lack of commitment to one another. If you want to foster a healthy society, the last thing we should encourage is the idea that marriage is an alter upon which adults sacrifice their happiness to live for their offspring. We should encourage gay marriage, and use the word "marriage," for all the reasons Pete would have us deny it to gays, because it would promote the belief that mutual love and happiness MUST come before any attempt to have children. That gays still have the right to marry members of the opposite sex does not solve the problem, because gays would still be denied the right to marry someone with whom they could fall in love with. An unhappy faux-hetero couple is a far, far worse environment for a child than a happy homo couple.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
First off - and I'm really surprised that no one else has picked up on this yet - I have grave issues with the phrase "Don't confuse my people." This is an infantalizing stance to take, don't you think? I.e. "my people are easily confused".
No. It means "my people are already confused about marriage." And if you paid attention to history, and to what he said, you'd understand the forces that have been set in place to confuse his people with respect to marriage.

Different cultures have different strengths. Many white American cultures are profoundly confused about physical affection, for example. In a healthy culture, guys should be able to hug without inferences of homosexuality.

Until 2001, most Americans were pretty confused about world geography.

Recognizing a weakness and trying to fix it, isn't "infantalizing." Seems like a spurious PC argument.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
till waiting Pete.

Other than your vaporous, imaginary 1984 BS stalking horse, got any proof of marriage under attack?

I mean, it isyour one trick pony. Surely you have evidence of the great nihilist conspiracy?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
that there is an assumption that homosexual orientation is something that can be influenced by social coercion
No, there isn't in what he said. Pay better attention, and try to see past your stereotypes and preconceptions of anti-ssm arguments. " 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.”

NONE of that has to do with sexual orientation. Sticking in an argument that's not there and then rebutting it is called a "straw man" argument. Don't do that.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
No. It means "my people are already confused about marriage." And if you paid attention to history, and to what he said, you'd understand the forces that have been set in place to confuse his people with respect to marriage...Recognizing a weakness and trying to fix it, isn't "infantalizing." Seems like a spurious PC argument.
What "forces"? I have paid plenty attention to history, but I'm not a mind-reader, and therefore don't know what the hell you're talking about. Please clarify.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
He cant.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
For one flickering moment, it almost looks as if you're going to address his argument instead of a straw man.

quote:
Children with single parents are not the victims of re-defined marriage.
That depends. If the single parents didn't get married because of the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, or because most men her age she knew were in prison or otherwise ineligible for marriage, then no, it's not.

But if the single parents didn't get married because they were taught about a definition of marriage that was not associated with procreation, then yes, those children are victims of re-defined marriage.

This civil rights leader's point is, that he's trying to teach his people the importance of marriage, and that redefining marriage so that procreation has nothing to do with marriage, undermines his efforts and traps his people in a permanent undercaste.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Pete,

If there are "important differences" between men and women, as suggested in the quote, then obviously sexual orientation is directly related to the argument he is making. Not only is it not a straw man, it is central to his argument.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
KidA, if you honestly have no idea about what he meant when he said that his people "have been the victims of deliberate family destruction," then I apologize. Schools don't really teach this stuff. I'd suggest reading "Beloved" and "Raisin in the Sun."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
He made clear that these important differences relate to procreation and raising children, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
This civil rights leader's point is, that he's trying to teach his people the importance of marriage, and that redefining marriage so that procreation has nothing to do with marriage, undermines his efforts and traps his people in a permanent undercaste.
Who has taught the black community that marriage has nothing to do with procreation?

What evidence to you have that this accounts for any current problems among African-Americans today?
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
KidA, if you honestly have no idea about what he meant when he said that his people "have been the victims of deliberate family destruction," then I apologize. Schools don't really teach this stuff. I'd suggest reading "Beloved" and "Raisin in the Sun."
Pete, don't insult me. I'll bet you I've read more deeply into the canon of African-American literature than you have. Comparing gay marriage to the consequences of institutional racism is beyond preposterous.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
He made clear that these important differences relate to procreation and raising children, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation
Did you really just write that? [FootInMouth]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
KidA, if you honestly have no idea about what he meant when he said that his people "have been the victims of deliberate family destruction," then I apologize. Schools don't really teach this stuff. I'd suggest reading "Beloved" and "Raisin in the Sun."
Pete, don't insult me. I'll bet you I've read more deeply into the canon of African-American literature than you have.
Then please stop asking questions as if you did not already know the answers. I don't know what you've read; when you ask an ignorant question, don't get all self-righteous and offended when I point you towards the obvious answer.

quote:
Comparing gay marriage to the consequences of institutional racism is beyond preposterous.
He didn't. He compared the consequence of "gay marriage" (i.e. confusing his people about marriage was, and cementing the sexual revolution's results) to the consequences of institutional racism.

If you have a counterargument, do so. But just gasping and saying proposterous is the empereror's new clothes argument. Get over the shock that someone has an opinion that you don't like. Engage the argument or disingage from the thread.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
More emperor's new clothes arguments:

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
He made clear that these important differences relate to procreation and raising children, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation
Did you really just write that? [FootInMouth]
Sterile recreational wanking is not procreation. And I've seen no evidence that a gay man is less of a father than a straight man. If you have an argument, then engage it. If you don't have an argument, then please disengage.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
I just made a very lengthy argument further up the page - 90% of which remains unaddressed by you.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
If any of it was actually relevant to his argument (as opposed to straw man), please repost them without the irrelevant parts.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
Then please stop asking questions as if you did not already know the answers. I don't know what you've read; when you ask an ignorant question, don't get all self-righteous and offended when I point you towards the obvious answer.

It honestly didn't occur to me (until your prompt) that someone - either he or you - would seriously draw such a comparison in the year 2006. Okay then, do you really want me to go on at length as to why the current problems faced by the African-American community are NOT the result of the gay rights movement? Rather than, say, the continuing effects of racism and a total lack of funding for adequate education? How many hoops shall I jump through for your amusement, O' ringmaster?

I give the African-American community enough credit that they are not any more likely to be "confused" on any issue than any other American community. I do not take them for simpletons.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
If any of it was actually relevant to his argument (as opposed to straw man), please repost them without the irrelevant parts.
All of it is relevant, to his quote and to this discussion. If you think otherwise, YOU need to show me what parts you deem to be made of straw.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
OK, here you seem to be trying to address it:

"Perhaps - if I read him correctly - he is rather afraid that the effect on heterosexual couples will be negative in other ways. In other words, by taking the emphasis of marriage away from child-rearing and emphasisizing sexual love relationships in general, it will lead to a more selfish or self-centered marriage culture, in which the welfare fo children becomes less central to society as a whole."

Since you consider yourself the guru on African-American literature and concerns, why don't you explain how that connects to what he said?

Seems more on point that he's concerned that it will be harder to persuade girls to postpone making babies until marriage, if marriage isn't about raising children any more. Many black leaders feel that a lack of FATHERS plagues the black community. How a self-designated expert on african-american literature misses that little fact is beyond me. This whole debate trains the left to completely dance around that issue, and that's part of the problem here.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
PaH,

Are you familiar with the term "Down Low"? Do you know what it means? If not, look it up on wiki - I only have so many hours in the day.

Perhaps, then, you will see why I think it's socially beneficial to promote marriage as a source of sexual and emotional happiness.

African-Americans suffer from a great deal of cynicism about their possibilities for personal happiness (for obvious reasons). Promiscuity occurs not because people are having "fun," but rather because they are miserable, fatalistic about their future, and are using sex to fill an emotional void. Promoting sexual happiness as an ideal that everyone should demand for their own lives would have a stabilizing effect, which would benefit families.

Incidentally, the divorce rate in the Netherlands is lower than in the U.S., and its per-capita rate of abortions and teen pregnancies a mere fraction of what they are in the U.S.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
A divorce rate by population rather than as a percentage of actual marriages is not social science; that's propaganda. By that logic a healthy society would have no marriages, and hence no divorces.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
The relevant question would be, what have the divorce/marriage% and unwed pregnancies and abortions numbers done in the Netherlands since ssm appeared.

