Moderated Thread: Gay Marriage.

[Upchurch]

As requested by Christian here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36256&pagenumber=4), this thread will be a moderated debate on topic of gay marriage.

The rules are: no flaming from any parties involved in the thread.
no major derailments from the subject matter.
no graphic sexual language.
address only the arguments that a poster posts here, not arguments s/he has posted in other threads.
New: no personal attacks: address only the qualities of the argument, not the qualities of the poster.
usual forum rules (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17420) still apply.These rules may be subject to change as we work the bugs out of the system, so please refer to this post if there is any question. This is an experiment so please address any concerns or suggestions about the running of this thread to this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36256&pagenumber=4).

I reserve the right to delete any or all of any post in this thread that is in violation of the above rules, although I will refrain from doing so whenever possible. For decisions based on the special rules of this thread, there is no appeal.

If there is a violation of the special rules that you think I have not addressed, please PM me rather than using the Report This Post function. Thank you.

DISCLAIMER: Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a natural thing (i.e. genetic) in the human race and that gays should be allowed to marry the person they love, regardless of their gender. Despite my personal bias, I will do my very best to not favor one side over the other. Christian, who disagrees with me on this topic, knows my view point and trusts me to be objective and fair in my decisions.

[MRC_Hans]

My position is that whatever consenting adults do in privacy, for mutual pleasure, is their own choice and nobody else's business.

Further, that lasting partnership between two adults is not primarily a reproductive arrangement, thus it does not matter what reproductive genders they are. Therefore I hold it that the possibility of legally valid marriage should be available for all couples who desire it.

Religious marriages between homosexuals must be left to the decision of the involved religion. This provided that the religion is independent. State religions like for instance the Danish Luteran Church constitute special cases; I'm undecided there.

Hans

Edited for clarity

[Christian]

I'm against gay marriage. This is some of the reasoning. (I want to keep the initial posts short as to move the thread along.

1. The building block of society is the family.

2. The state has an interest (obligation) to regulate matters of the family because it affects society as a whole.

3. Matters of the common good must be above privacy issues (in most if not all cases).


If all of these are correct, then we must prove why gay marriages undermine society; why it is not a proper building block.

To prove this, we must look first at the institution of marriage. It is, for all intent and purposes, the first legal institution in history.

Now, I want to be clear about something.

I'm not against same sex unions. People should be free to do as they please in their privacy.

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a natural thing (i.e. genetic) in the human race and that gays should be allowed to marry the person they love, regardless of their gender.


This is what I believe also. People are BORN gay. They can't just change. (Even if they wanted to)

To restrict their total commitment (financial, legal, emotional, etc) with each other over RELIGIOUS doctrine is ridiculous.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Christian
1. The building block of society is the family.

1. No, it is the single person. Single people are equally valuable members of society. Even if your hypothesis were true, we can include gay couples in the "family" definition.

So, no reason to debate points 2 & 3.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Christian

1. The building block of society is the family.

2. The state has an interest (obligation) to regulate matters of the family because it affects society as a whole.

3. Matters of the common good must be above privacy issues (in most if not all cases).

If these are reasons to ban gay marriage, then implicit in them is the expectation that a gay family is somehow inferior in parenting skills to a straight family. Otherwise, one would think that gay marriage would produce a number of new families to adopt (or have their own) children, and this is a win-win situation. Is this your assumption? On what do you base this?

Also implicit in these assumptions is that marriage exists for the sake of raising children. Why then should heterosexual couples who do not wish to (or cannot) have children be afforded an opportunity that a gay couple who wishes to adopt cannot be granted?

[Christian]

El Greco wrote:
1. No, it is the single person. Single people are equally valuable members of society. Even if your hypothesis were true, we can include gay couples in the "family" definition.

Saying it is so, does not make it so. You are building a strawman. Of course individuals are the most valuable members of society.

The point is the state regulates "institutions". Individuals don't make institutions until they associate in some way. That is where the state comes in.

[jimlintott]

Originally posted by Christian
I'm against gay marriage. This is some of the reasoning. (I want to keep the initial posts short as to move the thread along.

1. The building block of society is the family.

2. The state has an interest (obligation) to regulate matters of the family because it affects society as a whole.

3. Matters of the common good must be above privacy issues (in most if not all cases).


If all of these are correct, then we must prove why gay marriages undermine society; why it is not a proper building block.

To prove this, we must look first at the institution of marriage. It is, for all intent and purposes, the first legal institution in history.

Now, I want to be clear about something.

I'm not against same sex unions. People should be free to do as they please in their privacy.

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.

1. It doesn't always have to be Mommy, Daddy and 1.7 children. It can easily be two mommies with children from past relationships.

2. The state should stay out of the affiars of the family. Society will move in the direction it wants or needs to. To regulate and artificially direct it would be a mistake.

3. I am not sure how that applies.

Heterosexual couples with kids really don't enjoy that many extra benefits. The things that many gay couples are looking for are, in my opinion, basic human rights. They should have the right to property and benefits the same as any married couple.

edited to remove personal attack. Stick to the argument.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco
1. No, it is the single person. Single people are equally valuable members of society. Even if your hypothesis were true, we can include gay couples in the "family" definition.


Socirety is to a degree built around bring up the next genration. The family has the function of primary and to a degree secondary socalisation. Therefore it is in socerities interests to support the function of the family.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Christian
What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.

Isn't this called being a bigot?

[Christian]

Mercutio wrote:
If these are reasons to ban gay marriage, then implicit in them is the expectation that a gay family is somehow inferior in parenting skills to a straight family.

Correct.

On what do you base this?

The studies on the importance of the opposite sex to the children. Daughter-Father, Mother-Son.

Also implicit in these assumptions is that marriage exists for the sake of raising children. Why then should heterosexual couples who do not wish to (or cannot) have children be afforded an opportunity that a gay couple who wishes to adopt cannot be granted?

Because if they want to, they always can. And they are genetically apt for the task.

From the State's point of view, the most important aspect of marriage is the family. Most laws regarding family have to do with the well being of the family unit.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Christian
The point is the state regulates "institutions". Individuals don't make institutions until they associate in some way. That is where the state comes in.

State regulates "individuals" much more than "institutions". Almost every kind of law is about individuals and not "families"

Originally posted by Geni
Socirety is to a degree built around bring up the next genration. The family has the function of primary and to a degree secondary socalisation. Therefore it is in socerities interests to support the function of the family.

What you are talking about is a primitive form of society. By these standards we should also kill disabled people. We have advanced a lot since these days. Our societies take pride in that they can provide (or at least try to) equal chances to weak minorities.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by geni


Socirety is to a degree built around bring up the next genration. The family has the function of primary and to a degree secondary socalisation. Therefore it is in socerities interests to support the function of the family.

Bringing up the next generation can be encouraged by basing rights and privileges around children, rather than the parents' relationship. What about unmarried parents?

Marriage is about the state recognising a commitment between two people. If it were about raising children, the legal focus would be on their benefits rather than parents' benefits.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco
What you are talking about is a primitive form of society. By these standards we should also kill disabled people. We have advanced a lot since these days. Our societies take pride in that they can provide (or at least try to) equal chances to weak minorities.

How do you reach this conclision?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by triadboy


Isn't this called being a bigot? This is irrelevent to whether or not marriage should be only granted to heterosexuals. Please refrain from name calling.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Christian

1. The building block of society is the family.



Please define the word family as you know it.

[The Don]

If the assertion is that Gay Marriage should be banned because it fails to provide progeny, then (voluntarily) childless marriages like my own should also be banned.

If the issue is one regarding how the children should be brought up "Homosexuals will raise their children gay" or "Seeing a loving gay couple will present too positive a view of homosexuality" then marriage should be prohibited between individuals either one of which holds views which differ "significantly" from the accepted norms. This clearly is not a tenable solution.

To turn the question on its head....

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.

Why should a gay person, who has been in a long term relationship for a number of years be prevented from:
- Stating so in a formal ceremony
- Sharing pension and healthcare rights
- Having their union blessed religiously so long as the religion is prepared to do so (remember we're not just talking Christianity/monoatheism here)

What harm does it do to sanction these unions ?

[geni]

Originally posted by Matabiri
[B]

Bringing up the next generation can be encouraged by basing rights and privileges around children, rather than the parents' relationship. What about unmarried parents?

I didn't use the term maraige in my post. How socerity supports the family is a different issue.


Marriage is about the state recognising a commitment between two people. If it were about raising children, the legal focus would be on their benefits rather than parents' benefits.

But I wasn't talking about the state recoognising the comitment between two people I was responding to El Greco's statment about the family.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni


How do you reach this conclision?

Isn't this evident ? Don't we provide health care to those who need it ? Don't we support disabled people instead of leaving them behind ? Don't we provide the right to work to anyone ? Aren't people with problems given several social advantages and tax reductions ?

In a selfish-gene society we would only care for the survival of the stronger and smarter.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Christian

Also implicit in these assumptions is that marriage exists for the sake of raising children. Why then should heterosexual couples who do not wish to (or cannot) have children be afforded an opportunity that a gay couple who wishes to adopt cannot be granted?

Because if they want to, they always can. And they are genetically apt for the task.

And what about those who cannot, who are genetically inapt for the task (sterility, defective genes, etc.) ? Should they be barred from marriage, then ?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by geni


I didn't use the term maraige in my post. How socerity supports the family is a different issue.

But I wasn't talking about the state recoognising the comitment between two people I was responding to El Greco's statment about the family.

The basis of Christian's argument (as I understand) is that marriage is essentially about family, and family is about children. So they are intimately connected, in that context.

And how does society support the "family" at the moment? By encouraging marriage through various benefits and rights granted to married couples over unmarried couples. So they are also linked in this context.

[Christian]

1. It doesn't always have to be Mommy, Daddy and 1.7 children. It can easily be two mommies with children from past relationships.

The State can only compell the daddy for social responsibility. And this is the point, the State can try to create the conditions for the ideal situation by creating the laws that encourage marriage. But people are free to do as they please.

The ideal from is marriage for society to continue.

2. The state should stay out of the affiars of the family. Society will move in the direction it wants or needs to. To regulate and artificially direct it would be a mistake.

Absolutely not. The State should have a deep hand in the family. We don't want parents abusing their children, we don't want men hitting their wives, etc. We want parents to be financially responsible too.

Heterosexual couples with kids really don't enjoy that many extra benefits. The things that many gay couples are looking for are, in my opinion, basic human rights. They should have the right to property and benefits the same as any married couple.

They don't need marriage for this.

El Greco wrote:
State regulates "individuals" much more than "institutions". Almost every kind of law is about individuals and not "families"

You are missing something here. The State regulates individuals precisely in relation to other individuals. They are all social norms. The State is compelled by the common good. The protection of society from individuals and vice versa.

Matabiri wrote:
Bringing up the next generation can be encouraged by basing rights and privileges around children, rather than the parents' relationship. What about unmarried parents?

Unmarried parents fall under the same rules for children.

Marriage is about the state recognising a commitment between two people. If it were about raising children, the legal focus would be on their benefits rather than parents' benefits.

This is partly so, but the main enphasis is the family unit. Remember, the parents benefits are in direct relation to children's benefit.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Flo
And what about those who cannot, who are genetically inapt for the task (sterility, defective genes, etc.) ? Should they be barred from marriage, then ?

Those were my thoughts as well. Almost every argument levied against gay marriage is also levied against hetero couples who do not breed.

Also, any argument against gay couple parenting belongs in a debate about gay parenting, and not this discussion. We're just debating whether gays can marry, once that is settled we can move on to parenting issues.

Speaking of which, I would like to see a moderated debate on that as well. :)

[jimlintott]

The studies on the importance of the opposite sex to the children. Daughter-Father, Mother-Son.

While no links or references to these studies are provided I would suspect that the best conclusions this type of study could offer would be nothing more than broad generalisations.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Flo


And what about those who cannot, who are genetically inapt for the task (sterility, defective genes, etc.) ? Should they be barred from marriage, then ? This line of questioning (made by several people) is slidding down the slope, ironically enough, to a "Slippery Slope Argument". ;)

If you feel there is a connection between banning gay marriages and banning childless marriages, please make the argument that Christian (or whoever) can attempt to counter rather than merely implying the connection.

edited to add: This is not meant for just Flo, BTW.
Originally posted by Keneke
Also, any argument against gay couple parenting belongs in a debate about gay parenting, and not this discussion. We're just debating whether gays can marry, once that is settled we can move on to parenting issues.I'm inclined to agree, but Christian opened the door to the parenting issue as one of his reasons against gay marriage. That is why I haven't guided the discussion away from it.

But please, in the future, make sure to relate your arguments on gay marriage, pro or con.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


Isn't this evident ? Don't we provide health care to those who need it ? Don't we support disabled people instead of leaving them behind ? Don't we provide the right to work to anyone ? Aren't people with problems given several social advantages and tax reductions ?

In a selfish-gene society we would only care for the survival of the stronger and smarter.

Where I am talking about a selfish gene society? I said that the family function of bring up children. This is a stament of fact. Of course this gets interiesting when it comes to defineing what consitues a family.

[geni]

Originally posted by Matabiri


The basis of Christian's argument (as I understand) is that marriage is essentially about family, and family is about children. So they are intimately connected, in that context.


False dilema.

And how does society support the "family" at the moment? By encouraging marriage through various benefits and rights granted to married couples over unmarried couples. So they are also linked in this context.

So? Just because the current method of supporting the faimly is through marraige doesn't mean this can't or wont change.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If you feel there is a connection between banning gay marriages and banning childless marriages, please make the argument that Christian (or whoever) can attempt to counter rather than merely implying the connection.

Ok, then. Christian's main point is that marriage is all about the family. Childless marriages defy this description blatantly. Therefore, Christian's broad condemnation would catch in its net any marriage not within his scope of acceptability. Unless he wishes to un-polarize the issue, I feel it is within reason to ask him the fate of childless couples in relation to his definition of marriage.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
Where I am talking about a selfish gene society? I said that the family function of bring up children. This is a stament of fact.

Modern societies have already redefined "family". It's purpose is not just to raise kids. A "family" in some cases is the right of two persons to be taxed together. In other cases it means just a group of people living together. There are lots of ways to see it.

Even if we assume that raising kids is the primary function of a family, there is no reason that same sex couples can't do that.

[jimlintott]

And this is the point, the State can try to create the conditions for the ideal situation by creating the laws that encourage marriage.

That is what this is about. By only recognising certain unions the state is actaully discouraging marriage. In fact, some marriages are illegal. Not all married people are families and not all families have a married couple at their center.

We don't want parents abusing their children, we don't want men hitting their wives, etc.

These things are illegal and immoral in or out of marriage. I am always personally against state involvement in most matters.



They don't need marriage for this.

True. You don't need marriage to have a family either. The best way to describe the needs of a modern gay couple is the same as those enjoyed by a married hetero couple. I really don't care what it is called as long as we stop denying basic human rights to certain people based on sexual preference.

[Christian]

TamyO wrote:
Please define the word family as you know it.

from law.com
family
n. 1) husband, wife and children. 2) all blood relations. 3) all who live in the same household including servants and relatives, with some person or persons directing this economic and social unit.

Matarabi wrote:
The basis of Christian's argument (as I understand) is that marriage is essentially about family, and family is about children. So they are intimately connected, in that context.

And how does society support the "family" at the moment? By encouraging marriage through various benefits and rights granted to married couples over unmarried couples. So they are also linked in this context.

Man, I wish I could write like this.

This is correct. The State encourages marriage with rights and privileages because it is in the best interest of society. (just like giving incentive to private corporations to donate).

Gay couples can acquire rights and benefits in many other legal ways. Property rights, pensions and the like can be attain through other means.

What should not happen is that that State encourage this type of union. It is correct in giving special privileages to a man and woman that want to start a family because of all the benefits this brings to society, the common good.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by El Greco
Modern societies have already redefined "family". It's purpose is not just to raise kids.

I would assume that any arguments for "family" mean, specifically, "nuclear family" for the purpose of this debate.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco

Modern societies have already redefined "family". It's purpose is not just to raise kids. A "family" in some cases is the right of two persons to be taxed together. In other cases it means just a group of people living together. There are lots of ways to see it.

what you are describing is a couple. A family is a group whoes funtion is to bring up the next generation. How this is done or who deos it i don't care


Even if we assume that raising kids is the primary function of a family, there is no reason that same sex couples can't do that.

I don't recall say that there wasn't.

[Christian]

Yes, please nuclear family I mean.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Matabiri


The basis of Christian's argument (as I understand) is that marriage is essentially about family, and family is about children. So they are intimately connected, in that context.

And how does society support the "family" at the moment? By encouraging marriage through various benefits and rights granted to married couples over unmarried couples. So they are also linked in this context.

I can only speak from a UK perspective but currently the rights that are withheld for a gay couple since they are not allowed to have a state marriage can be described as power of attorney and inheritance (including pensions, life insurance benefits etc.).

The state marriage in the UK does not grant any rights in the sense of "family". For instance a woman marrying a widower with a child would not gain any rights regarding the child just because they have entered into a state sanctioned marriage with the child's father.

In the UK the state offers lots of support for "families" but these are not derived from the state of marriage, for instance the major financial support system in the UK (approx £5 billion per annum) is called "Working Family Tax Credit" and this is payable to couples (married or not) and to lone parents.

In the UK the rights to "support the family" are really granted via the right of the child to have their best interest considered paramount at all times, not the best interest of a single or married parent.

Therefore in the UK allowing gay people to enter into a state marriage does not have any effect on the support the state gives to families.


(Edited for few bits and bobs)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
what you are describing is a couple. A family is a group whoes funtion is to bring up the next generation. How this is done or who deos it i don't care

Then we perceive family differently. Two brothers living with their aunt is a family to me. Or maybe 3 friends living together. If we assume a less legal definition, then "family" is what makes one feel like "family".

[Christian]

Keneke wrote:
Ok, then. Christian's main point is that marriage is all about the family. Childless marriages defy this description blatantly. Therefore, Christian's broad condemnation would catch in its net any marriage not within his scope of acceptability. Unless he wishes to un-polarize the issue, I feel it is within reason to ask him the fate of childless couples in relation to his definition of marriage.

marriage is about the nuclear family. Childless marriages don't defy this definition.

The most important thing here is that childless marriages are apt to the task of rasing a family. They can if they want to (including adoption). They still get the protection of the State.


And I want to point out that all legislation in most countries, follow this line of reasoning. This is the prevanlent reasoning behing marriage legislation.

I do understand that that reasoning is being challenged. Time will tell if gay marriage does not undermine society.

Here a link to father love:

Father love (http://academic.uofs.edu/student/sitoskis2/fatherlove.html)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Darat

Therefore in the UK allowing gay people to enter into a state marriage does not have any effect on the support the state gives to families.


I was trying to tie Geni's objection that he was talking about "families" rather than marriage back together...

This is the way it should be, I think. If the state wants to encourage families, let it do so. But marriage is a social convention, and shouldn't really have any legal overtones - if these legalities didn't exist, there would be no reason for the state to get involved, and you could get married/whatever in the institution of your choice. By Elvis, if you want. It's generally much cheaper and easier to get your arse in gear and write a will than actually get married, for things like inheritance etc.

Of course this may not cover pensions etc., but that can be sorted out, I'm sure. Insurance companies accept "couples" (i.e. people who co-habit) that aren't married now.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian

[b]...snip...


And I want to point out that all legislation in most countries, follow this line of reasoning. This is the prevanlent reasoning behing marriage legislation.

...snip...[/URL]

Can you please provide evidence to support this claim? As I point out above in the UK this is not the case (and the UK is a Christian not secular state).

It has always been my belief that the reasoning behind marriage acts have been about property and inheritance rights not family issues.

(Edited because it looked like I was quoting Keneke - sorry.)

[Christian]

Darat:

You bring out excellent example of why the State is compelled to intervene and you are actually making for not allowing gay marriages the same privileages as to other couples.

The state marriage in the UK does not grant any rights in the sense of "family". For instance a woman marrying a widower with a child would not gain any rights regarding the child just because they have entered into a state sanctioned marriage with the child's father.

Exactly. The reason why is because the woman is not the blood relative to the child. The State fairly assumes that only a woman that has had the child will be more likely to take care of him/her in the manner that is necessary.

In my country, to gain the same legal status as the natural mother, the woman must adopt and adoption is an arduous process where the person must prove to the state that it is apt for the task.

Do you see the implications? The State assumes (rightly so) that a natural father and mother don't need to prove this to the State. It grants these rights and obligations immediately.

A nuclear family is the ideal stage for these rights and obligations.

In the UK the state offers lots of support for "families" but these are not derived from the state of marriage, for instance the major financial support system in the UK (approx £5 billion per annum) is called "Working Family Tax Credit" and this is payable to couples (married or not) and to lone parents.


And I'm sure there must be a blood relation to at least one of the parents to the child.

In the UK the rights to "support the family" are really granted via the right of the child to have their best interest considered paramount at all times, not the best interest of a single or married parent.

Excellent, but the way children are born is throught the relation between a man and a woman. There is no other way. So, the State is compelled to encourage that that same man and woman stay together for the children.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


Then we perceive family differently. Two brothers living with their aunt is a family to me. Or maybe 3 friends living together. If we assume a less legal definition, then "family" is what makes one feel like "family".

Thoes age examples of what I would call household howevr if you want to describe them as families I 'm not going to try and stop you.
However I see no reason why the state should provide any more support for household than it does for indivduals.

[Keneke]

Actually, the definition of nuclear family is mother, father, and children. So a childless couple is not considered a nuclear family.

(American heritage dictionary, 3rd ed.)

Also, how do you address single parents? They would seem to have problems with child raising as well. If a lesbian couple and a gay couple took a child in and lived in one big house, would this satisfy every need of the child?

The point I am trying to make is that you are showing that facets of non-nuclear-family life are bad for the child. However, in so doing, you cannot separate the apparent harm of gay couples from the harm of other, similar households. To condemn gay marriages for these reasons is to condemn any household that deviates from perfection. We all know this is unrealistic.

[Atlas]

So far, if I haven't misread, no one is against stable, long-lasting, loving, state sanctioned relationships for gays.

There is a word, Marriage, that has had a Man and Woman meaning, for a long period of time, that many don't feel the need to change the definition of.

In this, it it my contention that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.

A ceremony granting all right and privileges, but calling itself, "Kinnage" or "Twinnage" or even Mutual Adoption would satisfy the legal and state sanctioning issues.

Plus we make up words all the time. Lee Marvin several years ago learned of something called Palimony. From the inside of the experience, I'm sure it felt like Alimony, but Marvin's relationship didn't meet any definition that would lead to Alimony.

Is this argument semantic? Don't we all prefer gays to be the respected full citizens that they are? Where their 'ways' are not our 'ways' is it wrong to be discriminating in our choice of words and definitions? I am not against gay marriage. But I do think it would be a win-win situation for society if the gay community would ask for gay kinnage (with all rights and privileges) instead of gay marriage.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Atlas
In this, it it my contention that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.

Civil Unions? Also, perhaps a federal law stating that civil unions and marriages are equal in the eyes of the gov't. ::shrug:: I don't know about the whole separate-but-equal thing. Reminds me of the half-hearted civil rights laws passed before the government crumbled completely.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Christian
"Heterosexual couples with kids really don't enjoy that many extra benefits. The things that many gay couples are looking for are, in my opinion, basic human rights. They should have the right to property and benefits the same as any married couple." - jimlintott

They don't need marriage for this.


Ah, but they do, Blanche, they do.

Marriage brings with it certain benefits; here are some that would be impossible - or at least very, very difficult - to establish through private contracts:

a) Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
b) Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
c) Applying for joint foster care rights.
d) Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
e) Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
f) Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
g) Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
h) Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
i) Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
j) Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

These and many others can be viewed in a report from the General Accounting Office after Clinton signed the DOMA: http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

The above is me quoting myself quoting someone else; I believe the original list (after doing some Googling) is at Nolo (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825).

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Keneke


Civil Unions? Also, perhaps a federal law stating that civil unions and marriages are equal in the eyes of the gov't. ::shrug:: I don't know about the whole separate-but-equal thing. Reminds me of civil rights acts in the 60's.

It's not just about having the same rights, though, it's also about being seen to have the same rights. Hence, terminology must be the same to emphasise this.


I am happily married
You are getting along alright, considering
They are in the relationship from Hell

[Keneke]

Right, Matabiri, hence my comparison to the 60's.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
…snip…

You bring out excellent example of why the State is compelled to intervene and you are actually making for not allowing gay marriages the same privileages as to other couples.

…snip…

Exactly. The reason why is because the woman is not the blood relative to the child. The State fairly assumes that only a woman that has had the child will be more likely to take care of him/her in the manner that is necessary.

In my country, to gain the same legal status as the natural mother, the woman must adopt and adoption is an arduous process where the person must prove to the state that it is apt for the task.

Do you see the implications? The State assumes (rightly so) that a natural father and mother don't need to prove this to the State. It grants these rights and obligations immediately.



But this has nothing to do with marriage. The state "gives" those rights based on whose sperm and egg conceived the child. (There have been legal cases in the UK regarding this over the last decade or so since egg and sperm donation carries the rights of parenthood with them.) Marriage has nothing to do with those rights. I fail utterly to understand how you can believe this supports your contention.

Originally posted by Christian

And I'm sure there must be a blood relation to at least one of the parents to the child.


Again this is nothing to do with marriage this is to do with the state supporting a family - and a family is not defined by marriage as far as the state is concerned.

Originally posted by Christian


Excellent, but the way children are born is throught the relation between a man and a woman. There is no other way. So, the State is compelled to encourage that that same man and woman stay together for the children.

Not in the UK, the state assumes that a child's best interest is paramount and will remove a child from a parent or parents if it deems that is best for the child. Again this has nothing to do with marriage and the rights that a couple gains through marriage.

All the above are "family" issues and "family" rights and in the UK are not granted or supported by a UK state marriage.

Let me re-iterate my point, in the UK the rights that a gay couple would gain by being allowed to enter into a state marriage have nothing to do with families. The rights a heterosexual couple gain when they marry have nothing to do with families.

This link does not exist in the UK, therefore by your argument gay state marriages should be allowed in the UK.

[Matabiri]

To further the terminology concept, would it be objectionable if the hypothetical state ordained "civil unions", with all the legal rights and nicities previously discussed, and "marriage" was left up to the churches/tabernacles/whatever and had no legal standing?

Or is it state recognition of a union of any kind that is the problem?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Hence, terminology must be the same to emphasize this.
I think where something is sufficiently different there is no need to emphasize it's sameness with the thing that it is not the same as.

We still identify doors leading to bathrooms with different words "Men" and "Women".

Not that marriage leads to a flusher.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Atlas

A ceremony granting all right and privileges, but calling itself, "Kinnage" or "Twinnage" or even Mutual Adoption would satisfy the legal and state sanctioning issues.

...

I think where something is sufficiently different there is no need to emphasize it's sameness with the thing that it is not the same as.

We still identify doors leading to bathrooms with different words "Men" and "Women".

Not that marriage leads to a flusher.

If it grants all the same rights and privileges, how is it "not the same"?

[Gestahl]

Some people seem really hung up on the whole "homosexual family" thing. Some questions for myself and others to consider (I do not know the answers, and am welcome to instruction).

1) Is it currently legal for a common-law homosexual partnerships to adopt a child (this is the only way to get a child, other than intra-family adoption, which the state has no say in anyway, and the situation below)? If not, what is the barrier, being married or being homosexual? (I think they are at least in some states).

2) Is the situation described earlier in the UK true here as well? I.e. are marriages allowed in the US without automatic joint custody of children from a previous marriage? (I think you can).

3) Is it currently legal for a gay couple to share the same household as a child (Uncle Bob and Uncle Moe live upstairs)? I should sure hope so.

Since 3 is yes, I see no reason why kids cannot be exposed to gay partnerships within the family (yes even the "nuclear" family... I had an uncle that lived with us, and was like a second father to me).

If 2 is yes, this separates the legallity of marriage versus the legallity of custody, further weakening the argument.

I don't want to move the topic away from the marriage aspect, but some people are putting emphasis on families, and I the consequences of gay marriage upon it, and I want to show it is a non-issue. I think you will see no change in the reality or legality of family structures if homosexual marriage is allowed, just a checkbox on a tax form and additional powers of attorney.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Matabiri
If it grants all the same rights and privileges, how is it "not the same"? I thought the bathroom door analogy was sufficient to suggest a difference.

One definition, Marriage, would not be about same-sex unions; the other word would be. Otherwise, it's all porcelain.

[Atlas]

For anyone who is interested, this March 9th opinion piece (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml) by Thomas Sowell addesses some of the issues here from the conservative side of the argument.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Atlas
I thought the bathroom door analogy was sufficient to suggest a difference.

One definition, Marriage, would not be about same-sex unions; the other word would be. Otherwise, it's all porcelain.

Not really. You use bathrooms in various places, and hence how they are labelled has a direct bearing on your behaviour. You don't turn up in someone's house and use their marriage for a bit.

Marriage, as a word, has emotional baggage.

Why not just use the new term "kinnage" for both arrangements?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Matabiri
To further the terminology concept, would it be objectionable if the hypothetical state ordained "civil unions", with all the legal rights and nicities previously discussed, and "marriage" was left up to the churches/tabernacles/whatever and had no legal standing?

Or is it state recognition of a union of any kind that is the problem?

I used to be more or less of the opinion of "let everyone get married" but after reading the many points of views raised in the debate regarding gay state marriages I've come to a quite different view which is that the state shouldn't have the ability to withhold rights based on who people want to live or not live with.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Atlas
For anyone who is interested, this March 9th opinion piece (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml) by Thomas Sowell addesses some of the issues here from the conservative side of the argument.

Doesn't this argument


If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco want to resign their jobs and start advocating gay marriage, they have every right to do so. But that is wholly different from using the authority delegated to them under the law to subvert the law.


also imply that anyone in, say, Senate, or Parliament, who forwards a bill or votes for or against a new law is using the authority delegated to them to subvert the law? They're in a position of authority, and yet they're playing at politics! Can't have that!

[Darat]

Originally posted by Atlas
For anyone who is interested, this March 9th opinion piece (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml) by Thomas Sowell addesses some of the issues here from the conservative side of the argument.

That's a great piece of satire.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Not really. You use bathrooms in various places, and hence how they are labeled has a direct bearing on your behaviour. You don't turn up in someone's house and use their marriage for a bit.Inside the home is one thing. But we are referring to how society recognizes a difference in public.

Marriage, as a word, has emotional baggage.

Why not just use the new term "kinnage" for both arrangements? I agree. I think this might indeed be the way to go. Choose a new word that all can use if they wish and leave the other, emotionally charged word and definition alone.

Over time, the distinction will dissipate. I am looking for a win-win solution that no one feels slighted or abused by. A new word can accomplish this, at least I think it can.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Atlas
Inside the home is one thing. But we are referring to how society recognizes a difference in public.

I agree. I think this might indeed be the way to go. Choose a new word that all can use if they wish and leave the other, emotionally charged word and definition alone.

Over time, the distinction will dissipate. I am looking for a win-win solution that no one feels slighted or abused by. A new word can accomplish this, at least I think it can.

But it just promotes discrimination. On an application form I tick the box for "kinnage" or "marriage", if they both are the same apart from the name all it is doing is saying whether I am "gay" or "straight". Is it right then, if on an application for say house insurance, I have to say if I am gay or straight?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Doesn't this argument ~/snip/~ also imply that anyone in, say, Senate, or Parliament, who forwards a bill or votes for or against a new law is using the authority delegated to them to subvert the law? They're in a position of authority, and yet they're playing at politics! Can't have that! No, executives are charged with enforcing the law. We don't expect them to subvert it.

The legislative branch is charged with creating the law. They should be the branch who addresses this issue through new legislation.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Darat
But it just promotes discrimination. On an application form I tick the box for "kinnage" or "marriage", if they both are the same apart from the name all it is doing is saying whether I am "gay" or "straight". Is it right then, if on an application for say house insurance, I have to say if I am gay or straight? I don't know if it promotes discrimination. If the new word is acceptable enough in its meaning, your application might just use the new word... Kinned?

'Marriage' might slowly be retired from state applications in favor of the more inclusive new word.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Darat


I used to be more or less of the opinion of "let everyone get married" but after reading the many points of views raised in the debate regarding gay state marriages I've come to a quite different view which is that the state shouldn't have the ability to withhold rights based on who people want to live or not live with.

It depends on what you define marriage as being for.

The arguments about it being primarily about raising children have been covered, and it's clearly not about that.

If it's about domestic arrangements: someone to spend the rest of your life with; someone to have sex with; someone to coo over kittens, babies, and house prices with, then I agree with you. That's nothing to do with the state.

However, there's also an argument to be made for some legal form of partnership, whereby all the things mentioned by LFTKBS kick in - particularly useful things like the other member of the partnership automatically gaining power of attorney in the case of incapacitation and so on. But this form of legal partnership could be between any two people (and two makes sense, otherwise your multiple spouses might argue over the best way to treat your unconscious body...). In this case, of course, you need someone you can trust.

[Acrimonious]

If it grants all the same rights and privileges, how is it "not the same"?

A half a century after Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka Kansas overturned the 1896 ruling in Plessy vs Fergusen, you want to go back to "Separate but Equal."

I'm going to go with old Chief Justice Warren on this. Separate is rarely, if ever, equal.

Yes, this issue is with sexual orientation and not race. But please tell me, I seem to have forgotten: What's the difference between being arbitrarily born Black and being arbitrarily born Homosexual that causes you to accept one's equality over the other?

Welcome to America, where everyone is equal unless they are homosexual.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Christian
Mercutio wrote:
[If these are reasons to ban gay marriage, then implicit in them is the expectation that a gay family is somehow inferior in parenting skills to a straight family.

Christian
Correct.



That certainly doesn't follow. There are more reasons than this. You see it's also a psychological thing. People throughout society as a whole are liable to be psychologically be distressed if their offspring, or their neighbours, or even total strangers were to marry people of the same sex.

Rather than drone on about this let me illustrate it by an extreme case. If instead of burrowing people in the ground when they die, it were proposed we chopped up their bodies and ate them, then how would we feel about that? Perhaps the meat could be sold at supermarkets, or given away to the poor or homeless, or whatever. I suggest that a lot . .nay . .virtually everyone would be extremely psychologically distressed about such a proposition.

But of course one could argue that it is perfectly logical and rational. Why let all that lovely meat to go to waste? Besides, it's only going to be eaten by worms or whatever. They are just dead lumps of meat!

Now of course I am not suggesting that the psychological distress, if gay marriage was sanctioned, would be anywhere near as psychologically distressful as that. Nevertheless it is not something we can entirely dismiss either.

None of the foregoing means that I am opposed to gay marriage. But I do think that its introduction should be very cautious and done with sensitivity to all views.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Atlas
I don't know if it promotes discrimination. If the new word is acceptable enough in its meaning, your application might just use the new word... Kinned?

'Marriage' might slowly be retired from state applications in favor of the more inclusive new word.

But I thought you said there would be a difference in that a straight couple would not be able to say "We're kinned" they'd have to declare "We're married" and vice-a-versa?

If each type of union has the same rights why should the state force you to tell people (by having to use kinned or marriage) the sex of your partner?

I still think the best way to avoid any of this is to stop the state giving extra rights to people based on the sex of the person they choose to share their life with.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
However I see no reason why the state should provide any more support for household than it does for indivduals.

The state should provide for any two individuals that choose to "marry" the same support that it provides for a traditional "couple". And it will, there is no doubt about it. What we are discussing now will be a non-issue in a few decades.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Doesn't this argument

snip ...

also imply that anyone in, say, Senate, or Parliament, who forwards a bill or votes for or against a new law is using the authority delegated to them to subvert the law? They're in a position of authority, and yet they're playing at politics! Can't have that!

The purpose of the Senate is to create laws. The purpose of the judicial system is to enforce laws. So, no, the roles are different for these two branches of the government.

On the topic of gay marriage:

In the interest of human rights, the government should treat men and women equally. In this, all official dealings and sanctions should be applied blindly to both genders.

If the state officially recognizes the legal union of two individuals (heterosexual marriage), then it is discriminating against one gender or another when it prevents gay marriage. It is preventing marriage simply because one member of the couple is not the right gender. This is discrimination based on sex. Isn't that a step backwards for civil rights?

[Chanileslie]

I think it is irrelevent to argue if one is born gay, chooses to be gay or whatever.

What is relevent is that if our government sanctions a union between adults then it is discriminatory to say: well we will eliminate that class of people over there because of A, B or C. Who a person chooses to spend their life with is their choice, and if the government is going to grant priviledges for that union then it should be granted for all such unions no matter the gender of the members of the union.

Marriage is not the building block of society; it is a social rule of this society.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


The purpose of the Senate is to create laws. The purpose of the judicial system is to enforce laws. So, no, the roles are different for these two branches of the government.


You're right. Sorry, I really should have quoted this part:


As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power.

At any rate, he's implying that no-one in a position of any authority should be allowed to do anything to change the status quo.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Darat
But I thought you said there would be a difference in that a straight couple would not be able to say "We're kinned" they'd have to declare "We're married" and vice-a-versa?

If each type of union has the same rights why should the state force you to tell people (by having to use kinned or marriage) the sex of your partner?

I still think the best way to avoid any of this is to stop the state giving extra rights to people based on the sex of the person they choose to share their life with. I may not have been all that clear.

My argument is that this can be solved with purely semantic distinctions.

Man/Woman remains Marriage
Same Sex gets a new word - "United?"
But inclusively both groups can be referred to as: "Kinned"
or something like that.

On documents we begin using the inclusive word and privately we use whichever word we choose. I just believe, in order to get there we would need a semantic distinction to same sex union as well as a super inclusive word.

My original post put forth the idea that one distinction might suffice but I can see the advantage of having an inclusive third word now.

/ediited to add:/

I think the super inclusive word when used by the state will eliminate any Separate-But-Equal argument.

/edit end/

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I do think that its introduction should be very cautious and done with sensitivity to all views.