But for the issue of the word "marriage," the Netherlands are a poor example since a growing percentage of the population there are Muslims who have some very strong traditions and live an independent law, keep themselves apart from others, and may even speak a different language. The Netherlands are also a civil law society rather than common law, with a regulatory rather than adversarial court system, so if the government changes a word's meaning, the courts aren't as likely to be used to enforce usage consistently through the public sphere.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
So while the Netherlands are very relevant for purposes of the legal arguments that I've made on other threads, for the word argument topic of this thread, I'm not as concerned with them.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
The Netherlands is entirely relevant, because, as a culture, it is much more pro-pleasure, pro-sexual liberty. This is the same set of values from which I argue for gay marriage, and I use the Netherlands to show that this value system (of which gay marriage is one of many logical consequences) is beneficial, rather than harmful, to children - whose well-being is, as you've repeatedly stated, your ultimate concern.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
But when you tr to compare the well being of children, he gets silent and or shucks and jives or throwa a red hrring or tree out.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
The Netherlands is entirely relevant, because, as a culture, it is much more pro-pleasure, pro-sexual liberty. This is the same set of values from which I argue for gay marriage, and I use the Netherlands to show that this value system (of which gay marriage is one of many logical consequences) is beneficial, rather than harmful, to children - whose well-being is, as you've repeatedly stated, your ultimate concern.

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?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Under the pure hypothetical that SSM benefits children, the entirety of your argument against SSM would, I believe, collapse. So to the extent that you HAVE an argument, the netherlands is entirely relevent to it.

Ok. There is more to your argument then that. However, without the children, I don't think you have an argument against legal marriage that would withstand a compelling interest test. Since we both agree that the SC says marriage is a fundamental right, it is the compelling interest test that matters.

[ January 10, 2007, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tom_paines_ghost (Member # 3285) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NSCutler (Member # 1403) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
{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.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NSCutler (Member # 1403) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Godot (Member # 2099) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"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."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Marriage was created as a product and not a result of paternal identification.

Prove it.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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.


 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
...hypothetical potential for unassisted accidental procreation
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"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!!!!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pete, if we promoted abortion in order to dramatically reduce that number, would you consider gendered marriage less essential?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Pete, if we promoted abortion in order to dramatically reduce that number,

I realize that it's a hypothetical and that you aren't literally proposing anything so nihilistic, so I hope you won't take offense when I say that your premise is so disgusting as to render any ethical question moot.

I do not trust the state with power over when a woman can menstruate. Unlike most people I know that say "a woman has a right over her own body," I say those words and actually mean them. My support for abortion rights does not derive from sophistic denial of a fetus' obvious personhood. If the state were to actively encourage abortion of unplanned pregnancies, it would in my view descend to the moral level of the PrC or the Nazi regime. Under such conditions, not only would I consider gendered marriage "less essential," I'd consider a good many other essential things (such as life, liberty, property, order, peace, and honesty) "less essential." Asking about marriage or liberty or peace or honesty in the context of a regime that promotes murder of innocents is like asking rape victims to rate the attractiveness of their assailants.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
quote:
quote:
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.
This doesn't really answer my question (due in no small part to the vagueness of my question--I've had a hard time finding a way to best compose this inquiry). What I'm trying to understand is the mechanism through which the action "state-recognition-of-marriage-as-heterosexual-only" provides benefits to such an arrangement. What precisely are the benefits you believe to be provided to such a form, and how (in what way) are said benefits conferred?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
What precisely are the benefits you believe to be provided to such a form, and how (in what way) are said benefits conferred?
I'm going to try to answer this to see if I understand Pete's position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Lifetime, heterosexual, monogamous pair-bonding is counter to our natural tendencies, yet is the ideal relationship in which to raise children. Because of this, we require artificial promotion of such relationships by means of state recognition in order to sustain it. A key factor in the promotion of this ideal is the use of a distinct term, "Marriage"

Should the definition of marriage be extended to refer to both the ideal form and the non-ideal form, then the the ideal form will no longer be recognized as such.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
Matt-

I think your characterization matches my understanding of the argument, but again, this doesn't answer the question. In your response you refer to the underlying assumption that state recognition of this (exclusive) form as "marriage" confers benefits, but you don't address the question, which is: "What are those benefits (and how are they conferred by the act of exclusive state recognition)?"
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
I think preferential treatment by state-regulated or state-funded adoption agencies is the major one, but that's just a guess.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
What precisely are the benefits you believe to be provided to such a form, and how (in what way) are said benefits conferred?
I'm going to try to answer this to see if I understand Pete's position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Lifetime, heterosexual, monogamous pair-bonding is counter to our natural tendencies, yet is the ideal relationship in which to raise children. Because of this, we require artificial promotion of such relationships by means of state recognition in order to sustain it. A key factor in the promotion of this ideal is the use of a distinct term, "Marriage"

Should the definition of marriage be extended to refer to both the ideal form and the non-ideal form, then the the ideal form will no longer be recognized as such.

That's some of it, Matt.

I'll add:
recognizing marriage as marriage, rather than as "heterosexual marriage," allows the state to develop and focus on interests that are pertinent to real marriage, i.e. potential procreation, etc. Neutering the marriage term would probably remove or alter mechanisms like PoP and other ideas that focus on the procreative potential of real marriages.

The most critical issue (but sadly not the only one) is that by refusing to redefine marriage as a neuter union of two persons, the state avoids forcing mangling use of the real term in the language. This takes us back to the first post of this thread, the "don't confuse my people" theme. The idea that a child needs a mother and a father is heavily embedded in the ideology of real marriage. That's not something that a responsible state wants to trample on. Real marriage is an idea that the state should promote, not obliterate. New ideas and family types don't obliterate the idea of marriage, so long as we leave the word marriage intact.

My fear is not merely that that real marriage won't be regarded as the ideal form. My fear is that marriage -- real marriage -- won't be understood at all. When you cast it as "heterosexual" marriage, that fundamentaly mis-states the idea, suggesting that marriage is about sexual orientation, and that the man and woman rule was an exclusion of gays rather than standing FOR something.

The term "traditional marriage" is even more repugnant, casting the whole ideal of raising children and channeling procreation into a vat with bride burning, spousal rape, and a zillion other obselete "traditions." To hell with that BS. What proves the value of real marriage is that the man/woman and lifelong elements cross cultures across the globe. This isn't a mere tradition; it developed independently across different traditions.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
The most important aspect of marriage is that it dissuades heterosexuals from making babies before they form a lifelong commitment to someone of the opposite sex. This is the state's #1 reason for promoting marriage as marriage. Any changes to the marriage institution that subvert that message, are inimical to marriage.

Like I've said before, neutered marriage is not the greatest threat that the institution could face. In 1971, a bunch of nihilists in Maryland proposed allowing "marriages" to expire after a 3 year period. The amazingly sophistic premise was to reduce the divorce numbers by making "marriages" that just lapsed on their own if you didn't renew them. Fortunately fixed term "marriages" or FT"M"s never caught on; the idea died in the water. But that would be another example of a subverting the word marriage to mean what it's never meant, and to pervert the whole function of giving children a mother and a father.
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Some pagans have a marriage right that lasts for a year and a day, and must be renewed.

Seems to work just fine, actually...

Nihilist, ehh? And travelling in "bunches" in Maryland.

Marriage is about making babies? I am confused, cause I don't see how that is true in modern society. Life-long pair bonding might have made sense in the contet of property consolodation for the wealthy under prima geniter inherritance laws...

When people died at 27.

But in an age where people will likely be living over 100 years? Doesnt seem to work so well.

Which is why divorce is so common.

What is a nihilist? What were they doing in Maryland? How did they propose legislation? How do you know about it? Why would such a law be a bad idea?

Indeed having lived in Colorado I am probably "common law" married to my ex girlfriend.

What is wrong with a "common law" divorce?

"Mariage is a fiction, created by lawyer to justify the need for divorce lawyers." [Big Grin] [Wink]

[ January 25, 2007, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
"Mariage is a fiction, created by lawyer to justify the need for divorce lawyers."
Thank you. That's exactly the sort of nihilistic (i.e. "meaning-obliterating") claptrap that identifies those whom we should not allow to redefine marriage. If you see no value in marriage, then you obviously have nothing to contribute with regard to preserving that value.

Since Pagan is a term that certain religions use to identify outsiders, you might as well talk about what certain "gentiles" do. "Pagans" isn't a cohesive group or culture, but has become a reaction to a culture, a counter-culture. Saying what "some pagans" DO, in the present tense, suggests a modern fad. You've given no facts to show that it "works just fine," or indeed, what it's supposed to accomplish.

quote:
Wow, Marriage is about making babies? I am confused
You certainly are, if you sincerely believe that I said that marriage is about making babies. Legal marriage exists to deal with the fact that a man and a woman are likely to make babies together, but if you think that means "marriage is about reading babies," then go back to the top of the thread and start reading.

What do nihilists do in Maryland? I imagine the same as they tried to do in Maryland in 1971, same as they did before and since in other places. Mangling ideas into meaninglessness, using tools that range from deconstruction, to the old fashioned, tried and true methods such as misrepresentation and playing stupid. Trying to get others confused along with them. Telling folks that good is evil, that sex is a form of masturbation that happens to include two or more players, that the existence of the color grey disproves the existence of black and white, and that a contract for a year and a day of sexual services is a form of marriage, and that an institution that pre-dates the rule of law was invented by lawyers [Roll Eyes] .

Have I missed any highlights?

[ January 25, 2007, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Indeed having lived in Colorado I am probably "common law" married to my ex girlfriend.
What is wrong with a "common law" divorce?

Well, that depends what you mean by that term "common-law divorce," assuming that you mean anything coherent, which is kind of a stretch of an assumption given your other meaning-obliterating statements.

Please prove me wrong. Explain to me what it is that you're acting as if you're arguing for. What does "common law divorce" mean to you, precisely?

Because honestly, it sounds like you're throwing words together that you don't grasp, for no other purpose but to make the terms sound meaningless to others. And that's nihilism in a nutshell, or at least the most prevalent form, Dadaism.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The most important aspect of marriage is that it dissuades heterosexuals from making babies before they form a lifelong commitment to someone of the opposite sex. This is the state's #1 reason for promoting marriage as marriage.
I know you found my abortion question reprehensible, but I'll ask it again: why would promoting abortion as an alternative to unwanted birth not be as useful as marriage in this regard, if the end goal is to prevent the birth of babies to sub-optimal parents?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
I know you found my abortion question reprehensible
I hope you understand that wasn't a criticism of you. I thought I emphasized that I understand that you aren't proposing that; IIRC you're pro-life.

quote:
but I'll ask it again: why would promoting abortion as an alternative to unwanted birth not be as useful as marriage in this regard, if the end goal is to prevent the birth of babies to sub-optimal parents?
If the goal was to end war or crime, would eradicating the human race be useful in that regard?

If the goal was to end religious persecution, would eliminating religion be useful in that regard?

You're talking about a final solution that pretty much buggers the initial question.

Besides, I did actually answer your question: yes, your hypo *would* reduce the importance. Just as eliminating religion would reduce the need for dialogue to establish religious tolerance. Just as exterminating the vast majority of the human race would reduce the need for international peace treaties.
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Pete@, I think that if you give up the label and concept of nihilism, which at best ou overuse, you might have more luck making sense.

Or not, since you claim marriage is about people who are likely to be making babies. How bout people marrying in their sixties? Why is that ok? Clearly post-menopausal women should be barred from marriage, and infertile men..

As to your dismissal of Paganism, how very nice for you label and dismiss the actions of another marginalized religious group. Good people most Pagans I know-and I have seen some very good child rearing in Pagan households, which are often very unconventional.

Although their basic religious model with a dual gendered diety seems to go along with your position. But the God and The Goddess are not off ranting about "nihilist," who apparently are anyone who disagree with Pete@ on social matters.

As for your claims, at best they are "facts not yet in evidence" and at worst you just plain ignore arguments that society and peole do not fit into your neat pidgeon holes.

You ducked questions I raised about monogamy being an outated model centered on property and not children.

You ducked the point I raised about how long life spans make it obolete and ill fitted to modern life.

You duck the question about how comon law divorce might be beneficial-based on social policy, not your beloved nihilism.

Reminds me of the guy whose only tool was a hammer. All the world looked like nails to him.

[ January 25, 2007, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*nod* I think I see what you're saying, Pete. I have to admit that a pro-choice position which does not deny the value and personhood of the fetus is occasionally difficult for me to get my head around. [Smile]
 
Posted by TLynch (Member # 3581) on :
 
Marriage is only as sacred as the two people who are joining in the union of marriage consider it sacred. Some do not consider marriage to be as sacred as others do. I think it is important to respect those citizens who believe that the union of marriage ought to be sacred.

This is also where I have a problem with political correctness. It is only practiced selectively, since if something like gay marriage truly offends every moral fiber of a person who thinks marriage is the most sacred thing on Earth then are we not just ignoring their sensibilities just because they do not believe in the same things as the other side believes?

Whereas we are told to respect and to not offend other races and cultures, including Islamic beliefs(which do not hold women in high regard), yet those same people then try to force the Christians of America to change their beliefs to fit their view point and to pander to the wishes of one specific group.

Does that not bother anyone else here when you think about it? To give special treatment to certain groups at the expense of another groups closely held beliefs goes against everything political correctness stands for does it not? Not only that, but it has helped create a vast schism in this country politically.

I think Civil Unions are a great compromise that regular christians have allowed to happen, but apparently that isn't enough so now we are getting this battle to deny christians their most closely held beliefs about marriage because a small minority group demands to distort the christian meanings of marriage.

And it is a distortion because it says in the bible a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I may not be as against gay marriage as most christians, but I do see their point and why they are generally upset over this debate.

The civil unions offer all the same advantages as marriage, but without many of the tax penalties. I wish I could get a civil union with my wife, INSTEAD of a marriage. lol Simply because it would save us money each year...but I was told to get lost when I inquired with the government about it.

That is just my opinion though, it is a hot button issue that enrages peoples emotions. Eventually I think Christians will lose the battle, much like they have lost every other ideological battle in the last 30-40 years. It's a one sided war, and Christians don't have the financial backing and voice in the media that the other side has. [Wink] Such is the way of things.

[ January 25, 2007, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: TLynch ]
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Indeed, is that not the point of fetushood per se? That an unborn baby, especially very early in term, is not a person?

"Every sperm is sacred..."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
Pete@, I think that if you give up the label and concept of nihilism, which at best ou overuse, you might have more luck making sense.

Or not, since you claim marriage is about people who are likely to be making babies. How bout people marrying in their sixties? Why is that ok? Clearly post-menopausal women should be barred from marriage, and infertile men...

quote:
As to your dismissal of Paganism, how very nice for you label and dismiss the actions of another marginalized religious group.
I did not dismiss paganism, nor do I dismiss the actions. I dismiss that pagans are a "religious groups." You're the one that's using a label here. The term "pagan" is a derogatory term used by Christians and other groups to describe outsiders, and recently has been adopted by certain counterculture movements. You are dodging my question of which specific group you were referring to with that incredibly misleading label, and also dodging my question of how long this supposed practice has been in play.


quote:
Good people most Pagans I know-and I have seen some very good child rearing in Pagan households, which are often very unconventional.
Why do you get so self-righteous when I ask you to be more specific and to verify your claims? There are many definitions of pagan, and I have no fragging idea which one you're operating with.

quote:
You ducked questions I raised about monogamy being an outated model centered on property and not children.
That doesn't sound like a question.

quote:
You ducked the point I raised about how long life spans make it obolete and ill fitted to modern life.
I answered that "point" before you made it. Again: if marriage is obsolete, then why do you need to hijack the name? Introduce new models under new names, and let them compete on their own merits.

quote:
You duck the question about how comon law divorce might be beneficial-based on social policy, not your beloved nihilism.
I did not duck the question: I asked you what the hell you meant by "common law divorce," since I can't answer your stupid question without understanding your terms. If I ask you why a glurbg is dissled, and you ask me what glurbg and dissled are, only a complete ass would accuse you of "ducking the question."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*nod* I think I see what you're saying, Pete. I have to admit that a pro-choice position which does not deny the value and personhood of the fetus is occasionally difficult for me to get my head around. [Smile]

It's basically the same old pro-choice argument, the one that they make to the public, except I actually believe it and don't turn around and make a different argument to the court. That the state lacks the constitutional authority to tell a woman when she can menstruate, that free societies have traditionally stayed out of such decisions, and that powers traditionally reserved to the people, remain reserved the people under the 9th amendment.

[ January 25, 2007, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Pagans are religious groups. You may deny it if you want. Many closed minded types deny Mormons are Christians. Same thing.

People who follow the old ways. Witches. Pagans That tere are different groups in beliefs does not make the use of the term Pagan less precise than the use of the term "Christian" or "Protestant"

Still ducking the questions.