Yeah, I certainly understand the trouble that may ensue by hard enforcement of a law, either way. It may get ugly.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
On the topic of gay marriage:

In the interest of human rights, the government should treat men and women equally. In this, all official dealings and sanctions should be applied blindly to both genders.

If the state officially recognizes the legal union of two individuals (heterosexual marriage), then it is discriminating against one gender or another when it prevents gay marriage. It is preventing marriage simply because one member of the couple is not the right gender. This is discrimination based on sex. Isn't that a step backwards for civil rights? Wile E., You're right on about discriminating. But it's not just gays. It's bigamists. It's first cousins. It's same species. There is a lot of discrimination here.

The argument must be bent toward the legitimate yearnings and aspirations of one of those groups that has been deprived of legitimate unions for reasons that have as much or more to do with pure prejudice as to societal benefit.

I think in reaching for an accommodation we must also take into consideration the real passionate identification that a lot of people have to a word, "marriage". Then take a step forward with a civil right where society can still recognize the distinction with a word but the state can be inclusive.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Atlas
I think where something is sufficiently different there is no need to emphasize it's sameness with the thing that it is not the same as.

We still identify doors leading to bathrooms with different words "Men" and "Women".It is only possible to divide something in two different section if the people involved can be easily identifiable as either one or the other, but they can't be both and they can't be neither, and they can't be a little bit more of this than that.

You could segregate restrooms in Black and White, but you know such a distinction will make victims. Some people will not be able to choose one or the other. Where's Colin Powell gonna go? :)

The same thing with marriage: you can also seperate marriages of black-white couples from same colour couples. You can give them the exact same rights, but register them differently. Even though such couples have the same rights, there are still going to be victims, simply because of the segregation. Some people will have great difficulty figuring out which marriage regulation they must use.

With gender it is both easier and more complex. It is easier because people are all registered to be either man or woman, and not both or neither. All they have to do is look at their birth certificate to know to which gender they have been assigned to.

Please note that this means that the gender we are talking about does have little to do with biological reality, which is more diffuse. It has more to do with what the law has defined you to be, sometimes quite arbitrarily.

If you have managed to figure out which gender you belong to and that of your partner, you know which regulation you have to use. However, here it comes the more complex part: people can change their gender. In most western countries even before the law. If the government has decided to use seperate registrations for same sex and different sex couples, and it hasn't made sure those are completely interchangeable, it would mean that a couple married under one regulation must first divorce and remarry under the other just to keep the same benefits.

In the worst case scenario, a couple might be a same sex couple at first, one of them changes gender and they must reregister as a different sex couple, but when the other also changes gender, they must reregister again to become a same sex couple. Just to keep the same benefits for the same relationship.

Sure, such couples will be rare (although not as rare as you might think!), but they will complicate a 'seperate but equal' set of marriage laws so much that I think it will be worth it to consider simplifying it for everybody and not make any gender distinction at all. And if the government doesn't make any distinctions in gender, it could just as well stop registering peoples' genders. I don't see why it needs such information anyway.

And gender segregated restrooms? I'm sure those are going to be attacked next by the gender rights movement. Good riddance!

[tedly]

I don't know much about gays, the few I know being typical of themselves but maybe not 'gay culture'. I did, however read And The Band Played On about our disastrous response to the AIDS outbreak, by Randy Shilts.

I remember his quote from one activist 'you gave us the bath houses but you won't give us marriage'. He develops a somewhat different take on marriage that strikes me as being closer to the history and sociology I've read, admittedly of the pop variety.

Humans are the sexiest animal in the world, and have none of the predators inhibition against harming their own breed.(tip o' the cap to Stephen Jay Gould)

Marriage controls that sexual drive, and was then used to link clans to preserve the peace on clan borders. That shows up in the treatment of wives (and sons-in-law in NA aboriginal matriarchies) as property in common law. Rape was much like an offense against property because it destroyed the marital value of a daughter or wife. Neither one of these is directly connected with the offspring of the marriage, and the clan, while family based, has many more connections than the nuclear family. Of course, we have come far from these primitive views of women and property because we are sooo enlightened now, but when the claim is made that the family or this or that is 'the' basis of society I feel that going back to more primitive attitudes is allowed. My claim would be that staying alive as a hairless weak animal in a harsh world is the basis of society-but I digress.

Shilts tells how the sheer randiness of the human beast came as a shock to some medical researchers, when they realised the enormity of the contact tracing problem presented by a socially condemned form of sex. Some of the transmitters of the disease had 10,000 anonymous sexual 'encounters' in a year! If human societies had not developed marriage, or some equivalent sexual limiter STD's would have saved the world from pollution. Recognizing gay marriages, and putting the social strictures on them that heterosexual marriages face provides some check on randiness, and is good for the stability of society.

Churches don't have to pay any attention to what the other half of the society does, they're welcome to put any restrictions on their membership they choose.

P.S. My title is my mother's reaction when she was asked how she would feel if her minister was a lesbian, shortly after the United Church of Canada decided it was OK to ordain homosexuals. I go along with Mom who is 90 next month.

[Upchurch]

While minority descrimination is a bad thing, I think we're starting to head off on a tangent. Yes, creating different rules for gays and straights is discriminatory, but this thread is more along the lines of whether it is right or not, justified or not, necessary for the protection of society or not.

The bathroom example is a good example of this. It is discrimnatory for men and women to have seperate bathrooms, but its justified (one might argue).

Is gay marriage justifable or not? Why?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


The purpose of the Senate is to create laws. The purpose of the judicial system is to enforce laws. So, no, the roles are different for these two branches of the government.


Actually, W.E.C., the judicial branch of the federal and state governments interprets (http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/students/misc.asp) law.

It's disheartening that I was the first to catch that.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Christian
I'm not against same sex unions. People should be free to do as they please in their privacy.

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.
Clarify please... You are against so-called civil unions? Against gay couples having hospital visitation rights? Against gay couples enjoyings rights of survivorship? Against gay couples enjoying the same medical insurance options as heterosexual couples?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Earthborn
In the worst case scenario, a couple might be a same sex couple at first, one of them changes gender and they must reregister as a different sex couple, but when the other also changes gender, they must reregister again to become a same sex couple. Just to keep the same benefits for the same relationship.Eartborn,

As usual, a thoughful and thought provoking response. I certainly had not thought of this worst case scenario at all.

I have no response either except that something like that may have already occurred in heterosexual marriage. I think the two remain married if they do not choose to divorce. But I don't know that for a fact.

I agree it will be uncommon but real, and it will have to be addressed. I will think on that and wait, perhaps until the gay marriage question finds it's solution. That may even render the the question moot.

By the way, I always enjoy reading your posts. You have an enjoyable and non-confrontational style that seems to open discussion rather than close minds. :)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Actually, W.E.C., the judicial branch of the federal and state governments interprets (http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/students/misc.asp) law.

It's disheartening that I was the first to catch that.
Don't be too disheartened. I had addressed a similar assertion from Matabiri above and didn't choose to be redundant. Actually, mine was directed toward the functions of the Executive and Legislative branches and you hit the Judicial. Hopefully, we're covered.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by tedly
Some of the transmitters of the disease had 10,000 anonymous sexual 'encounters' in a year!

Are you sure? That's 30 a day!

Otherwise, that's a very interesting viewpoint... "We must allow the gays to marry... to control their randiness!"

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Are you sure? That's 30 a day!

Otherwise, that's a very interesting viewpoint... "We must allow the gays to marry... to control their randiness!" Anything above 25 -- I really think something should be done. All right, if it will slow them down, those gays can get married.;)

[tedly]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Are you sure? That's 30 a day!

Otherwise, that's a very interesting viewpoint... "We must allow the gays to marry... to control their randiness!"

Read the book for the exact mechanics of this, but yes, the number is right. I'm not sure whether it was 'almost 10K' it could have been 'over 10K' but the math of it astonished me too. It has to do with bath houses.
By the way marriage was not instigated to control the randiness of gays .. It controls the randiness of humans, and their tendency to scrap over it.

Who was the football coach that said "Sex doesn't interfere with performance - staying up all night chasing after it does."

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Christian
1. The building block of society is the family.

2. The state has an interest (obligation) to regulate matters of the family because it affects society as a whole.

3. Matters of the common good must be above privacy issues (in most if not all cases).


I agree to 2 and 3.

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.

Which particular rights should not be granted, and how would granting this set of rights to homosexuals harm society?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by tedly


Read the book for the exact mechanics of this, but yes, the number is right. I'm not sure whether it was 'almost 10K' it could have been 'over 10K' but the math of it astonished me too. It has to do with bath houses.
By the way marriage was not instigated to control the randiness of gays .. It controls the randiness of humans, and their tendency to scrap over it.

Who was the football coach that said "Sex doesn't interfere with performance - staying up all night chasing after it does."

Trying very hard to remain within boundaries of the moderation guidelines here . . . breathe . . .

No male can have thirty sexual encounters in a day, every day, for a year. To think otherwise is profoundly ignorant. Your extraordinary claim - which is not even relevant with respect to marriage equality for gays - requires some extraordinary evidence.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Trying very hard to remain within boundaries of the moderation guidelines here . . . breathe . . .

No male can have thirty sexual encounters in a day, every day, for a year. To think otherwise is profoundly ignorant. Your extraordinary claim - which is not even relevant with respect to marriage equality for gays - requires some extraordinary evidence.

To be fair, the number could refer to men who, say go to "bath houses" (by which I'm assuming big orgies), and get felt up/feel up a bunch of people. They don't get names, so when they're counting up their potential contacts, they could be any of the 200/whatever men passed through the "bath house" that day. So it might not be actual encounters, just potential sexual partners. 1 of these a week gives 10,000 potential contacts in a year.

Possibly. I'm making up the numbers as I go.

[Denise]

Many seem to think that marriage is about raising children, and to a certain extent that certainly is true. Many also think that marriage is a way to attempt to regulate sex, which is also true. The people that I have observed in my life who are against gay marriage are against gay people raising kids and having sex. They often do not come right out and say it, and it takes a little prodding, but it's always in there and is the main reason why they are against it. Oh sure, they cloak it in an argument that it would somehow "threaten" society, but it's really only threatening their own beliefs about people, usually religiously based beliefs.

Having said that, I think the State should get out of the business of marriage entirely. Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious rite and as such should take place in a religious institution and be performed by the person sanctioned to do so by that religion. I think the State should replace marriage with civil unions and such a union should be open to all adults who want to commit to each other. These civil unions should not be about sex, but about a social contract between people for inheritance rights, insurance rights, power of attorney during incapacitation etc.

I have been divorced since my daughter was an infant. She has no contact with her father and my mother has been helping me raise her practically since birth. We bought a house together three years ago and for all purposes we are committed to sharing expenses and raising my daughter. The only difference between my mother and I, and other couples is that we are related and we do not have sex. (ew) <~~~light hearted comment.

If the State grants civil unions to homosexuals they should also grant a civil union to me and my mother. Then I could carry her on my health insurance which is great protection in this economy because of layoffs. I've been laid off of my last two jobs and have had to go without as well as my daughter because the COBRA payment was over 700 a month. She would also be able to adopt my daughter without me giving up any rights. She would not have to jump through hoops for custody of my daughter if I were to die.

So, in my opinion, gay marriage is fine, but I'd rather see civil unions instead of marriage.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Matabiri


To be fair, the number could refer to men who, say go to "bath houses" (by which I'm assuming big orgies), and get felt up/feel up a bunch of people. They don't get names, so when they're counting up their potential contacts, they could be any of the 200/whatever men passed through the "bath house" that day. So it might not be actual encounters, just potential sexual partners. 1 of these a week gives 10,000 potential contacts in a year.

Possibly. I'm making up the numbers as I go. **tweet**

I'm putting my foot down on this tangent. The claim is that gay marriage will help put an end to dangerous sexual activity in the homosexual community and, as such, is a reason for allowing gays to marry. For this line of argumentation to continue, (1) present evidence concerning the commonality of this dangerous sexual activity and (2) provide an argument on how marriage will end or help end this type of activity.

Gay steriotypes is not the topic of conversation.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Denise
If the State grants civil unions to homosexuals they should also grant a civil union to me and my mother. Then I could carry her on my health insurance which is great protection in this economy because of layoffs. I've been laid off of my last two jobs and have had to go without as well as my daughter because the COBRA payment was over 700 a month. She would also be able to adopt my daughter without me giving up any rights. She would not have to jump through hoops for custody of my daughter if I were to die.

So, in my opinion, gay marriage is fine, but I'd rather see civil unions instead of marriage. Great Post Denise,

I never thought of these types of implications. I disagree with how the first quoted sentence is worded, but I think you were just trying to make a point.

Granting of civil unions to gays is a separate issue and figuring out who else gets an expanded right would follow. But indeed, one can see that gay unions represent the tip of the iceberg.

Again, to me various types of unions are on the horizon. Semantic distinctions may serve us in clearing out prejudicial obstacles. And switch the state forms and documents to usage of a new inclusive word for all the unions made legal.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
**tweet**

I'm putting my foot down on this tangent. The claim is that gay marriage will help put an end to dangerous sexual activity in the homosexual community and, as such, is a reason for allowing gays to marry. For this line of argumentation to continue, (1) present evidence concerning the commonality of this dangerous sexual activity and (2) provide an argument on how marriage will end or help end this type of activity.

Gay steriotypes is not the topic of conversation.

Sorry (although it wasn't me that brought it up).

[Yahweh]

I just got home, and it seems I've missed most of the discussion, (although I've quickly skimmed through the thread, I hope dont repeat what others have already said)...

Originally posted by Christian
I'm against gay marriage. This is some of the reasoning. (I want to keep the initial posts short as to move the thread along.

1. The building block of society is the family.
That is debatable, I would be more inclined to believe the building block of society is cooperation.

It is very much possible to have a sucessful society which is devoid of any family ties as long as everyone works to cooperate.

2. The state has an interest (obligation) to regulate matters of the family because it affects society as a whole.
I dont believe such an obligation exists. The state can only impose minimal legal obligations (such as a parent providing a safe environment for children), but it has no authority regulating "morals" or matters of the family, that would be an unwilling concession of the right to privacy (I'm not such much into authoritative oppressing government).

Yes, the decision of regulating family matters will affect society as a whole.

3. Matters of the common good must be above privacy issues (in most if not all cases).
Again, it is very debatable whether a person ought to sacrifice their right to privacy in the name of common good. Personally, I think any person who's entitled privacy is maintained is beneficial to common good.


If all of these are correct, then we must prove why gay marriages undermine society; why it is not a proper building block.
Hmmmm...

I'm not sure I follow...

No one has any kind of obligation to produce a family upon marriage. By what your reasoning above, it would seem like marriages which do not produce families (regardless of the nature of those marriages) undermine society, and therefore should not be valued...

To prove this, we must look first at the institution of marriage. It is, for all intent and purposes, the first legal institution in history.

Now, I want to be clear about something.

I'm not against same sex unions. People should be free to do as they please in their privacy.

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.
Well, I dont believe gay marriages undermine society, nor do I believe any given person's entitled rights ought to be denied in terms of their sexual orientation.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Hi all,

I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. But now that it's my family being debated, and not the less emotional topics that typically bring me to this forum, I can't help but to get my two cents in.

Some background: I'm a gay man who came out in my mid teens. I met my partner at age 18. That was well over a decade ago and we've never been apart since (No, never have I seen a bath house or slept with more than one person my entire life. Sheesh :) ). In our early twenties, we were "married", at least in the minds of our friends, our families, and ourselves. Since then we have shared everything; we are entwined in all sorts of ways, financial, social, familial, and so on. But, most importantly, almost two years ago we were much further blessed to become parents of twins. There is simply nothing more important in our lives than our role as parents and spouses, and so, of course, I have a lot to say on this issue.

They don't need marriage for this.

Not so. "Married" is currently the only category that will give equal rights to gay and lesbian couples (and families!) in areas of property rights, taxes, inheritance, and so on. I, personally wish we could settle for another name, like "civil unions", but only "marriage" is recognized by the federal government.

Let me add personal experience to LFTKBS’s list. My partner is a full-time stay-at-home parent. Even though he works all day in our home, taking care of our children, he may as well be legally categorized as single, homeless, and jobless. We cannot get health insurance as a family. At one point I couldn't get health insurance for my partner at all, while, if we had a marriage license, my employer would have included him, along with our children. We are more fortunate, but some couples can't even get equal inheritance rights or health insurance for their children, because the biological stay-at-home parent is not legally married to the working parent. The state picks up the bill here, and I’m sure the insurance companies are glad to keep things as they are (they simply get more money when they misclassify us as though we were living as singles).

Tax laws create a large and disproportionate burden on our families. For example, the assets we've accumulated, as a couple, could some day be swallowed up by a huge inheritance tax from which heterosexual citizens, in our same situation, are exempt. This alone can leave some gay and lesbian homemakers homeless even if a will is extant and enforced. But, let’s face it, most folks don’t account for sudden deaths and many young couples have no will. When the family of the deceased gay man decides they owe the gay partner nothing, they get nothing.

Even if a will exists, they can and are contested; it’s simply not the same strength of guarantee it is for heterosexual couples, particularly in conservative courts, which see siblings as more deserving than any lifetime gay “friend”.

You may think that we should just spilt our assets evenly and thus insulate us from a sudden death, but I can't give my partner more than a certain amount per year without it being legally considered a "gift", as though he was a stranger, which carries, again, a huge tax. This comes into play particularly when we do stuff like buy a family car, or home. I mean, I sometimes worry the government will want to know how much I “gift” my partner, the stay-at-home parent of our children, in room and board; it’s more than the limit.

No matter how many high-priced layers we hire we cannot get the same property, tax, and survival rights as heterosexual citizens. Most simply have to pay something like a $70 fee to get the law to recognize the reality of their union, and for that they obtain much more than we can get with thounsands in legal fees.

Let me lastly say this is a also question of holding people to their responsibilities, a point which often gets missed in this debate. I'd never do anything to harm my union, but many people would disregard their responsibilities. As things stand now, I could simply end this commitment on a whim, with no legal consequences for ignoring my obligation to my partner, but a huge list of consequences for him, our children, and for our extended families. Making our existing union legally binding is about many more than two people; it’s about our children, their grandparents, our siblings, and so on. Just as I have a stake in the relationships, particularly marriages, of those I love so too do those who love us.

[Denise]

Welcome Scot! Excellent post, I hope to see more.

[Atlas]

I second the Welcome. You've put a face on the issue that was lacking in the discussion so far.

[Attrayant]

Mercutio: If these are reasons to ban gay marriage, then implicit in them is the expectation that a gay family is somehow inferior in parenting skills to a straight family. Otherwise, one would think that gay marriage would produce a number of new families to adopt (or have their own) children, and this is a win-win situation. Is this your assumption? On what do you base this?


Christian: The studies on the importance of the opposite sex to the children. Daughter-Father, Mother-Son.

How does the son recognize that one parent is a man and the other a woman? By their appearance or manerisms? What is the woman is really butch, chews tobacco and drives a semi for a living? Wouldn't an effeminate man be preferable to a woman like this?

Ian: People throughout society as a whole are liable to be psychologically be distressed if their offspring, or their neighbours, or even total strangers were to marry people of the same sex.