[ January 25, 2007, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
As to calling my questions "stupid," that is one way of trying to support ducking out of them. Personal attacks as substitute for substantial argument is popular some places.

And read the post. Common law divorce seems to be what the "nihilists" in Maryland were doing.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
"It's basically the same old pro-choice argument"

Is your position not also based on an implicit resolution to conflicting rights - specifically the right to life and the security of the person?

Outside of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is there not also an equivalent in domestic US law?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
Pagans are religious groups. You may deny it if you want.

I don't deny it. I asked you which specific pagan religious group that you're referring to, since Pagan is an umbrella term, to a much broader extend than "Christian" is an umbrella term. Why are you acting as if I've slurred pagans by asking you to identify the group?

If I told you that some Christians marry for eternity rather until death do you part, and you asked, which Christian group does that, I would not pretend that you'd slurred Christians generally or mormons particularly. I'd answer the fragging question. Why don't you?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
And read the post. Common law divorce seems to be what the "nihilists" in Maryland were doing.

In which post did you explain this? Please quote.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
"It's basically the same old pro-choice argument"

Is your position not also based on an implicit resolution to conflicting rights - specifically the right to life and the security of the person?

Outside of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is there not also an equivalent in domestic US law?

Yes and no. Yes, the US constitutional jurisprudence does deal conflicting rights, particularly in terms of life interest, liberty interest, and property interest, in that order of hierarchy. But AFAIK, the court has never opened the life interest to more than a right to not be killed, wheras I think of certain reproductive and famillial interests as life interests, wheras US courts usually characterize them as liberty interests or even in a couple horrible cases like Lafferty, as property interests (Lafferty treated a mother's right to maintain contact with her child as a mere "property" interest in order to justify severing all parental rights *without* giving her a state-appointed lawyer). [Frown]

There was one case where the court seemed to treat the right to not be tortured as something even more basic and essential than a liberty interest, although AFAIK they didn't specifically call it a life interest. The court seemed to say that a right to not being tortured into false confessions was simply so basic and obvious as to not require articulation in the constitution. They recognized that the right against self-incrimination did apply, but also made clear that the actual right at stake was far more basic and fundamental to any civilized society.

If we preserved the life-liberty-property hierarchy strictly, and maintained the doctrine that a life interests meant only an interest against getting killed, then the constitution would justify torturing someone in order to save another person's life. I don't think we should read it that way. Some violations are even less acceptable than homicide.

[ January 25, 2007, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Pete,@, I am sorry. I referred to common law marriage, said common law divorce might be a good idea. I am ohh so sorry you didn't follow, do you understand now?

As to a "specific" Pagan group, I wasn't. Bonding for a year and a day seems common in several traditions-and in Celtic history, for that matter.

But that just goes to show you-more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to provide children with the support they need.

But I guess denying that lets you suport descrimination.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Pete, you understand that I was talking about the unborn person's right to life and security of its person, right?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
Pete,@, I am sorry. I referred to common law marriage, said common law divorce might be a good idea. I am ohh so sorry you didn't follow, do you understand now?

No. Do you? I know what Common Law marriage is (although you apparently don't since you don't even know if you're in one [Roll Eyes] ). I've never heard of "common law divorce." Your continued refusal to define the statement supports my original suspicion that you just strung words together to obliterate meaning, like a Dadaist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dada

quote:
2. a nihilistic art movement (especially in painting) that flourished in Europe early in the 20th century; based on irrationality and negation of the accepted laws of beauty
quote:
As to a "specific" Pagan group, I wasn't.
You weren't what? Make some sense, if you remember how.


quote:
Bonding for a year and a day seems common in several traditions-and in Celtic history, for that matter.
Ah. Do you admit that you have no basis for calling these "bonding" relationships "marriage," or do you have actual evidence that Celts referred to the relationships by the same word that they used for real marriage, i.e. the lifelong union of man and woman?


quote:
But that just goes to show you-more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to provide children with the support they need.
And where is your evidenc that these year+day "bonding" relationships served this purpose as well as real marriage?


quote:
But I guess denying that lets you suport descrimination.
Do lay off those boring motive inferences. When I ask you to be specific, it's not a conspiracy. I can't "deny" assertions that you haven't made, and when you spout vague pseudoclaims about the practices of "Pagan" religion (as if there was only one [Roll Eyes] ), or yap about "common law divorce" without indicating what the hell you're talking about, you haven't said anything worth denying, let alone affirming.

[ January 25, 2007, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
Er... Typically, I'm only jumping in to nitpick.

quote:
Pagans are religious groups. ... People who follow the old ways. Witches. Pagans That tere are different groups in beliefs does not make the use of the term Pagan less precise than the use of the term "Christian" or "Protestant"
1. It is less precise; "Christian", at least, allows one to reasonably assume that all the disparate groups under that umbrella believe in Christ, in some way. "Pagan" carries no such underpinning philosophy with it. There are Asatruar, Wiccans, Traditional Witches (for a given value of traditional), Dianics, various Reconstructionists... The list goes on. A much more apt comparison would be between the terms "Christian" and "Wiccan", since both are terms for religions that have a number of distinct sects, and yet still have underlying beliefs common to all those sects.

2. Many self-described Pagans I know would slap you for the conflations you make in the last part that I quoted. Pagan =/= witch =/= "follower of the old ways". A "follower of the old ways" can self-describe as a witch or a pagan, and a witch can describe himself as a pagan, but there are just as many self-described pagans out there who consider "witch" an insult as there are who proudly claim it. There are also plenty of "pagans" out there ready and willing to admit that their personal religion is new (for example, many honest Wiccans).
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Pete @, I am soo sorry you would rather play word games than discuss issues in a serious way. I guess I gave you too much credit.

I understand common law marriage just fine. Thanks.

You claim you do as well. So why does the concept of common law divorce (which does not exist, but mirrors common law marriage--don't live together, say you not married and "poof" divorce) such a huge barrier to you?

Sort of like what, perhaps, was being suggested in Maryland. But who would know from your description, with no link?

I would have congratulated you on not missusing the word nihilist in a post but there you had to go and use it again. All the world looks like nails.

As to "proof," what proof would you like? I have seen many healthy children produced by this and other non-traditional social models.

I daily deal with kids effed up big time by "traditional" male female pair bondings.

There are a lot of different models of marriage; the one you offer as perfection is relatively modern and uncommon. I haven't seen you offer proof to the contrary, despite it seemingly being the main point of your life. I have made it through the first three pages of the thread so far, and find people asking you for it and yet no answer from you, no evidence.

Sort of like your ducking the other questions I asked you. Quack.

Lady S.--Sure, there is a lot of variance. But there is in Christianity too. For instance some deny Mormons are Christians, or Catholics, or...

And so far I don't think followers of the God and Goddess are shedding blood over it.

As to being slapped, most Pagans I know are self defense pacifists. So I doubt they would slap me, not wanting it to return three fold unto them.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
But again, there's not the connection between various Christian groups. Mormonism and Catholicism, for example, both clearly stem from the same (basic, very basic) religious philosophy that brought about the Protestant denominations, or Eastern Orthodox, and so on, and they all share a holy book (more or less).

There are no such commonalities uniting various "pagan" groups. Not all, by a long shot, come from the same tradition. Not all believe in a God and a Goddess - some only believe in a Goddess, some believe in a whole pantheon...

And the threefold law is almost exclusively Wiccan, not "pagan" in a broader sense.

Like I said, it'd be a more accurate comparison if you compared, say, Wiccans as a group to Christians as a group. All Wiccan sects are ultimately derived from a single source (Gerald Gardner) and, despite wild variances, all share the same basic underlying philosophy.

(I know, I know, I'm nitpicking again. It's what I do. And, frankly, the use of "paganism" as a blanket term for Wicca and superficially similar religions annoys the hell out of me.)
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Sorry it annoys you. I find it reasonable accurate and useful.

But understand your point and consider my nit well picked.

For the purpose of the actual conversation, my point stands.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
I know. Like I said, nitpicking. [Big Grin] Thanks for taking said nitpicking so well.
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
LS, I Understand where your comming from. and wouldn't mind getting into a discussion over some good beer.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
I understand common law marriage just fine. Thanks.

If you understand it correctly, then you're being disingenuous when you said that you're not sure whether you are in a common law marriage. If you are not sure whether you are in a common law marriage, then you are clueless about what common law marriage means. It's really that simple.

I checked with a family law professor that I work with, just to make sure that it wasn't me that had it mixed up. Sharp guy -- Louisiana legislature hired him back in the 1980s to help update a few marriage laws that were grossly unfair to women, after one of the laws clearly fell short of constitutional muster. So why don't you tell me what you think that "common law divorce" means, and give my boss a good laugh?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks for setting him strait, LS. He obviously wasn't going to take it from me; kept assuming that I was trying to demean "the Pagan religion" [sic] -- as if there were only one. Am I correct that it's improper to capitalize the word "pagan"?
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
Am I correct that it's improper to capitalize the word "pagan"?
Er... That depends. Many followers of reconstructionist, "traditional", "earth-based" religions such as Wicca do self-identify as Pagans to associate themselves more broadly with other disparate traditions. (Interestingly, almost all of the groups that fall under the neo-pagan/pagan label, in Pagan usage, are rooted in Western European traditions, to some extent. Self-described Pagans rarely use the term to include, say, Buddhists or a Native American tradition.) It can also be a useful term for someone following a non-traditional religion or an individual one.

I tend to capitalize it when referring to the cross-religious Pagan networking, or when a person or group refers to themselves as Pagans, because I believe in using the names people choose for themselves, and as a name it is a proper noun. Otherwise, though, I don't, and I tend not to capitalize it when in doubt (or when I'm not paying attention).

But that's the thing - Paganism with a capital P is a cross-religious movement/network/whatever. It's not a coherent philosophy. It's not a single religion, even in the sense of one with lots of sects. There are even, shock of shocks, self-described Christian Pagans, as much of a contradiction in terms as that seems.

...Woo. Long reply to a simple question.

LeftyPatriot, as is probably abundantly clear by now (she says sheepishly), I'm always up for a good discussion. [Big Grin]

[ January 26, 2007, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Lady Starkiller ]
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
Er... That post wasn't at all clear.

When I refer to the cross-religious Pagan movement, above, it's a specific thing, not a general thing. Paganism in general doesn't get a capital letter: "pagan religions of the twentieth century" would be lowercase. "This site is part of a Pagan webring" would be capitalized.

I'm really not sure that's any clearer.
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Pete, our side discussion does not "set me strait." She is ntpicking in a way irrelevant to OUR discussion.

There are many differant shapes of marriage. Your (unsupported, and am now four pages through the thread) claim that man/woman pairing i "universal" is completely nsupported through them all...

While several good counterexamples have been offered, and ignored by you.

I deal with the effed up product of the "natural" model you advocate all day every day. I know many differently arranged families that work very well and produce healthy offspring.

You seem to have a pattern of ignoring those who ask for evidence, insulting them and shifting the discussion.
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
I understand common law marriage just fine. Thanks.

If you understand it correctly, then you're being disingenuous when you said that you're not sure whether you are in a common law marriage. If you are not sure whether you are in a common law marriage, then you are clueless about what common law marriage means. It's really that simple.

I checked with a family law professor that I work with, just to make sure that it wasn't me that had it mixed up. Sharp guy -- Louisiana legislature hired him back in the 1980s to help update a few marriage laws that were grossly unfair to women, after one of the laws clearly fell short of constitutional muster. So why don't you tell me what you think that "common law divorce" means, and give my boss a good laugh?

Sometimes your a hard guy to speak civily to.

1) I am not sure-see, goes like this, No paper says we are married. We no longer describe ourselves as married. I do not intend getting a divorce, and when I marry I do not expect to be seen b the law as a bigamist. So it is sort of a grey area, and not "disengenous."

But technically, kinda, we are married. In colorado it can be as easy as cohabitating for one night. In theory I am a serial bigamist. But I guss that isnt black n white enough for you, ehh? Do you see the grey now oh insulting one?

2) Common law divorce was my idea. A simple concept. Yes, run it by a thousand lawyers-that is relevant. Yuk yuk. That is relevant and insightful (is there a sarcasm font? Do yah FEEL the wind rushing by your hair?

WOOSH

3) Still haven't addressed the issues raised. I won't claim it is disengenous. Perhaps you just forgot?

for a couple...

You say "Bunch" of "Nihilists" attempted to implement what I was describing as "common law divorce."

Proof they are nihilists? Explanation of what a nihilist is, in this context-Euro Art movement people travelling in bunches to legislate American laws? That does not make ANY sense?

Oh, and links to evidence about the law, so we can evaluate and discuss it's merits? Yuo clam it is bad...

Did your family law prof bother imparting the legal term, "facts not in evidence" to you?

2)
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
"
LeftyPatriot, as is probably abundantly clear by now (she says sheepishly), I'm always up for a good discussion.

Cool, can we do it someplace where we won't confuse the children?

[ January 26, 2007, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Lefty/Tom Paine's Ghost/Dada

You flatter yourself too much when you presume to have had a "discussion" with me. Come on, Dada, tell me what a "common law divorce" means, in the context that you used it above [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
LeftyPatriot - I'm attempting to go to sleep at the moment (and procrastinating ... how awful is that?), but if you want to get another thread started, I'll be back on at some more seemly hour of today, probably. Unless you'd prefer our discussion be limited to email, in which case I think mine's in my profile. (It damn well should be... Alix wanders off to look.)
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
Pete@ home, you are making no sense.

Like I said, you like to shift away from the point at hand and attack the person whose questions you cannot answer. This attack is unclear to me, but then I am new here.

I once had a person on a board convinced I was an old friend. Well, she had herself convinced. Was ANGRY I hadn't told her about my new id. I tried to convince her for over three months it wasn't the case, to no avail. Was rather-interesting. If I ever go for an MA in Soc or Psych I might have to write bout it.

Now, are you sure your not just pulling my leg with parody? I mean, you really can't be this dense, can you?

[ January 26, 2007, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
OK, speak and Spell for friend Pete @

Common law divorce is the opposite of comon law marriage...

You do not live together.

You do not describe yourself as married.

You do not share bills, property...

And after a while, without state intervention, "POOF" your not married any more.

Is that too hard to comprehend? Do you understand now?

[ January 26, 2007, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
OK, speak and Spell for friend Pete @

Common law divorce is the opposite of comon law marriage...

You do not live together.

You do not describe yourself as married.

You do not share bills, property...

And after a while, without state intervention, "POOF" your not married any more.

Is that too hard to comprehend? Do you understand now?

I think I understand it now, although you obviously don't grasp the ramifications of that you are proposing. Now that you've finally clarified what you meant by that stupid term, I can answer your question that you've been falsely accusing me of "dodging."

quote:
What is wrong with a "common law" divorce?
First of all, the name is idiotic, since what you describe is a simple irresponsible breakup, and has nothing to do with the COMMON LAW, which refers to law developed by judges as opposed to enacted by the legislature.

Second, one of the main purposes of any divorce proceeding involves assigning child custody and dividing property. MARRIAGE, even common law marriage, involves joint ownership of property. How does your brilliant idea of "common law divorce" deal with these matters? Hmm?

I can't believe that I wasted an hour arguing about family matters with a guy that thinks that a shack-up is a marriage and that abandonment is divorce.
 
Posted by LeftyPatriot (Member # 3584) on :
 
So, you think it is "irresponsible" to break up equitably, simply because the courts are not involved?

Second, you will note I didn't say a DAMN thing about children. Why do you assume any are involved?

As to the property, obviously it is worked out by simple one to one agreement--or else there would be need for courts.

A fiction created to form the reality of divorce lawyers.

"I can't believe that I wasted an hour arguing about family matters with a guy that thinks that a shack-up is a marriage and that abandonment is divorce."

Um, in a common law state a "shack up" can become marriage. You still do not seem to understand.

And mutually splitting is not abandonment. You misrepresent my position, (charitably) by mistake I am sure.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Common law marriage actually existed when all of family law in western civilization was part of Catholic Canon law. Believe it or not, the regime where you needed a priest and ceremony to get married was a product of secularization, and started at the Council of Trent, when marriage became a secular matter rather than religious. Scottland was the last European nation to abolish common law marriage, and did so in 2006. Scottland was the last hold-out. The fact that some parts of the US still have it is probably due to Scottish influence.

The secular movement to abolish common law marriage started centuries ago after the Council of Trent; A number of Shakespeare's plays such as Measure for Measure complained about the decreasing recognition of the traditional "handfast marriage" where a couple married without a priest by clasping hands and declaring in front of witnesses that they were married.