Really? Let's check with the people who should know.

The American Anthropological Association's statement on Marriage and the Family (http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm): The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

If anybody has the credentials to speak out on what might happen to society based on the actions of its groups, it is the anthropologists. Understand that they don't seem to be advocating for or against, but they are saying that the sky will likely not fall if gay marriage goes full steam ahead.

[jimlintott]

So it all seems to come down to a word. I think concepts are more important than words and the concept of marriage, to me, is a union of two (or more) people in a loving, sexual relationship. This is why I couldn't think of denise and her mother as married.

To me, the word marriage isn't important. The concept of gay couples having the rights that they are often now denied them is what is important to me. I don't care what it is called, but I'm not gay.

If this issue was dealt with when it first occured, vis a vis, the granting of rights to these couples, we likely wouldn't be arguing about a word. Due to the terrible treatment and denial of basic rights, gays now want the word.

I can't say I blame them and I hope they get it.

[Earthborn]

I have no response either except that something like that may have already occurred in heterosexual marriage. I think the two remain married if they do not choose to divorce. But I don't know that for a fact.I of course don't know about every detail of every country's legal system, but I would be very surprised if there was a western country that allowed people to change their gender registration but does not yet have marriage law that makes no distinction in gender that handled it differently: if someone wants to change his/her gender registration but are married, they have to divorce, or else the change in gender registration will not be allowed. The government does not allow two people of the same marriage to be married, period.

Imagine a couple: one who is legally recognized as female, the other as male. They are allowed to marry as long as can live with the fact that there is an F and an M respectively on their passport. Even though the relationship might look to any casual observer as a male-male relationship if the 'female' identifies and behaves as male, or a female-female relationship if the 'male' identifies and behaves as female.

But a marriage between people who happen to have the same legal gender status is disallowed, even if to any casual observer it looks like a perfectly normal heterosexual relationship.By the way, I always enjoy reading your posts. You have an enjoyable and non-confrontational style that seems to open discussion rather than close minds. :)Thanks!

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I of course don't know about every detail of every country's legal system, but I would be very surprised if there was a western country that allowed people to change their gender registration but does not yet have marriage law that makes no distinction in gender that handled it differently: if someone wants to change his/her gender registration but are married, they have to divorce, or else the change in gender registration will not be allowed. The government does not allow two people of the same marriage to be married, period. . You know Earthborn, I like to think I'm of above average intelligence, sometimes even sharp. But as I read your words the reality of my dullness creeps in. How could you do this to me? You seemed like such a nice person too. ;)

You are almost certainly correct. If the US had any same sex marriages (however arrived at) the questions in this thread would be moot. How could we allow same sex marriage in one regard and not another?

Darn it. Now I've been exposed as a slow witted clod. I suppose a wise person would thank you for the lesson. But the clod in me sends a warning; If I ever get the chance to return a lesson I shall do so gleefully. :p

[Fade]

Christian,

Your argument assumes that should gay people be allowed to marry, this will somehow harm straight marriages.

If you feel you are not trying to say this, please explain how one marriage effects another.

Ian,

I find you psychologically distressing. I have never asked for you to stop existing, nor have I advocated legislation against you.

How a thing makes others feel is entirely irrelevant to the law.

I am not sure what the laws about cannibalism in the UK say, but in the US I could cut off my arm and allow another person to eat it. Neither of us would be commiting a crime.

Our dislike of cannibalism is cultural. Well, practical as well, as eating the flesh of ones own species will probably infect you with something. However, there are numerous cultures in this world that embrace the eating of ones deads. It is not a human reaction to loathe it, is a cultural reaction you have been bred to feel.

On both levels, your argument fails to address the question at all.


My question:


In what way would a gay marriage negatively effect a straight marriage?


If you can't answer this, then the argument that "Marriage is the foundation of society" is invalid. More people marrying can't harm this, it can only add to it.

[kevinsbikes]

[i]

To prove this, we must look first at the institution of marriage. It is, for all intent and purposes, the first legal institution in history.

SO WHAT! By this reasoning, blacks and women shouldn't be able to vote. Just because a law writing group thought it was wrong then, doesn't mean it is wrong now.

Now, I want to be clear about something.

Clear... Yes, I see your point quite clearly: Homosexuals should be private and right wing, rich white, christians should be allowed to profess their love in public and the rest of us (Atheists, blacks, gays, Muslims, etc. should do things in private... may I suggest an island populated with lepers to send all of the people that should be doing things in private to live.

I'm not against same sex unions. People should be free to do as they please in their privacy.

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.

I agree with you completely: Rights should only be granted to heterosexuals. The rest should be shunned to servitude and slavery. That, my friend, would make for a great society. Ooh yeah! I almost forgot: Facsicm didn't work for Hitler... but I guess, if you want to implement it here. I am with you.

[/B]

:(

[Some Friggin Guy]

It is people like Scot that make me a proponant of gay marriage. I don't believe this country can, in good conscience, consider someone who is obviously as loving for his husband (or partner, I'm not sure which term you prefer, Scot) and his children, to be somehow inferior to me simply because I happened to fall in love with a woman.

[epepke]

Is this about gay marriage or the legalization thereof?

I'm in favor of the legalization of gay marriage.

As far as gay marriage itself, well. I think about three days after gay marriage becomes legal, gays will discover that it is at best a very mixed bag. There are some benefits, but a fair number of drawbacks. First of all, while you may recieve some deference as a domestic partner, once you become family, all your in-laws automatically assume that they can start playing the same abusive games with you as they did with your spouse. You now have two sets of "parents," both of which expect you to give them their fair share of attention, which hovers around 95%. Plus, they have to meet each other, which can cause some significant difficulties if they are of different economic classes. Then there's divorce, which is at least a couple orders of magnitude more unpleasant than getting married was pleasant in the first place.

So, I say let gays get married, but when they find out that it isn't such a solid gold deal after all, laugh our butts off.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Thanks for the warm welcomes.

What’s odd is that I feel like I know most of you (I’ve been wondering around this forum, disembodied, for years).

Christian, I will get to the points you brought up in depth, but I need some time. I can only write during a work break, nap, or bedtime (and on that last one I’d rather be sleeping). For now, I had to reply to this:

So, I say let gays get married, but when they find out that it isn't such a solid gold deal after all, laugh our butts off.

:) What makes you think "in-laws" need the law to tell them they’re allowed to interfere in a relationship?

My partner’s dad was a LDS Bishop, and the first we met was a Thanksgiving about 11 years ago. What a sitcom-esk day that was.

But this “mixed bag” ended up being more than fair over the years, and I can’t imagine my life without it. Despite their continued strong involvement in the LDS church, my partner’s parents are, today, just as much my “in-laws” as anyone else’s, and more. We have a great relationship, and I feel very fortunate to have them in my life and fortunate for our children to have them as grandparents. They are good people, and I even look forward to my in-law’s visits (Is that more evidence of my deviant mind? :) ).

In the end, gays and lesbians already have the familial structure (and, for some, the associated problems) of any marriage. No law will change that; it will only effect how we can secure the already existing structure of our families in the areas of taxes, inheritance, and so on.

As for the pains of divorce, I think it’s something, oddly, which gays and lesbians (and their families) need. There need to be more considerations made in dissolving any intimate relationship, whatever the orientation, more than something like a mere slump in attraction. I personally think most folks would be more happy, in the long run, if it was more difficult to end a long time union.

Furthermore, as I stated above, gays and lesbians already tie themselves together in many ways which the law can’t stop. If they do split up, without marriage and the procedure of divorce, one person, generally the one who worked out of the home, is treated very unjustly. I mean, if you think a divorce is tough, try splitting up with someone that you’ve been completely dependent upon as a homemaker, with little legally in your name. Being at the business end of a couple layers, when you have no governmental recognition for your union, is much worse than any legal divorce.

In short, I’m trying to say that gays and lesbians already do the things other couples do. They get hitched, they have problems with their in-laws, they have children, they grow old together, and they also split up. We simply have to do all this with lesser rights and without the safety net others find in legal recognition of their unions.

Lastly, thank you SFG. As to what the accepted term is, I can’t honestly say I care too much and I’ll generally shy away from anything that looks like a fruitless PC battle. I do consider my “partner” to be my “husband”, simply because, from my upbringing, that’s what one calls a male spouse. But I know that upsets some people, and a rose by any other name… So generally, I’ll say “partner”, when in mixed company.

[Christian]

Some posters have brought up excellent objections that I must address. Please wait for them I will answer on the weekend. This thread is going too fast for me to address points properly on a day to day basis.

[LFTKBS]

Scot, I suggest - by the way, I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer - that you find a way to ensure your husband's financial well-being without getting the IRS involved.

Hide the money somewhere - a mattress, and offshore account, wherever.

The United States taxes you, yet it does not give you the protection it gives to its heterosexual citizens. Until it does, to hell with the IRS.

(Upchurch: if this is too OT, I will PM it.)

It is a tad over the top, yes.

The JREF does not endorse illegal activity like cheating on your taxes. Nor do I endorse off-topic posting. Let's stick to the pro's and con's of gay marriage please.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
[B]Hi all,

I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. But now that it's my family being debated, and not the less emotional topics that typically bring me to this forum, I can't help but to get my two cents in.

(Just wanted to say welcome!! Also, if I had been undecided when this post began, which I wasn't, I know your post would have convinced me that Gay marriage should be allowed. I am hopeful that someday, all states will allow gay marriages)

Forgive me, Upchurch!

Forgiven. We always welcome new posters (or old lurkers) but let's keep the social stuff in Community from now on.

[Silicon]

Scot,

You should have thought of all those problems before you decided to be gay! ;)

I'm kidding. If you've seen other of my posts, I've been bringing up these same issues in support of my Mother in Law who just got married to her longtime partner in San Francisco.


And to Upchurch's question about male and female bathrooms violating "seperate but equal":

The law isn't that "Seperate but equal is always wrong" it's that "Seperate but equal seldom, if ever, IS equal."

The question really is "harm". Seperate male and female bathrooms, for issues of privacy, are sexually segregated, as are dressing rooms for gyms, spas, etc.

As I see it, there aren't thousands of people marching for the right to unified bathrooms, nor are there tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people up in arms about equal access to stand-up-urinals. Why? because there's no harm or loss of dignity or negative consequence to anyone for using the men's room.

As to harm on the gay marriage issue, see Scot's post above.

Scot, could you estimate a tabulation of all the monetary costs you have incurred, legal and taxes and benefits, that a straight couple would be able to access for ninety-bucks and a kiss in Vegas?

I'd LOVE a real number (even if it were an estimate.) Someone likened that to a Poll Tax. I call it a Gay Tax.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Good points Earthborn.

“If you have managed to figure out which gender you belong to and that of your partner, you know which regulation you have to use. However, here it comes the more complex part: people can change their gender.”

Let me also add that some people, for genetic and/or hormonal reasons, are born truly between sexes, hermaphrodites. Most the population relies on anatomy to figure these things out, but hermaphrodites may have anatomy somewhere between male and female. Others may be XX, feel “female”, and are attracted to males but have male anatomy and vice-versa.

Maybe some would say, for legal reasons, we could base our gender decisions on the genes then. But some hermaphrodites have what they call a mosaic of genetic material; some cells in their body are female, XX, some male, XY. Some may be XY but have missing or non-working sections of the Y making them only partially male… I guess… Did any of you see the picture in Nature (I think) of the bird that was male/female right down the center? Half was a dull female color and the other half a bright-feathered male. Anyway, these people are rare but they have no clear sex and don’t fit the existing assumptions made by our laws. They also are a tough case for religious opinions that regard male and female (and the associated attractions) as being clear and fundamental aspects of humans.

As I understand it, hermaphrodites may marry the gender that is not marked on their birth certificate. But no one knows, at birth, what orientation these babies will have and they wont know until puberty. Sometimes, tragically, the doctors pick the gender incorrectly (sometimes they’ll even perform a surgery to “correct the problem” only to find years later that they’ve given a person an anatomy with which they do not identify).

I don’t know if they are given the liberty to change their sex legally or not later on in life, but the point is that they shouldn’t have to be pigeonholed into M or F anyway. In fact, one interview I saw with a seemingly male hermaphrodite indicated that he was bisexual, so why force, by law, one or the other?

I, of course, feel these people should be able to legally marry whichever sex they end up having an attraction towards. It’s on that initial attraction that they’ll build loving successful marriages and families, not on a classification by their doctors, anatomy, or genes.
------------------

Thank you Ruby; I hope to be forgiven by Upchurch as well for what follows.

Forgiven and welcome. :w2: Now, let's stick to the topic and socialize elsewhere.

Silicon: “You should have thought of all those problems before you decided to be gay!”

I know... [sigh] But they were offering a free toaster with each pledge to take part in the homosexual lifestyle. At the time I really needed a toaster, but, in hindsight, it was a poor choice... No use crying over spilt milk I suppose.

Thank you Silicon, for all your valiant and skilled effort. I have been paying attention to this debate in the politics section and I’d like to say thanks to a lot of you for saying what I wish I had said, but I’m afraid I’ve been getting too off topic as it is.

I really haven’t been keeping track, but I’ll see if I can tally up the layer fees, taxes, and whatever else. I’m afraid it may be too depressing if it adds up to something big, like a car. I wish I could tally the stress too :).

Thanks for the advice LFTKBS. But I certainly would never cheat the IRS, nor would I think the JREF would encourage me to do so. :) Oh, and I think I disabled the PM function. No offence to any of you here, but who knows who else is lurking here. I’ve been fighting this fight for years and have had my fill of anonymous threats; at least if they are posted on this forum they may be edited for language. :)

[Dorian Gray]

I have seen most arguments for and against gay marriage. I have no problem with gay marriage whatsoever. I wouldn't say I am 'for' it, specifically, not being gay myself, much in the same way I wouldn't say I am 'for' Christianity, not being Christian myself. But I digress.

By being allowed to marry, homosexuals are not forcing their beliefs on you any more than Christians are necessarily forcing their beliefs on me by being allowed to worship and proselytize - although I find Christian ministry far more intrusive.

Homosexuals don't knock on your door trying to convert you, don't distribute flyers trying to get you to congregate with them, don't pressure you to attend their gay club on Saturday night, don't ride bicycles in pairs around the city spreading the word of homosexuality. Homosexuals don't tell you where you will spend your afterlife based on what you're doing now. Christians do them all ('church on Sunday morning' being substituted for 'gay club on Saturday night.') These things are intrusive, arrogant and annoying, and could be construed as attempting to force their beliefs on me. But I can just ignore them, counterproselytize for sport, slam the door, etc. I would not call for a Constitutional ban on their activities. I don't believe what they believe, but I let them believe and behave how they want to until they invade my space in a personal and intrusive way. Simply viewing Christians or knowing Christians exist and engage in practices I do not believe in is not offensive. I hope this analogy has hit home.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
:) What makes you think "in-laws" need the law to tell them they’re allowed to interfere in a relationship?

Well, basically, the differences that I experienced between being "the boyfriend" and "the husband." You can talk about how it should be the same until you're blue in the face, but it is different. You'll see. Bwahahahahaha!

What I'm saying is that gays, much like very young people, have an idealized romanticized view of what marriage is.

It's not so much like the civil rights of the 60s. It's more like the Women's Liberation of the 60s. I am all in favor of equal employment opportunities regardless of sex. But work, for most men, forever, has consisted of eating loads of abusive crap with a paycheck as their only consolation. Women had this idealized notion of a "career," which very few men ever get, and once they entered the work force, they discovered how crappy it was. Boy, did the sparks fly!

Of course, working class women have always had to work, and it isn't a surprise that the women's liberation movement was almost entirely made up of people privileged enough never have to have had to get calloused hands to make a living.

Marriage isn't anywhere near as crappy as work, but there still is a significant crap-eating experience involved with it. I predict outrage when this becomes apparentto gays.

As for the pains of divorce, I think it’s something, oddly, which gays and lesbians (and their families) need. There need to be more considerations made in dissolving any intimate relationship, whatever the orientation, more than something like a mere slump in attraction.

Nice words, and I totally agree with them. So would Dr. Laura, though for the record, I don't like her. However, de facto you will have a high probability of getting divorced, amputated, and cauterized for something utterly trivial.

In short, I’m trying to say that gays and lesbians already do the things other couples do. They get hitched, they have problems with their in-laws, they have children, they grow old together, and they also split up. We simply have to do all this with lesser rights and without the safety net others find in legal recognition of their unions.

Mark my words. You'll see.

edited to remove material meant to bait.

You can disagree with me all you like, but you'll see.

[Atlas]

Epepke,

You articulate the cynics position well. To a man losing his vision you would caution that any operation to preserve his bright view of the world will surely leave the room bloody and messy.

The transformative effects of marriage do benefit both the individuals in loving relationships and also society. Spouses often act heroically on each others behalf. That hard work and nurturing pays dividends to society at large. To only point out the possibilities of pain, betrayal and divorce misses so much of the realm of possibility.

Where we can expand the institution of "marriage" we should do so. Accommodating and supporting true loving relationships is in our best interest.

I prefer a legislative solution to an executive or judicial one. Hence, in my posts I argue for purely semantic distinctions to create openings in populations of closed mindedness. I think the mayor of San Francisco acted wrongly within his obligations to the law. He may have done society a favor in bringing the issue to a head but it is also as likely that he will aggravate a rift. With the court's decision yesterday in California the focus shifts back to Massachusetts in this. I hope for a positive outcome but I don't hear much for finding a middle way. The sides seem polarized and to me, so much is over nothing but the word, Marriage. I just believe that my fellow countrymen believe deeply in human rights but they are lost in the tangle of a definition that ties back into their definition of their God. It's not the smart battle to wage. (It's almost ironic to have it played out simultaneously with the rise of Mel Gibson's "Passion".) Perhaps the gay community is more deeply attuned than I know to the spiritual aspect of the word, rather than the basic human right, and are willing to wage a battle in the secular court preliminary to the church.

Scot, or anyone, I'd like a comment on the spiritual component of marriage as it relates to gay life. It is difficult for me, a non-religious person, to leave that aspect aside, strange as that may seem. Is the large goal merely recognition by the secular state? Or is that the first step before the churches - who will then be expected to come forward with their own blessed ceremonies? Am I asking a fair question here?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by epepke

You can disagree with me all you like, but you'll see.
edited to remove personal attack.

[Silicon]

Atlas,

I think there was a short term shock to the country when Gavin Newsome started the marriages, but I can see the nation coming back to pre-2/14/04 numbers on the Gay Marriage issue.

The trend of the numbers was moving for gay marriage and gay civil unions, a couple of points each month until 2/14, then a spike in the other direction which we are on the down side of now.

These numbers were from a Washinton Post poll tracking general election-related issues over the past few months. Sorry, no link, as I couldn't find it again without registering. Anyone else find it?


So I think it was a short-term shock, rather than the damaging blast that Barney Frank and others have said it was. On the contrary, I think it crystalized debate, and I think the numbers will continue to drop further.


On the issue of "You don't want marriage, you gays don't even know what marriage is, " I can't agree with that. My MIL has been married twice (to men). She knows what marriage is, and to presume that you know better than someone else seeking equality is needlessly patronizing.