------------
Now for the unpleasant stuff -- responding to TomPaine'sGhost:
You asked me about the law in general. If there was no possibility that children were involved, civil marriage would not exist.

As for whether no property remains "shared," that's a matter of opinion, and opinions can change over time. That's why when marriages split split, it's safer to have a public record that shows who got what.

quote:
Um, .
Going back to your tedious "um" thing, eh, TPG?

quote:
in a common law state a "shack up" can become marriage
:duh: WRONG. Shacking up, in itself, does not make you "married" even in a common law state. In addition to cohabitation and other factors, you need to INTEND TO BE MARRIED. In some common law states this has to be express intent, in some it has to be publicly manifest, some say "mutual consent", and in some, mental intent will suffice for the intent element. That's why your talk about not knowing whether you were married or not demonstrated your ignorance about common law marriage.

[ January 26, 2007, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
So, you think it is "irresponsible" to break up equitably, simply because the courts are not involved?

No. I think that it's idiotically irresponsible to not know whether one is married or not to one's ex-girlfriend. Since if a guy is still married according to the laws of the state, that guy's wife could be collecting debt, and the guy would be legally responsible for it. That, and a bunch of other reasons why any sane and responsible person should know what their marriage status is.

That's probably why on forms you have to fill out, there's an entry that says something like:
quote:
MARITAL STATUS:
___single
___married
___divorced

I've never seen an entry for
quote:
___duh. I don't know.
Maybe you should sue the form makers for discriminating against you. [LOL]
 
Posted by Carlotta (Member # 3117) on :
 
This may not even be relevant, but the "pagan"/wiccan ceremony where a couple commits to be together a year and a day is called handfasting, and seems to be primarily looked on as a "trial marriage" or engagement period.
handfasting website
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Handfasting was the old English term for real marriages that did not involve a priest, but were considered binding for life. Most marriages in Christian Europe prior to the Council of Trent were handfast marriages. That's annoying that fad has subverted the word into something other than marriage.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
That's annoying that fad has subverted the word into something other than marriage.
Why? It's not like "handfasting" is still a term in common usage. Would you prefer them to make up a completely new word? And it's hardly a fad - it's a kind of religiously-recognized relationship that the participants take extremely seriously, on the whole.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Starkiller:
quote:
That's annoying that fad has subverted the word into something other than marriage.
Why? It's not like "handfasting" is still a term in common usage.
That's why I said annoying rather than outrageous. Annoyance is personal. It's something that annoys only Shakespeare & Rennaisance buffs like me. And the Wiccans I have met have the annoying habit of reading their redefinitions of old words back into the history. For example, some pretend (or actually believe; I'm not sure) that the "witches" hanged in massachussetts a few centuries ago were a case of persecution of actual "witches," which they interpret as Wiccans. Which pretty much buggers the history that the witch trial victims were Christians who got framed and murdered based on Flimsy evidence by a Christian court, on the word of an apparently Christian and definitely psychotic slut named Abigain Williams.

Other types have done this as well -- child-abusing satanic cults have existed for centuries and continue to exist, but now along comes a pack of twits who call themselves the church of Satan, out in the open, and act that whenever anyone speaks of Satanists that we're talking about their little gig. You might as well call your group the "snipes" and then cry about the persecution of "your people" at the hands of intolerant boy scouts and their "Snipe hunts."

quote:
Would you prefer them to make up a completely new word?
Yes, or at least pick something that doesn't mangle history and distort the meaning of Shakespeare plays. It's a damned shame that we've gradually lost the legal protections of common-law marriage, and I often struggle with cultural traditionalists who misunderstand the history and think that common law marriage is some new fad, when in fact it was the predominant form of marriage under Catholic canon law. On this board and in other places, I've often cite "Measure for Measure" and other plays to show that Shakespeare was lamenting the gradual erosion and lack of respect towards handfast marriages. Redefining that word makes it harder to explain the history. Given their track record with the "witches" term I'm betting that the "witchies" (a term I learned from an older, more serious and mature Wiccan woman that she uses to refer to the younger faddish twerps that in her mind abuse her faith for shock effect) will now pass around the misinformation that the year and a day stuff was always called handfast marriage. Just like TPG did above. Bogs down the conversation, buries history under another layer of BS, and makes everyone a little more stupid.

quote:
And it's hardly a fad - it's a kind of religiously-recognized relationship that the participants take extremely seriously, on the whole.
I'm sorry if that came off as a slur. At one time, the Christian church was a fad. Doesn't mean that the participants don't take it seriously. It simply means that time will tell whether it endures. If I'm mistaken and this year and a day thing has endured for generations down to those who practice it today, then why are they coopting the word 'handfast'? rather than using the traditional name for the practice?

If I've spoken ignorantly, please correct my ignorance. If it sounds like I'm prejudiced, well, I am; I may be making unfair assumptions based on previous experiences where self-proclaimed capital P Pagan Wiccans redefined words and then used equivocation (whether conscious or not, I'm not sure) to rewrite history to put themselves at its center. But I'm capable of seeing past my prejudice. I don't regard Wiccanism as without value; I find the threefold law very interesting, and like the way that they bring modern insights into ancient forms. For some reason, they seem to respect the history of the forms. I just wish they'd show the same respect towards the history of words.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
That's why I said annoying rather than outrageous. Annoyance is personal.
Ah, ok. Sorry; too many people I know use "annoying" as shorthand for "oh my God, this should be banned".

quote:
And the Wiccans I have met have the annoying habit of reading their redefinitions of old words back into the history. For example, some pretend (or actually believe; I'm not sure) that the "witches" hanged in massachussetts a few centuries ago were a case of persecution of actual "witches," which they interpret as Wiccans.
Yes, that annoys the hell out of me, too.

quote:
Yes, or at least pick something that doesn't mangle history and distort the meaning of Shakespeare plays.
I can understand this, but, I don't know, I guess I'm just used to having to keep track of more than one definition for most words. I find that fascinating and exciting, but not all people do.

quote:
It's a damned shame that we've gradually lost the legal protections of common-law marriage, and I often struggle with cultural traditionalists who misunderstand the history and think that common law marriage is some new fad, when in fact it was the predominant form of marriage under Catholic canon law. On this board and in other places, I've often cite "Measure for Measure" and other plays to show that Shakespeare was lamenting the gradual erosion and lack of respect towards handfast marriages. Redefining that word makes it harder to explain the history. Given their track record with the "witches" term I'm betting that the "witchies" (a term I learned from an older, more serious and mature Wiccan woman that she uses to refer to the younger faddish twerps that in her mind abuse her faith for shock effect) will now pass around the misinformation that the year and a day stuff was always called handfast marriage. Just like TPG did above. Bogs down the conversation, buries history under another layer of BS, and makes everyone a little more stupid.
I had no idea about common-law marriage being such a longstanding institution until I read this thread, really. And I completely understand your point about redefinitions bogging down discussions. I guess I really wonder, though, how uncommon a word has to be before someone can legitimately redefine or otherwise resurrect it.

quote:
I'm sorry if that came off as a slur. At one time, the Christian church was a fad. Doesn't mean that the participants don't take it seriously. It simply means that time will tell whether it endures. If I'm mistaken and this year and a day thing has endured for generations down to those who practice it today, then why are they coopting the word 'handfast'? rather than using the traditional name for the practice?
Ah, ok, another misunderstanding on my part. I actually have no idea how old the practice is; despite what a number of Wiccans say, the religion is new - which, actually, would explain the coopting of the word "handfast". Even if the practice is one they're borrowing from elsewhere, they may want a term that fits the language or culture they're presently involved in better.

quote:
If I've spoken ignorantly, please correct my ignorance. If it sounds like I'm prejudiced, well, I am; I may be making unfair assumptions based on previous experiences where self-proclaimed capital P Pagan Wiccans redefined words and then used equivocation (whether conscious or not, I'm not sure) to rewrite history to put themselves at its center. But I'm capable of seeing past my prejudice. I don't regard Wiccanism as without value; I find the threefold law very interesting, and like the way that they bring modern insights into ancient forms. For some reason, they seem to respect the history of the forms. I just wish they'd show the same respect towards the history of words.
1. I was, actually, replying more out of my own word-geekiness than anything else.

2. The "let's rewrite history!" Wiccans (and other pagans) annoy the hell out of me - and their more serious brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago (I think) a whole host of genuinely serious Wiccan websites began springing up debunking all the false history crap the history-ignoring Wiccans had thrown about for years. There's even a term in the Wiccan community for them - "fluffy bunnies", also known as those "Wiccans" who can't walk due to all the pentacles they're wearing, hold vigils for all the witches burned during the Inquisition, and go on the local news at Halloween decrying the stereotype of the evil witch.

Whoa. That was longer than I intended it to be, sorry.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
I should add, on the last part, that there are a number of Wiccan sites and Wiccan groups that are very conscientious about promoting genuine historical knowledge and accuracy among their membership, usually by simple correction, but I've seen more than one hostile Wiccan ranter get slammed by a fellow Wiccan.

Somewhere on my computer, lost amid my other links, is a link to an information page on statistics on the Inquisition, how many "real witches" might possibly have died (erm...0), how many people were really burned (very few), and so on ... written by a Wiccan for Wiccans, because he was pissed off at the exact same thing that irritates you (and me): the mucking about with historical fact that occurs in the more egotistical groups.

...Okay, that's enough of a tangent. [Razz]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Ah, ok, another misunderstanding on my part. I actually have no idea how old the practice is; despite what a number of Wiccans say, the religion is new - which, actually, would explain the coopting of the word "handfast". Even if the practice is one they're borrowing from elsewhere, they may want a term that fits the language or culture they're presently involved in better.
I agree; the misuse offends my sensibilities as a word Geek. I'd known about handfast marriage since first reading M4M decades ago, but only last week in family law class and other history texts did I find out just how massively prevalent it was for over 1000 years. Sad thing is that the last European nation, Scottland, finally eliminated common-law marriage in 2006.

quote:
1. I was, actually, replying more out of my own word-geekiness than anything else.
Ah. That explains why I intuitively respect you. Respect for words.

quote:
2. The "let's rewrite history!" Wiccans (and other pagans) annoy the hell out of me - and their more serious brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago (I think) a whole host of genuinely serious Wiccan websites began springing up debunking all the false history crap the history-ignoring Wiccans had thrown about for years. There's even a term in the Wiccan community for them - "fluffy bunnies", also known as those "Wiccans" who can't walk due to all the pentacles they're wearing, hold vigils for all the witches burned during the Inquisition, and go on the local news at Halloween decrying the stereotype of the evil witch
I'm very glad to hear of this development. My guess is that the anti-Halloween twits were the straw that broke the Camel's back for the serious ones. That's sounds like a very effective use of cultural norm terms to deal with what more hierarchical churches might treat as a heresy issue. I saw hints of that norming tactic a few years ago when I was on a couple of boards with a few of them, I saw the term "witchies" to describe another overlapping subset. In my eyes, that looks like a core of believers are moving the faith towards a more serious and lasting religion. (I'll be more careful about using that f-word since you were right to correct me -- that is how most people would interpret it).

Speaking of organization, I've always wondered how what seems like a fairly unorganized faith community maintains what they describe as a warlocking procedure, which seems to be a fairly direct equivalent to excommunication.

quote:
I should add, on the last part, that there are a number of Wiccan sites and Wiccan groups that are very conscientious about promoting genuine historical knowledge and accuracy among their membership, usually by simple correction, but I've seen more than one hostile Wiccan ranter get slammed by a fellow Wiccan.
That's good to hear. The ones I saw went out of the way to not openly disagree with each other, but I received a couple emails from one or another that apparently felt the need to ... unburden herself, if that makes sense, of stuff she wanted to say on the board against stuff a fellow Wiccan had said, but felt she could not. Some communities -- particularly those based more on ethnicity than religion -- keep that as an enduring problem.

quote:
Somewhere on my computer, lost amid my other links, is a link to an information page on statistics on the Inquisition, how many "real witches" might possibly have died (erm...0), how many people were really burned (very few), and so on ... written by a Wiccan for Wiccans, because he was pissed off at the exact same thing that irritates you (and me): the mucking about with historical fact that occurs in the more egotistical groups.
To be fair, a lot of groups muck around with history. Copernicus may have shed light on the physical universe, but that light only penetrates so far. At some level, every person and every group will always rest at the center of its own universe. I'm glad to hear of a movement within the group to preserve history. I'm also always glad to find or hear of another person that respects words.

I just find these fluffy word manipulations more pernicious because they have a strong chance of spreading myth to overwrite history outside the group. Redefining old terms while appealing to identity and victimhood is a devastatingly powerful combination in today's political environment. The same sort of thaumaturgy is my main beef with the whole ss'm' movement -- not just that they seek to redefine the word marriage, but that in order to do so, many of them (like the Goodridge majority) start the argument on the pretense that this is what marriage has always meant.
 
Posted by scouser1 (Member # 3455) on :
 
TO ALL AT AMERICAN ORNERY!!!
Yes, thats right, im back!!! Aww did u guys miss me???
And before I go any further: to the person who sent me a little "threat" in an email: How petty!!
You have excelled yourself, to go to ALL that trouble to email me a threat without being traced is just.....sad.....very very sad.
Going to all that effort just to try and "scare" me?? I dont think so!!
Whoever you are you don't scare me, far from it. All you did was give me a good laugh..thanks [LOL]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
TPG please stop spamming all of the threads with this same rant on your personal issues. If someone emailed you, email them back. Or if you're serious that you were actually *threatened,* then start a new thread to address the matter, rather than pissing over existing threads.

In all the years I've been on Ornery I've only seen one person ever resort to personal threats, and to my knowledge you've never tangled with him. Why don't you start a new thread, post the email, and see if we agree with you that you've actually been "threatened," or whether poor English language skills and other personal qualities have once again led you to a laugable conclusion.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
My guess is that the anti-Halloween twits were the straw that broke the Camel's back for the serious ones. ... In my eyes, that looks like a core of believers are moving the faith towards a more serious and lasting religion.[quote]

That's pretty much exactly it; to be fair, a lot of Wiccans were serious about historical accuracy before the whole "local witch on Halloween" stuff, but that certainly didn't help the fluffies much. And there are an awful lot of Wiccans concerned with making sure their religion has a firm and lasting foundation, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

[quote]Speaking of organization, I've always wondered how what seems like a fairly unorganized faith community maintains what they describe as a warlocking procedure, which seems to be a fairly direct equivalent to excommunication.

I've actually never heard of that. (Alix wanders off to poke around.)

quote:
To be fair, a lot of groups muck around with history.
True, very true. It's part of what fascinates me about history, even as it repels me.

quote:
I just find these fluffy word manipulations more pernicious because they have a strong chance of spreading myth to overwrite history outside the group. Redefining old terms while appealing to identity and victimhood is a devastatingly powerful combination in today's political environment. The same sort of thaumaturgy is my main beef with the whole ss'm' movement -- not just that they seek to redefine the word marriage, but that in order to do so, many of them (like the Goodridge majority) start the argument on the pretense that this is what marriage has always meant.
I get that. One of my etymology teachers used to call it "back-defining", though I don't think that's the proper term for it. But, a question: If one were to make the argument not that that's what marriage has always meant, but that that's what one wants to redefine marriage to mean, would it bother you quite as much?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
bounced for Ciasiab
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Sorry I missed this question by LS. Is LS still around?

"One of my etymology teachers used to call it "back-defining", though I don't think that's the proper term for it. But, a question: If one were to make the argument not that that's what marriage has always meant, but that that's what one wants to redefine marriage to mean, would it bother you quite as much?"

No. Especially if that's how they framed the discussion from its inception, in public.

[ February 26, 2009, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Since I've recently been reminded that folks like to start reading a thread at the end, here's a repost of the starter post of this thread, which is the whole reason that I bumped it.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

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



 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
It's not just folks like me and Martel on the marriage defense side that see ssm as an attempt to completely bury the idea of a child needing a father and a mother.

Gloria Steinem sings the praises of SSM because it would destroy the link between relationships and raising children. SHE DID NOT EVEN MENTION GAY RIGHTS in the interview.


More recent examples of nihilism supporting ssm:

The Bay Windows article titled "To Your Battle Stations" says:

quote:
"Whether you are just coming out, transgender, heterosexual or ideologically opposed to marriage, you do not want to see this campaign [referring to the amendment to reverse the Goodridge atrocity] in Massachusetts."
That's an interesting admission, isn't it? That persons that want to see marriage destroyed, should support ssm?