And back to Christian's ORIGINAL question, about the "building block" of society, some direct points.

You have numbered your points like some type of logical proof, yet you rely on short-cuts that do not explain your assumptions, or do not provide evidence.

Please show evidence that society is made up of "building blocks". I don't know where that analogy comes from, so I'm not sure what sociological validity that analogy holds.

Surely family is important. But I do not see the "building block" analogy. Do you think that society is a structure, as in a building, and that a weak family, somewhere in the structure, will allow all of society to topple? That's not supported in sociological studies, as far as I know. We have good families and bad families in society. We have loving, comitted parents, and we have drug abusing, wife-beating families. Yet society doesn't topple as long as we continue to try and maximize the good, and minimize (through law enforcement and education and health care and charity) the latter.


I don't accept your reasoning, therefore, and I think you've done some arm-waiving as far as what "building block" means.


My question to you is:

How do you define "building block", and if that "building block" "affects society as a whole" and "must be above privacy issues", by what measure do we as a society determine WHICH families are fit to be "building blocks" and which ones will be so unfit as to be a danger to society?

Or do you think that only gay families pose that danger?

Should a government body start marching around and divorcing --say abusive couples--because their marriage is a danger to society as a whole?

[Upchurch]

Whether or not homosexuals (or anyone) will enjoy marriage is immaterial to whether or not it is right for them to be able to marry, either legally, morally, or whatever. Please stick to the topic.


edited because I forgot I wasn't using my official JREF mod box for Moderated Thread purposes. Even I'm having trouble sticking to the rules. ;)

[Upchurch]

Also please note this. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870358674#post1870358674)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Whether or not homosexuals (or anyone) will enjoy marriage is immaterial to whether or not it is right for them to be able to marry, either legally, morally, or whatever. Please stick to the topic.


edited because I forgot I wasn't using my official JREF mod box for Moderated Thread purposes. Even I'm having trouble sticking to the rules. ;)

Upchurch, some people might find the topic relevent. I personally don't, but I'm sure it can be rebutted nicely by those in the same mindset as I. The same argument was used when women were seeking the vote ie it is too much bother for them and they are more content not having to make those decisions. I think you should reconsider.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Denise


Upchurch, some people might find the topic relevent. I personally don't, but I'm sure it can be rebutted nicely by those in the same mindset as I. The same argument was used when women were seeking the vote ie it is too much bother for them and they are more content not having to make those decisions. I think you should reconsider. hmm...

Okay, that may be true but so far that line of discussion has been mostly flame bait. If someone wants to try to actually argue that issue, I'll let it pass, but I'm not going to allow attacks on individuals or groups of people.

[Denise]

Thank You Upchurch.

I think that is why equal civil rights are so important. To dispel notions that a group of people are somehow different from others. It's hard to dispel notions that a group is childlike and can't handle responsibility when they are not allowed to do so to prove others wrong.

People like Epepke seem to believe that homosexuals are immature and he would probably only be convinced otherwise if homosexuals were granted the right to marry. I don't think it's that I will see (or others who are on the granting of marital rights to homosexuals) but that he will see.

The same arguments were used by people who felt that black slaves would not be able to take care of themselves without slavery.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by Upchurch
hmm...

Okay, that may be true but so far that line of discussion has been mostly flame bait. If someone wants to try to actually argue that issue, I'll let it pass, but I'm not going to allow attacks on individuals or groups of people.

Was that an okay to post the reply I’d just finished typing the exact moment I saw that the topic had been prohibited :)? I could see Upchurch’s point, and thought the topic was too periphery, but was also swayed by Denise. To say gays wouldn’t want it could be an argument against it and so I’ll post what I had. And anyway, Christian has enough posts to catch up with on the weekend.

epepke -- Are some gays over-idealizing marriage in some gay rights hysteria that they'll someday regret when they somber up and find themselves on the next episode of television's "Divorce Court", all the while muttering "Curse you Gavin Newsom!"? Maybe. I don't think I know those folks though. Birds of a feather I guess, but the only gay and lesbian friends we have are those who've been together for years and have children. They are concerned for their rights, the rights of their partner, and the rights of their kids, and know, to be married, they'll have to give up some part of themselves. But we've already given up, freely, most of those things, and I think we see it as more than a fair trade for everyone involved.

You're right in that I do not know, with absolute certainty, if the legal ties I'm looking for could change what we have for the worse, but I doubt it and would like to know the mechanism by which you think a legal marriage might harm my family or myself.


I can collect evidence and make an okay hypothesis though. I can go on what I observe in those unions I see around me, those of my parents, siblings, and friends. By that I can see they live just like us, they made public commitments just like us, they raise children, they share finances, and so on, just like us. In fact, ignoring the civil rights, the biggest difference I see between my union and the unions of our married friends is the fact that we have been together for so long and generally get along with less fuss (that and, of course, our anatomy :rolleyes: ).

As far as the difference between "married" and "living together" goes (or "shacking up" as Dr. Laura would say :) ), I think it is a large gap but I also think we, as a couple, have spanned it. When I've seen it in those around us, it seems a couple important things are missing in "living together".

First and most importantly is the public commitment. When you stand in front of friends and family in a formal ceremony and declare a mutual love for each other and a promise to preserve your union, you are not only making a public obligation to your partner; you are also becoming obligated to *everyone* there. You are telling them that you have promised to be a couple with this particular person, and that your friends and family can count on that. They can make plans for the future based on that; they can let your partner into their lives with some assurances. They witnessed you make that *promise* and they can hold you to it; in fact I’d say they have an obligation, as witnesses, to do so. From that ceremony on, the married couple should never forget their responsibility and that ring is always there, right on your finger, as a symbolic reminder. This act is often taken for granted, but it makes a big difference between "living together" and "married", even without governmental sanction, which is why gays and lesbians do it.

No one who was at our ceremony would say that I was my partner’s “boyfriend” or that we were merely two people “living together”. They all, even our many Christian relatives, consider us as married, and treat us as such, at least in our company and by all accounts I’ve heard. The government simply can't touch the meaning of my union in the minds of our families or ourselves; we've already made the commitment, and both our families count on it.

(This is actually one of the oddest aspects of this fight. It seems to me that what some of our opponents feel they are defending is what the law can’t give to or take away from us. It’s what we already have, the love, the sanctity, the family, and so on. It’s the equal rights that we want.)

Second it seems to me that those "living together" still see themselves primarily as individuals. We gave that up many years ago. The friends I've known in the situation of "living together" do not, for example, share finances. There are my things and your things. While I can't "gift" my money, for example, to my partner without the IRS getting involved, we have long ago given unlimited access to each other's finances, powers of attorney, and so on. Though the law see us very differently, there is no my money or his money in our minds, and, if he wants to pay the tax, he can take the cash; in our minds though, there is only the family's money. We make no significant decision, financial or otherwise, without the okay of the other and we are very careful to be sure we both share the same quality of life and amount of luxuries. This is not usually the case for those "living together" (nor for some unhappy marriages I might add), and I think unequal standards of living and *access* to wealth creates wedges.

So, without some explanation of the mechanisms by which the rights and obligations of legal marriage might harm my family, or the significant difference you’re anticipating between the way we live now and the way we’d live with an enforceable marriage license, I'll still have to respectfully disagree.

In the end though, I think there is a bigger point here regarding how it would be beneficial to society and it’s many individuals to allow gay marriage. Even if I get legally married and 5 years later complain, "Why didn't I just listen to epepke? I want out!" So what? I hope and think it would never happen but anyone could conceivably have a midlife crisis or something and want his or her autonomy back. But that's not what's best for society. It’s not what’s best for my family, my partner, or my children, and those are the things I care about *now*, at this moment; the future Scot C. Trypal can suffer for that cause for all I care :). I want them to be protected now, even from a possible future me.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by Atlas


Scot, or anyone, I'd like a comment on the spiritual component of marriage as it relates to gay life. It is difficult for me, a non-religious person, to leave that aspect aside, strange as that may seem. Is the large goal merely recognition by the secular state? Or is that the first step before the churches - who will then be expected to come forward with their own blessed ceremonies? Am I asking a fair question here?

Sure that’s fair. I can only speak for my family, and what we want, but our large goal is not exactly mere recognition by the secular state, but close. The goal is equal civil rights and protections for our unions and ourselves. This is why the state recognition of “civil unions” and what is going on in Massachusetts, with their Constitutional amendment, scares me. It’s being billed as a compromise, which would give “all the rights of marriage”. I’m no lawyer but from all I’ve read, this is not true. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and so the larger goal is only half achieved by them. We’d be filing as couples, for example, on our state income tax, but as single individuals on the federal. The federal government would still ignore our survivorship rights. So, unless the federal law changes, we are looking for a classification of “marriage” by the secular state; that’s what would convey equal rights.

As far as religions go, I don’t think they should be expected to bless our unions. If any religion was ever pressured by the public or, particularly, the government to conduct a same-sex cerimony, I’d be standing side-by-side with the religion, waving the tacky poster board protest signs. We were “married” by our local Unitarian Church; some of our friends were “married” by their Episcopal Church. I’m grateful that these churches are out there, but I’d much rather have a secular JP doing gay marriages than infringe upon anyone's right to follow the teachings of their religion.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Valmorian

edited to remove personal attack.

That was a personal attack? I thought it was pointing out that the message above had no content other than a "You won't want marriage, because I know what it is like and you can't possibly know.".

I think Scot has done an excellent job of pointing out why he desires marriage.

If anything, the taunt that is inherent in the message I quoted is a personal attack.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Atlas
Is the large goal merely recognition by the secular state? Or is that the first step before the churches - who will then be expected to come forward with their own blessed ceremonies? Am I asking a fair question here?

I'm a hetero, so I don't get the monthly Gay Agenda Newsletter, but it seems to me that the middle question - about forcing churches to marry homosexuals - is a rather ridiculous one, and here's why: no one forces churches or mosques or synagogues or temples to marry heterosexuals of different faiths, or even of their own members who don't fulfill certain requirements.

It's unConstitutional and illegal to force religious organizations to bless any union, heterosexual or homosexual.

So I wouldn't worry about that particular can of worms, nor would I consider it a reason to deny equal rights for gays and lesbians.

[gentlehorse]

Welcome, Scot C. Trypal. You've opened my eyes. Thank you.

[csense]

Originally posted by LFTKBS

I'm a hetero, so I don't get the monthly Gay Agenda Newsletter, but it seems to me that the middle question - about forcing churches to marry homosexuals - is a rather ridiculous one, and here's why: no one forces churches or mosques or synagogues or temples to marry heterosexuals of different faiths, or even of their own members who don't fulfill certain requirements.


What if those requirements were met......what then.

Of the class of churches that would not marry a homosexual couple, it is certainly conceivable that of their members, there exist either now, or in the future, a same sex couple that fulfills all the requirements of their faith...except of course, for one minor technicality.

Now, ask yourself, what if someone wanted to make an issue of it, and in so doing, raised some of the analogous arguments that are being made right now.

What if the Roman Catholic Church, among others, refused to conduct interracial marriages...that is, they refused to marry a black to a white.

What do you think, if anything, would happen?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
The goal is equal civil rights and protections for our unions and ourselves. This is why the state recognition of “civil unions” and what is going on in Massachusetts, with their Constitutional amendment, scares me. It’s being billed as a compromise, which would give “all the rights of marriage”. I’m no lawyer but from all I’ve read, this is not true. Yah, Scot... I like to think along idealistic lines and I probably project alot of that onto to citizens of America when it comes to something as basic as this. But if the shoe were on the other foot I'm sure I'd be as scared and even outraged by it all.

I started out on the other side of this issue, outraged that the Massachusetts judiciary found an expanded definition of the word "marriage" where none had existed. I argued with my brother about it.

I've only been to a couple of gay commitment ceremonies. I found them to be joyful celebrations and as spiritually moving as most weddings I've been at. The first was two guys in their late 30s when I was that same age. They had both been married before and one had kids. It was obvious in their quiet quavering voices that they were very much in love and moved by the moment they were in. In the second the couple was much younger and the ceremony was more theatrical and for me, a little less satisfying. Both were illuminating though. Neither had any kind of minister present.

When my Dad remarried I was troubled by the fact that, because he and his new wife were both divorced, she was excommunicated and no longer able to partake of the sacraments that had been a central part of her life. I mention that because it is a weird facet of the spiritual nature of marriage to me. I've been thinking about that part recently.

Gays that I've met run the gamut from atheistic to devout. When I think about the church there are only a few rituals that for me still have value. Weddings and funerals. It really bothers me when they screw those up.

The union of two people and their transformation from two individuals into a new being has, for me, profound psychological and spiritual dimension. It's also one of the most enjoyable events to witness. I found myself deeply offended by Brittany Spears' recent overnight. But I hadn't contrasted that with people in your situation until your first post. Pretty disheartening.

I felt comfortable with my middle way, semantic approach to the issue. I figure, if I'm irreligious and the idea of marriage retains an immense spiritual component, then gay marriage has got to be a real obstacle for the minds of the religious community. My way seemed a way around the obstacle. Your posts and your personal story have made me less comfortable. Much less.

You see, I saw something that I disagreed with happening in our state courts. But I figured that the state legislatures would see the issue coming and act to preserve "marriage" but provide an equivalent alternative.

I was upset that others were quick to judge my semantic distinction argument as "separate but equal". As I read up on the issue and on stories similar to yours, I'm now leaning in with a similar apprehension. I think It will be difficult for any level of government to craft a true equivalent and I'm not feeling as idealistic that they even want that.

So your posts have had that peculiar effect on me. I was arguing from the abstract. The hopeful abstract. Arguing that a bridge existed if we would walk down this other path. Now I am a sadder and more conflicted person. Before, it wasn't so personal and I thought I could see a solution. You have made it all much more personal and thought provoking. Simultaneously, my hope for a truly fair and equal outcome recedes.

I believe the religious will not give in on gay "marriage". Not in church and not in society. And I don't see an equivalent anymore. I just can't hold outrage like I used to either. I look for solutions. I try to find the light. The candle is flickering. I fear in the end you'll be burned again.

csense asks a good question. I wish it was different. It would be great if the churches had a way to lead on this issue in a more positive direction. The state would listen then, I think.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Christian
"Heterosexual couples with kids really don't enjoy that many extra benefits. The things that many gay couples are looking for are, in my opinion, basic human rights. They should have the right to property and benefits the same as any married couple." - jimlintott

They don't need marriage for this.

LFTKBS wrote:
Ah, but they do, Blanche, they do.

Marriage brings with it certain benefits; here are some that would be impossible - or at least very, very difficult - to establish through private contracts:

a) Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
b) Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
c) Applying for joint foster care rights.
d) Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
e) Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
f) Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
g) Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
h) Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
i) Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
j) Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

These and many others can be viewed in a report from the General Accounting Office after Clinton signed the DOMA: http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

The above is me quoting myself quoting someone else; I believe the original list (after doing some Googling) is at Nolo.


You are talking about basic rights here. Each one of those you cite would need special attention to examine. I’m not going to go into each one.

My main point is that it is in the best interest of society that marriage as an institution have special privileges. This is different from all of us having basic, fundamental rights.

Yes, married people have special privileges just a C-Corporation has special privileges. That is the whole point. The State wants to encourage this institution, a man and a woman making a life long commitment to stay together.

The rights you are talking about go way above basic human rights or property rights.

Single people don’t have the privileges of married people for the same reasons above explained.

Originally posted by Christian
…snip…

You bring out excellent example of why the State is compelled to intervene and you are actually making for not allowing gay marriages the same privileages as to other couples.

…snip…

Exactly. The reason why is because the woman is not the blood relative to the child. The State fairly assumes that only a woman that has had the child will be more likely to take care of him/her in the manner that is necessary.

In my country, to gain the same legal status as the natural mother, the woman must adopt and adoption is an arduous process where the person must prove to the state that it is apt for the task.

Do you see the implications? The State assumes (rightly so) that a natural father and mother don't need to prove this to the State. It grants these rights and obligations immediately.

Darat wrote
But this has nothing to do with marriage. The state "gives" those rights based on whose sperm and egg conceived the child. (There have been legal cases in the UK regarding this over the last decade or so since egg and sperm donation carries the rights of parenthood with them.) Marriage has nothing to do with those rights. I fail utterly to understand how you can believe this supports your contention.

You are missing the obvious. Why is it that the state has marriage as an institution in the UK? What is the logic behind marriage in the UK? Am I to assume that marriage in the UK is equal to other forms of unions? What are the parameter or status of family law in the UK?

If the State is giving all these benefits without taking into account marriage, what is the purpose of the State sanctioning this as a legal institution? I’m certain it is not a social institution in the UK.

Again this is nothing to do with marriage this is to do with the state supporting a family - and a family is not defined by marriage as far as the state is concerned.

So, are you saying that when a child is born in your country, the State does not compel anyone to assume the parental responsibility? It is the same for the State that children be born without the legal guardianship of mother and father as a unit? I find this hard to believe.

There would be no reason for the State to register (keep files) marriage then. There would be no need to keep files of births with relation to lineage.

Excellent, but the way children are born is throught the relation between a man and a woman. There is no other way. So, the State is compelled to encourage that that same man and woman stay together for the children.

Not in the UK, the state assumes that a child's best interest is paramount and will remove a child from a parent or parents if it deems that is best for the child. Again this has nothing to do with marriage and the rights that a couple gains through marriage.

Yes, of course the child best interest is paramount. You are using the exception to prove your point. The rule is that the child’s best interest is to be with his/her progenitors. The ideal is that the mother and father take care of the child. This is precisely the logic behind the institution of marriage.

That, through time, marriage has gained even more privileges from a legal standpoint does not take away from the focus that the central idea about creating the institution is this specific building block of society.

All the above are "family" issues and "family" rights and in the UK are not granted or supported by a UK state marriage.

Let me re-iterate my point, in the UK the rights that a gay couple would gain by being allowed to enter into a state marriage have nothing to do with families. The rights a heterosexual couple gain when they marry have nothing to do with families.

This link does not exist in the UK, therefore by your argument gay state marriages should be allowed in the UK.

It has everything to do with family. The rights that heterosexual couples obtain is the main incentive for marriage.

Listen, this goes way back to Roman Law, single people in Roman Laws could not inherent and did not have the privileges married people had. Romans had the same idea we still hold today.


Although the UK is ruled by common law, marriage (that comes from codified laws [Roman]) is an institution that holds these special privileges.


Chanileslie wrote:
Marriage is not the building block of society; it is a social rule of this society.

It is a social rule based on the principles of how a society can best work.

There are so many choices. How would you do it. You need at least a male and a female right. How you order it? One man and 2 or 3 women? Or vice versa.

Western States have understood this so well that they prohibit any that is not a monogamous legal institutions. Bigamy is a crime.

The idea that the union of a man and a woman is the best setup of the nuclear family is imbedded in the legal system.

I'm not against same sex unions. People should be free to do as they please in their privacy.

What I'm against is state sanction unions (gay marriage recognized by the State). This recognition has implications. It entitles couples with rights, that I believe should only be granted to heterosexual couples.

varwoche wrote:
Clarify please... You are against so-called civil unions? Against gay couples having hospital visitation rights? Against gay couples enjoyings rights of survivorship? Against gay couples enjoying the same medical insurance options as heterosexual couples?