See also the "Alternatives to Marriage" project which supports ssm as a step on the way to replacing marriage with a totally different system that embraces a "full range" of family types.


 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Ciasiab, I've gone through this thread and exerpted one conversation betweeen myself and kidB, removing parts that I suspect that KB would be as glad as me to see removed. This thread took some tangents, but this discussion with KidB is probably the most on point to the key issue of this thread, the point raised by Walter Fauntroy.

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
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.”

Since Pete put this quote at the very beginning of this thread, I'd like to point out the problem I'm having with it.

First off - and I'm really surprised that no one else has picked up on this yet - I have grave issues with the phrase "Don't confuse my people." This is an infantalizing stance to take, don't you think? I.e. "my people are easily confused". It harkens back to the notion - all-too-rampant in the sixties, and evident in the writings of Malcolm X and other activists - that homosexuality (along with other forms of supposed sexual deviance) is an invention of the white bourgeoise. It is racism, pure and simple.

This leads directly to my next point - that there is an assumption that homosexual orientation is something that can be influenced by social coercion. In other words, legal tolerance of homosexuality leads to more homosexuals (as if heteros can be so tempted to form permanent gay unions they would not otherwise have pursued). I know that Pete is perfectly willing to tolerate gay unions of a sort, but his fears about redefining marriage nonetheless speak to a similar assumption.

Perhaps - if I read him correctly - he is rather afraid that the effect on heterosexual couples will be negative in other ways. In other words, by taking the emphasis of marriage away from child-rearing and emphasisizing sexual love relationships in general, it will lead to a more selfish or self-centered marriage culture, in which the welfare fo children becomes less central to society as a whole.

I however, see the opposite effect. Love and commitment should be a legal and social prerequisite to having children. For most of history, when birth control was both unavailable and/or inadequate, mutual love and attraction as a presrequisite for marriage was seen by most as a foolish, pie-in-the-sky luxury, marriage had to be enforced to make sure that children had parents. One the woman become pregnant (whether as product of genuine sexual love, or simple recklessness) the man had to be made to stay and take care of wife and child. This was when society afford only men a "self" - women were seen as inherently self-less. The male ego had to be restrained and made responsible. This social coercion did not necessarily lead to happiness - nor was it meant to. It was simply in place to make people take responsibility for their actions, to face consequences whether it made them happy or not.

Fine. However, one of the great outcomes of the sexual revolution is the now widespread acceptance that happier parents have healthier children. As such, our modern culture recognizes that women experience desire (i.e. have an ego) just as men do, and encourages planned parenthood rather than accidental parenthood. Our modern view of marriage posits that one should be in love first, and have a secure relationship, before attempting to reproduce. This means that we lead happier lives, and do not have to foist our bitterness about being trapped in an unwanted marriage on our kids. So it seems to me that defining marriage as being about love, first and foremost, would actually benefit children rather than hurt them. In other words, marriage would be defined as "mutual love and lifelong commitment." That would be our social ideal. It may lead to children or it may not. But at least by putting sexual love first, you create a cultural climate in which people learn to take love and sexual happiness seriously, as something socially important.

Children with single parents are not the victims of re-defined marriage. Unplanned children come about when two people took risks that were not appropriate for their lack of commitment to one another. If you want to foster a healthy society, the last thing we should encourage is the idea that marriage is an alter upon which adults sacrifice their happiness to live for their offspring. We should encourage gay marriage, and use the word "marriage," for all the reasons Pete would have us deny it to gays, because it would promote the belief that mutual love and happiness MUST come before any attempt to have children. That gays still have the right to marry members of the opposite sex does not solve the problem, because gays would still be denied the right to marry someone with whom they could fall in love with. An unhappy faux-hetero couple is a far, far worse environment for a child than a happy homo couple.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
First off - and I'm really surprised that no one else has picked up on this yet - I have grave issues with the phrase "Don't confuse my people." This is an infantalizing stance to take, don't you think? I.e. "my people are easily confused".
No. It means "my people are already confused about marriage." And if you paid attention to history, and to what he said, you'd understand the forces that have been set in place to confuse his people with respect to marriage.

Different cultures have different strengths. Many white American cultures are profoundly confused about physical affection, for example. In a healthy culture, guys should be able to hug without inferences of homosexuality.

Until 2001, most Americans were pretty confused about world geography.

Recognizing a weakness and trying to fix it, isn't "infantalizing." Seems like a spurious PC argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
that there is an assumption that homosexual orientation is something that can be influenced by social coercion
No, there isn't in what he said. Pay better attention, and try to see past your stereotypes and preconceptions of anti-ssm arguments. " 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.”

NONE of that has to do with sexual orientation. Sticking in an argument that's not there and then rebutting it is called a "straw man" argument. Don't do that.

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
No. It means "my people are already confused about marriage." And if you paid attention to history, and to what he said, you'd understand the forces that have been set in place to confuse his people with respect to marriage...Recognizing a weakness and trying to fix it, isn't "infantalizing." Seems like a spurious PC argument.
What "forces"? I have paid plenty attention to history, but I'm not a mind-reader, and therefore don't know what the hell you're talking about. Please clarify.
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[unnecessarily hostile stuff exerpted -- sorry KidB]... straw man.

quote:
Children with single parents are not the victims of re-defined marriage.
That depends. If the single parents didn't get married because of the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, or because most men her age she knew were in prison or otherwise ineligible for marriage, then no, it's not.

But if the single parents didn't get married because they were taught about a definition of marriage that was not associated with procreation, then yes, those children are victims of re-defined marriage.

This civil rights leader's point is, that he's trying to teach his people the importance of marriage, and that redefining marriage so that procreation has nothing to do with marriage, undermines his efforts and traps his people in a permanent undercaste.

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
Pete,

If there are "important differences" between men and women, as suggested in the quote, then obviously sexual orientation is directly related to the argument he is making. Not only is it not a straw man, it is central to his argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
KidA, if you honestly have no idea about what he meant when he said that his people "have been the victims of deliberate family destruction," then I apologize. Schools don't really teach this stuff. I'd suggest reading "Beloved" and "Raisin in the Sun."

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
He made clear that these important differences relate to procreation and raising children, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
[qb] [KidB's ritual posturing removed]
[QUOTE] Comparing gay marriage to the consequences of institutional racism is beyond preposterous.

He didn't. He compared the consequence of "gay marriage" (i.e. confusing his people about marriage was, and cementing the sexual revolution's results) to the consequences of institutional racism.

[Pete's ritual posturing removed]

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
It honestly didn't occur to me (until your prompt) that someone - either he or you - would seriously draw such a comparison in the year 2006. Okay then, do you really want me to go on at length as to why the current problems faced by the African-American community are NOT the result of the gay rights movement? Rather than, say, the continuing effects of racism and a total lack of funding for adequate education? ...

I give the African-American community enough credit that they are not any more likely to be "confused" on any issue than any other American community. I do not take them for simpletons.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[kidB said]: "Perhaps - if I read him correctly - he is rather afraid that the effect on heterosexual couples will be negative in other ways. In other words, by taking the emphasis of marriage away from child-rearing and emphasisizing sexual love relationships in general, it will lead to a more selfish or self-centered marriage culture, in which the welfare fo children becomes less central to society as a whole."

...

Seems more on point that he's concerned that it will be harder to persuade girls to postpone making babies until marriage, if marriage isn't about raising children any more. Many black leaders feel that a lack of FATHERS plagues the black community. How a self-designated expert on african-american literature misses that little fact is beyond me. This whole debate trains the left to completely dance around that issue, and that's part of the problem here.


 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
But since Pete's pro-choice, that leaves us with "hypothetical potential for unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation."

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I consider abortion an atrocity, but an atrocity that's outside the jurisdiction of any reasonable human government, just as a typical murder in China is outside US jurisdiction. No constitution-respecting American should trust the government to tell a woman when she must menstruate. I certainly do not believe in encouraging people to abort babies that they don't want, let alone institutionalizing the assumption that unplanned or unwanted pregnancies should be aborted.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Holy thread necromancy, Batman!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Cheer up; at least I didn't resurrect this one yet. [LOL]
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
The way dead threads keep coming back to life here, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next Romero movie is called Ornery of the Dead.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

I'm sorry, what was that, Tom?

[LOL]
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1