I understand the logic. If we dissect the privileges granted to married people, we will find rights that could (should???) be granted to any couple regardless of make up.

But this missed the point of the why marriage is a special privileged institution. The State makes this civil institution supreme because it wants a man and a woman to be married. The special qualities the a man and woman bring to the equation cannot be brought any other way.

Yes, you can bring all the exceptions out, (couples you can’t have children, or people who get divorced, etc) The system can never be perfect but it can arrange to optimize the conditions in the system.

Clearly, bringing in a structure that a priori we know is not an ideal structure (ideal in terms of the biology and natural procreation of life) and giving it special status (encouraging it) is not in the best interest of the common good.


Suggestologist wrote:
Which particular rights should not be granted, and how would granting this set of rights to homosexuals harm society?

I’m not thinking in term of denial of rights, I’m thinking more in terms of privileges, incentives. The State does this all the time. If it wants Corporations to invest in a particular area of the economy, it gives tax breaks and special incentives to specific corporations. The corporations that can’t benefit from the incentives are not look upon as being denied rights.

And granting this rights to the corporations that do not contribute the purpose of the common good is not seen (many times) as harming society, it is seen as not looking for optimization. In economic terms, maximizing utility. In social terms, the greater common good.

Originally posted by Christian
I'm against gay marriage. This is some of the reasoning. (I want to keep the initial posts short as to move the thread along.

1. The building block of society is the family.

Yah wrote:
That is debatable, I would be more inclined to believe the building block of society is cooperation.

It is very much possible to have a sucessful society which is devoid of any family ties as long as everyone works to cooperate.

I’m thinking in terms of the biological, genetic make-up of humans. I’m sure we can agree that the rule is that the mother loves the baby more than the regular Joe who has no biological ties to the child.

Consider this, if all conditions are equal between the father and the mother, who gets custody of the child? Why would the courts assume the child is better of with the mother than the father if all conditions are equal? Biology must be playing a crucial role here.

I dont believe such an obligation exists. The state can only impose minimal legal obligations (such as a parent providing a safe environment for children), but it has no authority regulating "morals" or matters of the family, that would be an unwilling concession of the right to privacy (I'm not such much into authoritative oppressing government).

The State (the more modern it is) imposes its imperial powers in a huge way. When it comes to children, the State has almost tyrannical powers. The rules are so stringent and merciless, it is like very few in jurisprudence.

Good parents might not notice this (it might be imperceptible) because we are good parents. But, I assure you negligent parents feel the force of the State in all its coercive might.


Scot C. Trypal wrote:
But, most importantly, almost two years ago we were much further blessed to become parents of twins.

Can I ask about the biological mother of the twins?


I can understand the great burden upon you and I’m sorry it is this way. But, can we build policy on this extraordinary example. Your story is a wonderful story of love, but it is exceptional.
Can we expect this scenario to be the norm?

How does the son recognize that one parent is a man and the other a woman? By their appearance or manerisms? What is the woman is really butch, chews tobacco and drives a semi for a living? Wouldn't an effeminate man be preferable to a woman like this?

Attrayant wrote
How does the son recognize that one parent is a man and the other a woman? By their appearance or manerisms? What is the woman is really butch, chews tobacco and drives a semi for a living? Wouldn't an effeminate man be preferable to a woman like this?

How do boys start liking girls and girls start liking boys? There is a point where our genetic make-up kicks in, right?

If anybody has the credentials to speak out on what might happen to society based on the actions of its groups, it is the anthropologists. Understand that they don't seem to be advocating for or against, but they are saying that the sky will likely not fall if gay marriage goes full steam ahead.

Well, anthropologist don’t believe in the advancement of society. They deny that society has advanced. They say that to judge the guarinis for killing their deformed children is wrong. According to anthropologist ethnocentricity is a no no. If men want to exchange women for cows, it is perfectly legit. Polygamy and monogamy are just flavors to them.

But, society is advancing, globalization is engulfing the world. We want every to adopt the universal proclamation of human rights. (ironic, I know some gay couples are using this to gain equal privileges in marriage).

So, we have established that monogamous relationships are the most respectful to women (most polygamies in history including today, are a man and multiple wifes).

Fade wrote:
Christian,

Your argument assumes that should gay people be allowed to marry, this will somehow harm straight marriages.

If you feel you are not trying to say this, please explain how one marriage effects another.

No, I don’t want to say that. My position is that that the State is giving special privileges, special incentives to an institutions the optimizes society, an institution that maximizes the common good.

Silicon wrote:
And back to Christian's ORIGINAL question, about the "building block" of society, some direct points.

You have numbered your points like some type of logical proof, yet you rely on short-cuts that do not explain your assumptions, or do not provide evidence.

Please show evidence that society is made up of "building blocks". I don't know where that analogy comes from, so I'm not sure what sociological validity that analogy holds.


Ok, how does the human race grow. Bring it down to its most fundamental level. Isn’t a man and woman having a child? How is this child related to the parents? Isn’t the relationship between them the most intimate connection there is? Are children built to order?

Are our predispositions capricious or are we connected in the most fundamental way to our progenitors?

How do you define "building block", and if that "building block" "affects society as a whole" and "must be above privacy issues", by what measure do we as a society determine WHICH families are fit to be "building blocks" and which ones will be so unfit as to be a danger to society?

We must take was is given. Genes and biology demonstrate this special connection between parents and children. The exceptions should not impede the obvious.

And we can see a definite correlation between broken homes and children becoming less than they could have been. Which proves the importance of this union.



Maybe someone can help me here. There was this case where a girl who had been switched in the hospital fought the biological parents in a custody battle. The girl won in court and was allowed to stay with the non-biological parents.

Eventually, the girl returned to her biological parents on her own. There is the special genetic connection between parents and children. That is the natural glue of the building block. The unit of society.

[Regnad Kcin]

In a thread I've only had time to skim, I've found quite the number of doozies. But this one is surely a prize-winner:Originally posted by Christian
Well, anthropologist don’t believe in the advancement of society. They deny that society has advanced. They say that to judge the guarinis for killing their deformed children is wrong. According to anthropologist ethnocentricity is a no no. If men want to exchange women for cows, it is perfectly legit. Polygamy and monogamy are just flavors to them.Oh, and this may be a runner-up:Maybe someone can help me here. There was this case where a girl who had been switched in the hospital fought the biological parents in a custody battle. The girl won in court and was allowed to stay with the non-biological parents.

Eventually, the girl returned to her biological parents on her own. There is the special genetic connection between parents and children. That is the natural glue of the building block. The unit of society. Upchurch, I know you are actively moderating this discussion and so I want to endeavor to make a contribution. But let me just say that I could not let the above entries (even though, as mentioned, there are others) pass without comment.

Then please comment. What you've done here is the web equivalent of a Nelson-esque "Ha, ha!" (of Simpson's fame) Why did you feel the need to point these to passages out?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by csense

What if the Roman Catholic Church, among others, refused to conduct interracial marriages...that is, they refused to marry a black to a white.

What do you think, if anything, would happen?

Legally? Nada. Nil. Zero.

The Catholics would take a massive PR hit and wind up getting picketed and protested and so on, but legally the Church is 100% within their rights to do so and there is absolutely nothing that can or would be done under existing law as far as forcing the Church to marry someone.

This is even moreso were governments to recognize gay marriage, conisdering homosexuality violates the Catholic Church's stated rules. I don't think an open homosexual can even be a Catholic in the first place...

Also, (dealing with the racial hypo) there possibly could be political fallout resulting in governmental attempts to entangle with religion, and a good educated guess is that this would result in an attempt to remove tax-exempt status from religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, but who knows. Still, there would be no "force" by the government.

[Scot C. Trypal]

I wont be able to respond largely until later in the day. I just wanted to point out that, based on my past experience in this fight, Christian has been an absolute saint, and I do appreciate the tone (We’ll get to the arguments in my next post :) ).

Also, I very much appreciate your comments Atlas. In truth I too would have preferred a legislative solution to a judicial, but I’m going to take what I can get and feel the way in which the Massachusetts Court invoked their state constitution is defendable. The opinion is one I’d suggest everyone read; I can’t find one now but I’ll have to look for a link.

Will we get burned? Sadly, I think it's likely. For the record I think the gay community jumped the gun on demanding these rights in the courts, at this time (that’s what I get for letting my Gay Agenda Monthly subscription laps :) ). But, IMHO, our growing anxiety for equal treatment for our rights as couples made us like a bunch of lemmings on an increasingly crowded cliff. Once someone leaped, it felt, at least to me and seemingly many others, that we all should back them, to show our numbers and get our point of view out there, before the inevitable backlash closes up the avenues that were left open to us, such as the courts.

Was it a bad decision to ask for gay marriage, at this time? That, I think, is a common argument against gay marriage today, even for some homosexuals. Ian, I think expressed his reservations based on the distress it might cause some folks, and, arguably, ten years from now, if the trend continues, there will be much less distress at the suggestion of gay marriage. So, the practical part of me says yes, we should have waited, and I wish we worked as many of our opponents think we do, as some immense and crafty conspiracy :) . But the idealist in me says to wait would have been wrong and cowardly, and so here we are, and yep, we are likely to get burned... But maybe not...

We’ll either get these rights in the next couple of years, or we will be waiting for decades to reverse the legal blocks the backlash will create.

One last thing, you said “I found myself deeply offended by Brittany Spears' recent overnight”. Let me tell you, such things drive me absolutely insane. “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”, “Married by America”, all those other “reality” TV shows... Forget it. I can’t talk about it without using coarse language :).

[Regnad Kcin]

Then please comment. What you've done here is the web equivalent of a Nelson-esque "Ha, ha!" (of Simpson's fame) Why did you feel the need to point these to passages out?
Upchurch:

Well, I believe that my comment is implicit in the emphasis I've given the two passages by removing them from their surrounding clutter. Highlighting them, if you will. In other words, I'm saying Can you believe someone would make such obviously faulty statements as these?

I'll try to be more specific should I continue to contribute in the thread. However, it's my opinion that Christian's style does not easily allow for critique and analysis. (I could, for instance, spend a considerable time dissecting the second passage I quoted earlier, so filled is it with hearsay and irrelevant content. But then, how does that contribute to the thread's central point other than to suggest the Christian may not be the best advocate for his/her position?) I mean no disrespect to anyone and only state that this would be true regardless of whether or not I agreed with him/her.

Thanks!

[csense]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
"...the way in which the Massachusetts Court invoked their state constitution is defendable. The opinion is one I’d suggest everyone read; I can’t find one now but I’ll have to look for a link.



I respectfully disagree:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2883.html

[elliotfc]

(a quick edit...Upchurch, if you post a reply, I'll do my best to answer any comments to it, but I doubt I'll be back here for several days. Thanks, this is a nice post you have set up)

I don't think I'm interested in participating in discussion, but just to offer my views:

-I think that homosexuality is a natural, yet abnormal, sexual tendency. I define normal sexuality as an attraction to the opposite sex.

-I don't think abnormal sexual tendencies (whatever they may be, and whatever their object is) are necessarily evil, sinful, damnable, etc. etc. etc.

-I think society has the obligation to establish sexual standards in regards to privilege and recognition, but not in regards to individual actions committed by two adults.

-I think marriage, and the associated terms husband and wife, are obviously universal, exist in every language that has ever been manufactured, and serve as a way to understand the most natural thing in the world, a man and a wife uniting to form a union and children.

-I think that the analogies I see all the time are faulty. I am not gay, and I am not allowed to marry a man. A gay man is not allowed to marry a man. We have the same prohibition. I am not gay, and I am allowed to marry a woman. A gay man is allowed to marry a woman. We have the same right. This applies to women as well.

-I think that eventually gay marriage will be recognized, yet I suspect that may be a temporary measure, at least in the United States.

-I think that marriage and love are not the same. Marriage is a contract recognized by society, and as such, society has the obligation to apply standards to the rules and possibilities of marriage.

-I think that history shows that no nations ever equated homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage until recently, and that the issue is only about 30 years old in the western world.

-If "society" desires to expand the definition/standards of marriage, I'm not going to lose much sleep over that. This is hardly the greatest crisis facing society today.

That's about it.

-Elliot

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by elliotfc
-I think that homosexuality is a natural, yet abnormal, sexual tendency. I define normal sexuality as an attraction to the opposite sex.In that case your definition is circular.
-I think society has the obligation to establish sexual standards in regards to privilege and recognition, but not in regards to individual actions committed by two adults.What does that mean; 'establishing sexual standards' ? I agree that establishing standards and measures is a legitimate task of government, but I don't see how that should be applied to sexual behaviour.-I think marriage, and the associated terms husband and wife, are obviously universal, exist in every language that has ever been manufactured, and serve as a way to understand the most natural thing in the world, a man and a wife uniting to form a union and children.True. And in most languages is commonly understood as a religious ritual, not a government contract, which is what we are talking about here.-I think that the analogies I see all the time are faulty. I am not gay, and I am not allowed to marry a man. A gay man is not allowed to marry a man. We have the same prohibition. I am not gay, and I am allowed to marry a woman. A gay man is allowed to marry a woman. We have the same right. This applies to women as well.You can try to confuse the issue or pretend you don't understand it all you want, but it is really simple: Some people are allowed to marry the one they love, and others are not. It is not the same prohibition.-I think that history shows that no nations ever equated homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage until recently, and that the issue is only about 30 years old in the western world.That is debateable and irrelevant.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Earthborn
In that case your definition is circular.

Ugh. Can't resist.

Of course it's circular. You would speak against any abnormal sexuality in the same way. Humans shouldn't be allowed to marry chickens because marriage can only be between two humans.

And what is your circular defintion?



Right.

Now why did you think I was talking about sexual behavior? I never mentioned sexual behavior.

I was talking about a contract reconized by the government and society, not sexual behavior.

True. And in most languages is commonly understood as a religious ritual, not a government contract, which is what we are talking about here.

Oh, I didn't know we were talking about religious ritual.

Anyhow all governments with codified laws include marriage laws.

You can try to confuse the issue or pretend you don't understand it all you want, but it is really simple: [b]Some people are allowed to marry the one they love, and others are not. It is not the same prohibition.

The issue is love?

Man, if people were allowed to marry whoever they love, Britney Spears would have a few million husbands.

I'd rather keep love out of this I guess, but that's just me.

Are you saying a gay man is incapable of loving a woman, or a lesbian incapable of loving a man?

Anyhow, thank goodness people aren't allowed to marry the "one they love", I think that would be a messed up world.

That is debateable and irrelevant.

The idea of equating homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage is newfangled and that is definitely relevant.

-Elliot

[Earthborn]

Now why did you think I was talking about sexual behavior? I never mentioned sexual behavior.

I was talking about a contract reconized by the government and society, not sexual behavior.Then what does 'establishing sexual standards' mean?Oh, I didn't know we were talking about religious ritual.No, we're not.Are you saying a gay man is incapable of loving a woman, or a lesbian incapable of loving a man?It is irrelevant whether someone is capable of loving a person with some random characteristic instead of someone with a random other characteristic. This is about two people loving eachother enough to marry at the moment they want to marry. The fact that some loving couples can marry and others cannot shows that not everyone is treated equally.Anyhow, thank goodness people aren't allowed to marry the "one they love", I think that would be a messed up world.A lot of people are allowed to marry the one they love. Some others are not, and the government should have a pretty darn good justification for every one. For some it has, for others it hasn't.The idea of equating homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage is newfangled and that is definitely relevant.I don't think that newfangled things are necessarily bad ideas, in many cases they are even very good ideas. So the fact that it is newfangled is irrelevant.

There are reports of same sex ceremonies that resemble marriage from throughout history. Whether these were 'gay marriages' is debateable, since the concept of 'homosexuality' or 'heterosexuality' is in it self a social construct and didn't exist yet. And a civil marriage codified in law is also a fairly recent development. Not to mention the concept that marriage is a social contract of one man and one woman based on mutual consent.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Erg… This forum is moving too fast for me to keep up. I’ll post what I have and will post more later.

“You are talking about basic rights here. Each one of those you cite would need special attention to examine. I’m not going to go into each one.”

But this is all about such rights; gay people can get everything else. Eventually you’ll have to decide which of these rights you think are right to deny us.

”Yes, married people have special privileges just a C-Corporation has special privileges. That is the whole point. The State wants to encourage this institution, a man and a woman making a life long commitment to stay together.”

I think I’ve explained how it is in the State’s interest to “encourage” my union as well, but I also think another, perhaps larger, reason for the government’s actions here is being missed here. To me it seems the state is also reacting to a situation that would exist even without the state’s “encouragement”. Even if the state stopped recognizing straight marriage and only recognized gay marriage, their “encouragement” would hardly entice you, right? You’d not go out looking for a homosexual partner so that you could get those rights, right? You’d likely be doing what I’m doing. Though it was heartbreaking to realize that I might never be married, the current law didn’t affect my instincts either.

In the end, there will always be heterosexual couples and a minority of homosexual couples, no encouragement needed by anything but genetics. But the government, rightfully IMO, reacts to the differences in the lives of couples, as they are different. Currently though it only reacts to straight couples, even those who get married for a night for a publicity stunt. It does not react to homosexual couples, even those who’ve been monogamous their entire life, been with the same person for over a decade, and who are raising a couple of amazing children.

”The rights you are talking about go way above basic human rights or property rights.

Single people don’t have the privileges of married people for the same reasons above explained.”

First, many of these rights make no sense when applied to Single people. For example “Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).” If there is not spouse there is no loss. These rights are given to account for the *reality* of the existing arrangement, not to encourage the arrangement. In this one example, you radically harm a family by killing someone’s spouse. I mean, you’re not saying that I shouldn’t be able to sue my partner’s killer, the killer of my children’s dad, because you think the government shouldn’t “encourage” our family, right?

The surviving spouse should have a right to have that loss, which is unique to couples, accounted for in the law, not because the law wants couples, or because the couple had a particular anatomy or ability to procreate, but because couples have different lives than singles. They generally and hopefully act more as one than as two single people. That difference should be accounted for in the law, and, when it is, it occurs in ways that mostly do not apply to single people.

Another good example is the ability to file for divorce. I think, in my earlier posts I’ve given good reasons why gays and lesbians need this right (or “privilege” :confused: ). At least for this case you’d have to admit the government isn’t giving the right of divorce to “encourage” the preservation of male and female marriages, right? Come to think of it, aren’t married couples fighting for the right to divorce in Chili right now? They have no right to divorce for any reason there, if I heard NPR correctly. But our government gives the right to divorce to accommodate the existing living conditions of people, not to encourage male-female marriage. These conditions are what gays and lesbians already experience without the protections our fellow citizen “enjoy”, such as the procedure of divorce.

It seems to me that our constitution includes equality under the law as a basic human right, and it specifically denies gender as a valid method of discrimination. If you’ll give me these rights if I’m female, but not male, then there is a problem, even if you are considering the union as if it were something like a stone cold corporation. (Referring now to Elliot’s last post, the point I see here is that the government shouldn’t be discriminating based on gender here, against either of us or our choice of partner. They shouldn’t be designating the allowed gender of either of our legal spouses). Lastly, coupling up and making a family is pretty basic, as far as basic human rights go; the government should reflect that.

“Yes, of course the child best interest is paramount. You are using the exception to prove your point. The rule is that the child’s best interest is to be with his/her progenitors. The ideal is that the mother and father take care of the child. This is precisely the logic behind the institution of marriage.”

The fact that there are valid exceptions reveals that “the rule” is not really the The Rule. It’s the best first approximation we have for the generic situation. For example, a common rule is “Do Not Lie”, while this is right on 99% of the time, we know of many valid exceptions, for example, to stop another crime, like a murder. We rightly accommodate these exceptions in our laws and our morals. This is because there is an underlying moral of the greater good that will trump all the other “rules” when considered individually.

“The rule is that the child’s best interest is to be with his/her progenitors.”

I don't think so. That’s the best first approximation of the rule we can make without more information. If we want to satisfy the underlying goal, we’ll need that info and we can and should get it. Maybe the progenitors are abusive; maybe they are good people but don’t want to be parents; maybe something else. In the US, the State will not compel a couple to assume parental responsibility if they wish to relinquish their rights to the state or someone else, right? To force a child on anyone who’s unwilling, even the progenitors, is certainly dangerous for the child.

“The rights that heterosexual couples obtain is the main incentive for marriage.”

Here is where you really lose me. That sounds so wrong to me, particularly from a moral level. As I discussed in one of my previous posts, marriage is so much bigger and better than anything the law could grant or take away. I find it hard to believe people’s “main incentive” to get married are these rights; gays and lesbians have been doing it for years without them, even centuries if you want to look at the admittedly rare accounts in our history.

Even though I’m fighting for them to help the already existing family I have, I think the other aspects of marriage, the aspects I already have, easily eclipse these rights as reasons to get married. Though I could see encouragement is there, to me it seems the law is primarily reacting to the new way of life a married couple experiences, as I discussed above.

“this goes way back to Roman Law”

I can understand the feeling that somethings are “tried and true” but those things need testing every decade or so, just as slavery and women’s rights were. Though the two can go hand in hand, tradition really makes something comfortable, not right. While most people are heterosexual and have assumed throughout history that men are Men and women are Women and everyone should feel a hetero-sense of attraction, that’s not always the case, dramatically shown by people such as hermaphrodites and homosexuals, and I think it’s time society accounted for their exceptions to the “rules”. That is the humane way to alter this tradition.

“The special qualities the a man and woman bring to the equation cannot be brought any other way.”

By the criteria you are shooting for this is only true if you define man as “a human who produces sperm which may interact with a healthy egg to create a viable offspring”, and define woman similarly. There’d be quite a number of men and women who’d be surprised to learn they are not men or women ;) .

“Yes, you can bring all the exceptions out, (couples you can’t have children, or people who get divorced, etc) The system can never be perfect but it can arrange to optimize the conditions in the system.”

That’s no excuse. It seems very easy to me to make the system perfect, by the criteria you want for marriage. We can simply deny marriage to those we know are infertile, those born without genitals, those who’ve lost them to disease or accident, those who were born between sexes. We can keep an eye on the fertility clinics and the adoption agencies. When a married couple admits they’ve tried everything and failed, we’d know they don’t meet the criteria and we’d revoke their license. It would no longer be a relationship the state has a desire to encourage, by your standard, right? It’s simply easy to achieve that standard; often times a person’s ability to procreate with another human can be found out at birth, or with as much intrusion as the current blood tests some states require. But is that really what you’re after?

In the years we were trying to become parents we met many such people, married heterosexual couples, who were simply born infertile. Some knew it all their lives; some were given the bad news from a recent doctor’s visit. Though we never met them, I was told the agency we worked with even helped a couple which included a hermaphrodite (one lucky enough to have the right M or F on their birth certificate, I hope). But you could revoke these people’s rights to marriage very easily and make the system “perfect”.

Though mine is now, I just don’t think that marriage is all about having children for everyone or for the state. It’s certainly about the people who choose it, the way they live, and how the government should adjust for that way of life. But I think you are also forgetting that it’s about the extended family as well. The State has a reason to protect the families of the married couple, as well as the possible children of that union, by accounting for the union and creating legal ties, which make it more difficult to dissolve, and more just if dissolution occurs.

“Clearly, bringing in a structure that a priori we know is not an ideal structure (ideal in terms of the biology and natural procreation of life) and giving it special status (encouraging it) is not in the best interest of the common good.”

Clearly huh :)? “Special status”? We have two very different perspectives. I would love to know how encouraging my union is not in the common good. What kind of life would you prefer gays and lesbians lead, if not a married life? What life would have been better for the common good? You may want to choose the one where no one is homosexual, but you’ll have to take that up with a higher power. How does the existence of my union, my kids, and my family “clearly” harm the common good? Okay, okay, I’m getting a bit catty, but I don’t think we can be rightly written off as exceptions, outside the scope of some perfect family law.

“The corporations that can’t benefit from the incentives are not look upon as being denied rights.”

See, to me, we are not talking about “incentives” for corporations; we are talking about rights, and maybe “incentives”, for individuals. It’s the individual that feels, has wants, and has rights. When you can tie your SS funds to your spouse and I cannot, I’d say you have a right that I lack; it doesn’t seem much different to say you have a privilege or incentive I lack. I don’t think that change of vocabulary makes a practical difference in our lives.

“The State (the more modern it is) imposes its imperial powers in a huge way. When it comes to children, the State has almost tyrannical powers. The rules are so stringent and merciless, it is like very few in jurisprudence.

Good parents might not notice this (it might be imperceptible) because we are good parents. But, I assure you negligent parents feel the force of the State in all its coercive might.”

I’ll take that as a compliment :) . But seems to me the state is terrified to interfere in parental rights. Most take their role as parent to be something deeply sacred, and the state knows this keenly. Maybe it’s just the state I live in, but our Child Protective Services is being raked over the coals for repeatedly putting abused children back into their biological parent’s custody, for “the sake of the family”. For another anecdotal example, about a year ago we were informed a convicted child molester moved in a couple houses down (gratefully he’s since moved). But it was a terrible shock to see he had a bunch of kids, and the state knew all about it, and couldn’t do a thing about it *until* he acted again. The state I see simply respects parental rights, sometimes to a fault.

“Can I ask about the biological mother of the twins?”

I actually can’t say much about her legally or rightfully, particularly to strangers on a public forum. What do you want to know and I’ll see if it’s something I can answer?

“Your story is a wonderful story of love…”

And that’s why I’ll respect you, no matter how much we disagree. For a Christian to even admit that I, a gay man, might be capable of love, is so so rare. I got so used to being berated and dehumanized; comments like this catch me very much off guard and they go a long way to ending the cynicism I have left, thank you.

Edited to say that was a poor compliment from me. Instead of "For a Christian" I should have said "For most of the opponents I’ve encountered in this debate". They are not the same thing and I regret equating the two.

“Can we expect this scenario to be the norm?”

Certainly not. You should expect my sort of family to be rare (but I get the impression it’s less rare than you think). But that doesn’t mean there’s not a more basic rule that should and could easily account for my exception.

(Let me just say, while we are here, that telling a gay person that they have a deviant or abnormal orientation as some sort of count against gay marriage is kind of odd. No gay man I know thinks we’re in the majority; of course it’s abnormal. Left-handedness is abnormal and deviant too, but we still let left-handed folks get drivers licenses.)

“How do boys start liking girls and girls start liking boys? There is a point where our genetic make-up kicks in, right?”

:) Mine kicked in with puberty, just like everyone else. I did though get more of a surprise than my friends did in that I wasn’t noticing the girls at all. What a horrible first year of puberty that was… But Attrayant has a point, which I don’t think you addressed. The personality aspects generally associated with Male and Female are not set in stone. For example, some men are so Female, psychologically, that they’ll become transvestites, even if they remain heterosexual in orientation. Personally, I’m more masculine, despite my orientation. But you’ll find all sorts.

We’ll get more into this when we get to parenting roles and the research on the children of gays and lesbians, which should be soon, I’d suppose. But I’ve got to go.

[Fade]

Christian Wrote:
No, I don’t want to say that. My position is that that the State is giving special privileges, special incentives to an institutions the optimizes society, an institution that maximizes the common good.

This is also your quote:
1. The building block of society is the family.

This doesn't jive, at all.

If the building block of society is "the family" how would creating more legally recognized families hurt?

It would be silly at this point in time to claim that homosexuals don't make good parents, as it is abundantly clear that most people are, in fact, capable of making adequate parents. Homosexual unions are not excluded.

2. The state has an interest (obligation) to regulate matters of the family because it affects society as a whole.

Disregarding the fact that this is an untruth (The state exists to protect everyone equally. The truth is individual protections are pretty much always more important), I don't see how this relates at all, to anything.


Answer this question (bolded for emphasis):

HOW DOES MARRYING HOMOSEXUALS TAKE AWAY FROM STRAIGHT MARRIAGES?

I've asked this over and over in many places, and nobody can answer.

If I get married tomorrow, how many families will be hurt?

If I get married tomorrow, how many families will break up?


The answer is "NONE."


We must take was is given. Genes and biology demonstrate this special connection between parents and children. The exceptions should not impede the obvious.

Evidence?



And we can see a definite correlation between broken homes and children becoming less than they could have been. Which proves the importance of this union.

This doesn't relate at all to what you said in the previous paragraph. It also doesn't make any sense in context of your earlier arguments.

You aren't being very coherent.

"Family is important!"
"Genes!"
"Broken homes!"

How do all these things relate?



Maybe someone can help me here. There was this case where a girl who had been switched in the hospital fought the biological parents in a custody battle. The girl won in court and was allowed to stay with the non-biological parents.

Not so uncommon.

Eventually, the girl returned to her biological parents on her own. There is the special genetic connection between parents and children. That is the natural glue of the building block. The unit of society.

I don't know this case. Obviously, I don't know the girls state of mind.

We have created a sort of parent mythos. There are *thousands* of adopted children out there that are perfectly happy with their adopted parents. Many of them never, ever realize that they are adopted.

Mommy is mommy. There is no mystical connection. Humans have *no* way of knowing a parent from a nonparent until we learn to recognize faces. If you are 2 years old, and I tell that I am your father, you will believe me. You have *no* way of knowing the difference. Only our science can definitively tell you who is a parent of whom. You could be adopted, and not know it.

Therefore, you have no argument here either.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm putting my foot down on this tangent.

I have no joke.

I'd just like to say that I wish there were an award for this kind of utterance.

[epepke]

Originally posted by epepke
edited to remove material meant to bait.

You can disagree with me all you like, but you'll see.

I'd probably object to this if I could remember what I wrote, which I can't. So I'll just say that I honestly am not trying to bait anybody.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Atlas
Epepke,

You articulate the cynics position well. To a man losing his vision you would caution that any operation to preserve his bright view of the world will surely leave the room bloody and messy.

Either I wasn't clear or you misunderstand me. I'll assume the former, as it is the only case where I can do anything.

To a man losing his vision, I would say "Know the deal before you sign the papers."

Since you've brought this up as a metaphor, I think I'm allowed to continue it. I'm myopic and wear glasses (or contact lenses when I can afford them). I've thought about Lasik surgery many times. It's pretty safe, has a high rate of success (around 90%), and everyone I have talked to says that they think it's the best thing they ever did.

At the same time, most of them admit to suffering some loss of night vision, blurring, etc. Overall, they like it. But in my case, I have excellent night vision. Furthermore, I have in the past gone through situations where I had to drive at night, sometimes in terrible conditions, and I can do fine.

So, for my own personal choice, I have avoided getting Lasik surgery. This does not affect anyone else's decision. But I know the facts before making the commitment.

You may call this "cynicism." I call it "realism." With respect to marriage, anyone who isn't completely gung-ho and hopelessly romantic about it is automatically labeled a cynic.

The transformative effects of marriage do benefit both the individuals in loving relationships and also society.

Sometimes. Sometimes it results in bad marriages or abusive relationships that people find it harder to get out of. There are a lot of heterosexuals who get married who really shouldn't, and in many cases it's because they believe in said "transformative effects" to the point where it blinds them from looking at real reasons they should avoid it. Are you trying to tell me that this doesn't happen as well, or is it just "cynical" to point it out?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Well, I believe that my comment is implicit in the emphasis I've given the two passages by removing them from their surrounding clutter. Highlighting them, if you will. In other words, I'm saying Can you believe someone would make such obviously faulty statements as these?Just for clarification (and this is for everyone), I'm trying to push people away from vague, ambiguous comments. I understood that you were saying there was something wrong with those statements, but you didn't specify what. This makes people who reply have to guess, and if they guess wrong, it leads to arguments about what someone did or did not say (i.e. forum noise).

I'm not trying to single you out on this one, Regnad. Everyone does it. Probably me as much as anyone.

In the future, when disagreeing with some part of another's post, I think it is important to specifically say why you disagree with it. Is it a logical fallacy? Is it factually incorrect? Do you just not understand what is being said? (And if so, maybe give your best interpretation to help illustrate to the person you are replying to why you are have a problem.)

This, for instance:
However, it's my opinion that Christian's style does not easily allow for critique and analysis. (I could, for instance, spend a considerable time dissecting the second passage I quoted earlier, so filled is it with hearsay and irrelevant content. But then, how does that contribute to the thread's central point other than to suggest the Christian may not be the best advocate for his/her position?) I mean no disrespect to anyone and only state that this would be true regardless of whether or not I agreed with him/her.is closer to what I would have liked to see accompanying the original comments. (Although, it boarders on a personal attack. Remember to address the qualities of the argument, not the qualities of the poster who makes them.)

Oh, maybe I should point out that the above has been my criteria for judging personal "attacks". (Just as "arguments" don't neccessarily have to have a negative connotation, neither do "attacks", imho.) Anything that addresses the qualities of the poster is (almost) irrelevent to the argument. That "almost" excludes things like context. If I know that Regnad is a man (I don't really know, btw. Just guessing), it would be fair for me to say that Regnad is not qualified to know what it is like to actually go through child birth, for example.

I'll update the rules on the first post to add this clarification. Sorry for the interruption. If you feel the need to debate this point, please do it here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36256&perpage=40&pagenumber=5) or PM me. Thanks.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Of course it's circular. You would speak against any abnormal sexuality in the same way. Are you using the terms 'normal' and 'abnormal' in a mathematical/statistical sense, or in a value judgement sense?

If it's the first, your "definition" of normal marriage is redundant and unnecessary. The nature of the population determines what is within and without the norm.

If it's the second, your argument is indeed circular. It is not the case that value judgements in general are circular, just that yours is.

[Scot C. Trypal]

-I think that the analogies I see all the time are faulty. I am not gay, and I am not allowed to marry a man. A gay man is not allowed to marry a man. We have the same prohibition. I am not gay, and I am allowed to marry a woman. A gay man is allowed to marry a woman. We have the same right. This applies to women as well.

Are you saying a gay man is incapable of loving a woman, or a lesbian incapable of loving a man?

Before I go on with Christian’s post I wanted to respond to this from a different angle than Earthborn, as some gay men do follow society’s “encouragements” and marry women, and I’m sure they can say they love their wife. But there is more than one sort of love. Are you, for example, or even most heterosexual men capable of loving another man in the manner that would be necessary to maintain a healthy marriage?

I love my friends who are female, but that’s not the sort of love I could build a marriage upon. It’s platonic. Now I know there is a continuum of orientations from hetero to bi to homo, and some men can go both ways, but I, like most men, fall far to one end of this continuum (research actually shows that woman occupy the middle ground more prevalently). That sort of love I feel for the women in my life, by my observation, is not the right sort, for either person in a marriage. The wife will rightful want and deserve more; they’ll want their husband to feel that innate indescribable attraction. They will want their husband to feel the intimacy they share is natural to them.

Without that sort of love, giving gays the right to marry women and calling that “equal” is about as reasonable as giving you the right to marry men in some gay bizarro world and then wonder why you’d still complain about your rights. You simply don’t love men that way, right? But when you couple up in this hypothetical gayiverse, you’d still likely think you had rights for yourself in that union, just like everyone else.

Let me also point out that this sort of “encouragement” to have gay men marry women, though it’s primarily done through social and not governmental pressures, is very harmful to society.

About a year after I came out I found a group of gay “friends” (these were actually the first gay people I had known, and it was a real eye-opener, but that’s another story). There was a block in the city by a gay-friendly nightclub where the gay kids would hang out, a weak attempt at community. Each night it was a running gag to note the number of men that would drive by and hit on us with wedding bands and car seats. Some of my "friends" would go off with them. But gays weren’t really having kids back then and we knew who these men were. They had a wife and kids at home, and this was around the height of the AIDS epidemic. Sure, it was funny to a 17 year old kid who was angry with the world and couldn’t see past his own problems, but, looking back, I think how terrible, how profoundly sad.

Looking today at the gay and lesbian friends we have, some were married to the opposite sex. They thought they could do it and they did it for the pressures put on them by their society and family. Some even had kids. But their families crumbled when they couldn’t maintain their double life anymore. It was wrong of them to risk wasting another’s emotions and life to fight their orientation, and they’ll admit it. Arguably, it was also wrong of them to end their marriage after they had made such obligations. Regardless, to suggest or encourage a gay man to marry a woman, by law or by social pressure, is downright dangerous. It’s likely to set everyone involved up for physical and emotional harm; society shouldn’t do it, and, no matter how slight the encouragement is in marriage laws, government shouldn’t do it.

[csense]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal

They [hermaphrodites] also are a tough case for religious opinions that regard male and female (and the associated attractions) as being clear and fundamental aspects of humans.


let me preface this Scot by saying the following is merely the observation of a dispassionate observer, so please don't take offense to anything I say.

Having said that, Hermaphroditism is a mutation, and it no more infers a new gender, than it does dispel the notion that gender is a fundamental distinction within the species.... in a somewhat similar way that siamese, or conjoined twins, does not infer a new phylum or dispel the notion of a fundamental one.

Now that said, marriage is not just a word, it is a principle, and since it is based upon this fundamental distinction, it is therefore a fundamental principle. The union of these fundamental differences (male, female) is unlike any other union within the species that one can conceive of. This is true, because there are no other fundamental differences within the species. All other unions would therefore be considered fundamentally similar.


Now if you alter the qualitative element in the principle of marriage , then you also alter the quantitative, since one infers the other.

Marriage based on dissimilarity infers a fixed quantity, whereas marriage based on similarity infers a variable quantity.

This issue is really more than just gay marriage, since if we follow logic and principles, it infers that there is either only one type of marriage, or all types of marriages.

Polygyny (plural wives) polyandry (plural husbands) and polyamory (loosely defined as group marriages) can not be denied access within any new definition or alteration of the term marriage, and logically speaking, it immediately recognizes them.

If this is O.K. to you and everyone else, then fine....but if it is not, then it is something to think about.

This is why many people would prefer a different term, for something that is obviously quite different, and something which will be a bit more difficult for these other plural unions to follow.

This is also why many people feel, myself included, that the issue is not one of discrimination since A) all other unions are fundamentally different, and B) to entertain this notion, one must assume that "marriage" has no specific language and means only union, and nothing more...and this, demonstrably, is not true.

I wish you well in all your efforts since you are quite obviously an intelligent and passionate advocate, but know that you also must shoulder the burden for these things should you be victorious.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by csense
Now that said, marriage is not just a word, it is a principle, and since it is based upon this fundamental distinction, it is therefore a fundamental principle. So since all principles are based upon fundamental distinctions, they're all fundamental principles.

Portion removed.

[csense]

Removed.

[Fade]

Originally posted by csense


Having said that, Hermaphroditism is a mutation, and it no more infers a new gender, than it does dispel the notion that gender is a fundamental distinction within the species.... in a somewhat similar way that siamese, or conjoined twins, does not infer a new phylum or dispel the notion of a fundamental one.

I'm trying to understand your use of "fundamental distinction."

All difference are distinct. All differences are immutable. Why aren't they all fundamental? In our current society, we could eliminate gender roles completely. Male child-birth doesn't really seem far-fetched anymore, and you only need one person and one host to make a child now.

Now that said, marriage is not just a word, it is a principle,

Value judgement. To me, it's just a word.

and since it is based upon this fundamental distinction,

Another value judgement. All distinctions are fundamental, especially given our modern society.

it is therefore a fundamental principle.

Uh, okay.

The union of these fundamental differences (male, female) is unlike any other union within the species that one can conceive of.

Every single union one can conceive of is unlike every other union. Loving my cat is different than loving my whiskey. You've drawn another value judgement.

This is true, because there are no other fundamental differences within the species.

And another.

All other unions would therefore be considered fundamentally similar.

Did you mean dissimilar?


Now if you alter the qualitative element in the principle of marriage , then you also alter the quantitative, since one infers the other.

Complex Question. The link between the two only exists in your mind. All or nothing, love it or leave it, they are meaningless assertions.

Marriage based on dissimilarity infers a fixed quantity, whereas marriage based on similarity infers a variable quantity.

Infers how? Assert assert assert. Please make an argument and not an assertion.

This issue is really more than just gay marriage,

No it isn't. This issue is gay marriage and nothing more. You are using slippery slope rhetoric. Try again.

since if we follow logic and principles, it infers that there is either only one type of marriage, or all types of marriages.

Fallacy of Bifurcation. Again, wrong.

Polygyny (plural wives) polyandry (plural husbands) and polyamory (loosely defined as group marriages) can not be denied access within any new definition or alteration of the term marriage,
Which new definition? If I define marriage to mean "Union between two living people who are of age to consent in their current district" then my definition would most definitely exclude polygamous relationships.

As an unrelated aside, I also have no problems with polgamy. More specifically, I don't flipping care who chooses to marry whom.

and logically speaking, it immediately recognizes them.

I'll make a Nelson laugh here if I can. You haven't shown that at all.

If this is O.K. to you and everyone else, then fine....but if it is not, then it is something to think about.

Of course it's something to think about, but the subject itself is unrelated. Conjoining dissimilar issues has been a common political tactic for a very long time, in order to make a good proposition seem bad by adding excess baggage to it. Conflating one issue with another isn't a form of discussion or debate, it's a {snip} red herring, {snip}.

Portions removed.

This is why many people would prefer a different term, for something that is obviously quite different, and something which will be a bit more difficult for these other plural unions to follow.

How many years did it take to strike down Jim Crow laws? Do you really want to make an entirely new set of them?

This is also why many people feel, myself included, that the issue is not one of discrimination since A) all other unions are fundamentally different, and B) to entertain this notion, one must assume that "marriage" has no specific language and means only union, and nothing more...and this, demonstrably, is not true.

You SAY this, but you are still not presenting evidence or sound logic to show that it is true. Marriage means vastly different things to different people.

I asked my mother what marriage means. She's an Irish born citizen.

"Marriage is two people who love one another commiting themselves to eachother exclusively."

Ask an Indian princess what marriage means and you'll hear something like:

"Marriage is a political mechanism to bring power and money to our families through a union between us."

Is one of these statements NOT valid?

If so, why so? If not, why not?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Christian
Suggestologist wrote:
[b] Which particular rights should not be granted, and how would granting this set of rights to homosexuals harm society?

I’m not thinking in term of denial of rights, I’m thinking more in terms of privileges, incentives. The State does this all the time. If it wants Corporations to invest in a particular area of the economy, it gives tax breaks and special incentives to specific corporations. The corporations that can’t benefit from the incentives are not look upon as being denied rights.

And granting this rights to the corporations that do not contribute the purpose of the common good is not seen (many times) as harming society, it is seen as not looking for optimization. In economic terms, maximizing utility. In social terms, the greater common good.

OK, you've answered the harm to society part. Can you answer which priviledges and incentives in particular should not be granted to same-sex couples seeking marriage; which are already granted to heterosexual couples seeking marriage?

[Fade]

OK, you've answered the harm to society part.

No he hasn't. I will keep pestering people until I get an actual answer.

What he has done is imply that homosexual relationships somehow not part of the greater common good. This is implicit in his comparison. If it isn't the comparison is automatically invalid, because the one thing would not be like the other.


Also, he's trying to dodge the issue of denial of rights, by saying that he is not thinking in those terms. Well, it doesn't matter. He has X amount of rights, I have X - 1500 rights. I am being denied them. That is undeniable.

Sorry to direct this at you, but Christian isn't presenting a consistent or honest argument, and the more I read over his comments the more holes I find in them.

[csense]

Removed.

[fishbob]

Just a note - early on, Christian posted definitions for family:

from law.com
family n.
1) husband, wife and children.
2) all blood relations.
3) all who live in the same household including servants and relatives, with some person or persons directing this economic and social unit.

Christian has been using definition 1 and ignoring 2 and 3. I am surprised nobody called him on this. If Christian intends law.com to be the final word for what a family is, definitions 2 and 3 are also applicable and any committed relationship for raising kids is a family.

[Fade]

Removed.

[Upchurch]

Okay. Folks are getting a little hot under the collar. That's understandable, but please focus on the argument. If you feel another's argument is just wrong please explain why without resorting to the qualities of the poster. Insulting the intellegence or value of the poster and his/her material gets us no where.

Thank you.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Certainly, no offence taken, and just in case it’s a worry, I’m not going to pull out my “You’re a bigoted homophobe” card for anyone (Well... I may if they make an argument I can’t counter ;) but I don’t think anyone here deserves it).

Maybe I missed it in what Upchurch deleted, but, imho, this has been much more pleasant than I expected.

Also, I wish I could keep up, but I just don’t have the time (I spent most my free time yesterday updating my endnote file on parenting as I think the peer reviewed studies will be important when we get where I think Christian is going).

Hermaphroditism is a mutation, and it no more infers a new gender, than it does dispel the notion that gender is a fundamental distinction within the species.... in a somewhat similar way that siamese, or conjoined twins, does not infer a new phylum or dispel the notion of a fundamental one

Okay, csense, don’t compliment my intelligence too quickly as I had to read your post twice before I got a slippery hold on what you were trying to say.

I didn’t feel like I was saying Hermaphroditism created any *new* gender, but showed that M and F are on a continuum. The individuals in our society are not always *either* M or F by any of the traditional means we have of classifying such things.

I was thinking of the mass of individuals we have on this planet as holding more of a continuum of characteristics. These include things like anatomy, genes, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender associated personality characteristics, and much more. Where we all fall on these continuums makes each individual distinct. (Sure, being a hermaphrodite is a very rare mutation for a human to have, but we all have mutations that make us unique as individuals, just much more subtly)

Of course, we can make cuts in these continuums, and label individuals by our observations. We call them male or female, masculine or feminine, transvestites, heterosexuals, and so on. And it’s true that the distribution is heavily weighted on the extremes of M and F identity, M and F shaped anatomy, M attracted to F and F attracted to M orientation, and so on, but biology is just not as clean as we’d like it for classification purposes, or, I’d argue, for legal purposes. Biology, it seems to me, likes to keep its rare exceptions around.

I have to wonder, what gender would you say that bird is that has XX on it’s right half and XY on it’s left? Or would you say it has no gender? I’d say it has no real gender, if gender means some fundamental, black and white distinction between male and female organisms. I’d say it falls near the middle of a continuum if gender characteristics are as I think they are.

True, conjoined twins don’t denote a new phylum, but this does bring up a related point in that it’s very difficult to say when something like a new species comes about. This is because there is a continuum of individuals which aren’t quite one or the other in between nodes on our trees of life. The problem of setting gender in stone seems similar to me, but the differences are seen in an existing population instead of over time.

Furthermore, the law will give equal rights, as individuals, to each conjoined twin. It will give them both birth certificates, and so on. I think this is because the law realizes that it deals in the rights and wants of individual minds, regardless of the details regarding their body.

On the birth certificate though is also a spot to set the legal gender and that choice will have long-lasting effects on that individual’s rights, just as offering only one legal identity to conjoined twins would. Which box do you think should be marked or what should be done for a hermaphrodite baby, with respect to these laws?

My argument is that those legal consequences for marking M of F should not be there (or at least minimized) for everyone. This is particularly true for hermaphrodites and homosexuals. Regarding gay marriage, you may not be able to see my difference anatomically as you could with a hermaphrodite, but the difference in my mind, in my instinct, is just as real as any physical geometry of reproductive organs. As I said, it’s on that attraction that people will build successful marriages and families, regardless of whether they are legally considered male or female.

I think Fade covered most of the other stuff to which I wanted to react. But...

Polygyny (plural wives) polyandry (plural husbands) and polyamory (loosely defined as group marriages) can not be denied access within any new definition or alteration of the term marriage

Let me just say, as this keeps coming up, regarding polygamy, I agree with you both... I think.

I would support a polygamist’s families right to the have the marriage rights that are applicable to their unique situation. The thing that worries me about polygamy is that it seems to often times be accompanied by statutory rape, curtailment of women’s rights, and, sometimes, violent religious fanaticism. But correlation is not causation, and we already have laws to address such polygamist activities, as we should.

If it is a loving family and they want their way of life (which they consider to be the true traditional sort of marriage), though I don’t get it, let them have it and let the law account for it. There are kids in these families who need the law to recognize their parent’s union, and there are women there who need the protections of a process similar to our current divorce proceedings.

But the situation of polygamy is much more different from current legal marriage than gay marriage would ever be. With more than one spouse you have to make all sorts of new considerations in divorce, inheritance, tax and family laws, and so on, not to discourage or encourage their unions differently, but because they simply function under different mathematical considerations in reality. This is not the case for gay marriage. In the end it seems to me there are completely different arguments for and against polygamy than gay marriage and I’m not really the one to defend or support it.

What’s funny is the odd bedfellows polygamists and homosexuals make in this debate. It’s like the odd couple, the ultra orthodox Christian sects and the Castro District Gay Community. Who’d think we had anything in common? :)

Come to think of it, marriage did once mean polygamy and it still can in some cultures, but that doesn’t lead to gay marriage. Why would it work the other way around?

This is why many people would prefer a different term, for something that is obviously quite different

This, I know, is very difficult for many to understand. But I don’t see my union as different in any significant way. In creating my union, I followed my parent’s example. I followed my grandparent’s example, and that of my siblings. While I have a different starting point in my orientation, marriage is part of my culture too, and I feel like I have made my way to one, in the way I was taught by my family to understand the label “marriage”.

If it is more comfortable for most folks to call it something else, like “civil union”, that’s fine by me. All I’m looking for from them is the rights, not to have some sort of Hallmark Moment of public acceptance. I want to do stuff like get my partner on our family’s health insurance policy, and not worry about our family estate being gutted at my death. But still, that name change in the public eye won’t change the idea of marriage for our extended family or me, and it’s not about gender. Not exactly, but It’s more like Fade’s mother’s:

"Marriage is two people who love one another commiting themselves to eachother exclusively."

My parent’s marriage, for example, would not change in my mind if, all of the sudden, magic made my dad into a woman; it would only change if my mom then couldn’t feel attraction for my dad and acted differently towards him (err or her.. sorry dad :) ). To me it’s about the relationship between individuals, not the anatomy or X or Y. But, as I’m repeatedly reminded, I know most see it differently.

Edited to add quotes

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Christian
Maybe someone can help me here. There was this case where a girl who had been switched in the hospital fought the biological parents in a custody battle. The girl won in court and was allowed to stay with the non-biological parents.

Eventually, the girl returned to her biological parents on her own. There is the special genetic connection between parents and children. That is the natural glue of the building block. The unit of society.

Hi,

I can help you a little bit on this story. That is, if it's the same one I remember. It was on TV for quite awhile. The girl was a young (blond) teen or pre teen by the time the custody battle was won and she was returned to her non-biological parents. I don't know how much time had passed, maybe a year or two, when she took off to live with her biological parents. I watched a special they had on 20/20 or 60 mins....can't remember which. Anyhow, this girl claimed that her non-biological father had physically abused her, and forced her into saying the things she did back at the trial so that she would not get turned over to her biological parents.

However, there was some question as to whether her story was true. She was not adjusting to her biological family very well, and there were some potential problems brewing in that area. Now, I don't know if the show painted her fairly or not, but they certainly left you with a feeling that this girl was lying about things and hiding things. In their interviews with her, she seemed muddled, and not straight about the supposed abuse from her non-biological parents. It is for sure that finding out she had been switched at birth, and going through a custody trial had traumatised and changed her, but as to whether she was abused etc., who knows. As far as I know, she did not file charges, and was not going to do so. It was such a sad story.

[Christian]

Scot C. Trypal wrote:
I think I’ve explained how it is in the State’s interest to “encourage” my union as well, but I also think another, perhaps larger, reason for the government’s actions here is being missed here. To me it seems the state is also reacting to a situation that would exist even without the state’s “encouragement”. Even if the state stopped recognizing straight marriage and only recognized gay marriage, their “encouragement” would hardly entice you, right? You’d not go out looking for a homosexual partner so that you could get those rights, right? You’d likely be doing what I’m doing. Though it was heartbreaking to realize that I might never be married, the current law didn’t affect my instincts either.

You have given a different meaning to encouragement. You are saying the government wants to encourage heterosexual unions as opposed to homosexual. I can understand why you would interpret it this way.

No, the encouragement does not have that focus. The encouragement is for couples to make the existing union legal, formal. Or you can see it as an encouragement for people to settle down in monogamous lasting relationships as opposed to furtive multiple ones.

First, many of these rights make no sense when applied to Single people. For example “Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).” If there is not spouse there is no loss. These rights are given to account for the *reality* of the existing arrangement, not to encourage the arrangement. In this one example, you radically harm a family by killing someone’s spouse.

Again, you are looking at this from a different angle. Single people have mates, it just that their legal status is single. And this very important to understand. So long as they remain in this status, they don’t get the privileges a married couple would.

Many single people don’t want to formalize their relationships because of the responsibility, but those you truly believe in the commitment will see all the advantages of marriage.

I mean, you’re not saying that I shouldn’t be able to sue my partner’s killer, the killer of my children’s dad, because you think the government shouldn’t “encourage” our family, right?

Ok, if we were to take each of the privileges and pass a test, we could probably come up with a list of the ones a gay couple should have as well.

And taken each one individually, you could make the case I’m discriminating you unfairly of I don’t think that particular one should be granted.

At the end of the exercise, (suppose a universe of 100 rights) you show me that at least 60 should be granted to you (and I agreed with this based on the individual analysis)

Then, I say, wait a minute. We have missed the central point. The reason why these rights have been give to this institution is the incentive to marriage of heterosexual couples.

So, now I have to shift my focus to show why I justify giving this special treatment to a heterosexual couple. The question then becomes, why is it justified to give heterosexual couples a special treatment.

The surviving spouse should have a right to have that loss, which is unique to couples, accounted for in the law, not because the law wants couples, or because the couple had a particular anatomy or ability to procreate, but because couples have different lives than singles.

Yes, here is are fundamental disagreement right? I put a tremendous value to the fact that heterosexual couple have the natural perfect set up for the nuclear family. Genes and biology has given a heterosexual couple this natural advantage.

They generally and hopefully act more as one than as two single people. That difference should be accounted for in the law, and, when it is, it occurs in ways that mostly do not apply to single people.

You are thinking about single people alone. Most single people have a significant other(s). But until they formalize their situation and become a legal couple, they don’t get the same benefits.

And think about it. A guy with a girlfriend for 3 years has the same disadvantages in terms of not being able to enjoy the benefits of married people.

Another good example is the ability to file for divorce. I think, in my earlier posts I’ve given good reasons why gays and lesbians need this right (or “privilege” ). At least for this case you’d have to admit the government isn’t giving the right of divorce to “encourage” the preservation of male and female marriages, right?

But the set of divorce laws is not a privilege, it is a penalty. The state has made it hard for people to divorce and the consequences of divorce are harsh, particularly on those couple who have invested a lot of time and resources to the relationship. In a way, this show the interest of the State to encourage that people stay together. Yes, I guess I would argue that.

It seems to me that our constitution includes equality under the law as a basic human right, and it specifically denies gender as a valid method of discrimination.

But this is a misconception. Equal under the law does not mean we are all equal under the law. It means that, in equal circumstances we are equal under the law. This is very different than all equal under the law. And that we are not equal under the law does not necessarily translate into discrimination.

Let me give you to examples of why we are not equal under the law. The president of your country is immune from the same type of prosecution a common citizen is subject to. If the president commits a crime he first has to be impeached, then that impeachment ratified and then he can be subject to criminal prosecution. Would you say you are being discriminated? Would you argue that you should be afforded the same rights as the president?

The other example is African-Americans and affirmative action. An African-American has certain advantages that white people do not, say entering college. His/her scored don’t have to be as high to get in. Would you say this is discrimination (well some white folks actually argue this)?

The fact that there are valid exceptions reveals that “the rule” is not really the The Rule. It’s the best first approximation we have for the generic situation. For example, a common rule is “Do Not Lie”, while this is right on 99% of the time, we know of many valid exceptions, for example, to stop another crime, like a murder. We rightly accommodate these exceptions in our laws and our morals. This is because there is an underlying moral of the greater good that will trump all the other “rules” when considered individually.

I disagree. There are very few rules that don’t have exceptions. The exception is an anomaly, a deviation. We know it is because there is a rule to follow. And the rule serves us, it gives us a standard.

I don't think so. That’s the best first approximation of the rule we can make without more information. If we want to satisfy the underlying goal, we’ll need that info and we can and should get it. Maybe the progenitors are abusive; maybe they are good people but don’t want to be parents; maybe something else. In the US, the State will not compel a couple to assume parental responsibility if they wish to relinquish their rights to the state or someone else, right? To force a child on anyone who’s unwilling, even the progenitors, is certainly dangerous for the child.

This is the crux of our disagreement right? I believe that it is a fair assumption to believe that the best place for the child is with his/her progenitors. That as a general rule is good enough the State to grant special privileges to union between a man and a woman.

Here is where you really lose me. That sounds so wrong to me, particularly from a moral level. As I discussed in one of my previous posts, marriage is so much bigger and better than anything the law could grant or take away. I find it hard to believe people’s “main incentive” to get married are these rights; gays and lesbians have been doing it for years without them, even centuries if you want to look at the admittedly rare accounts in our history.

Wait a second. I didn’t say that people main incentive to get married is this special privilege. No, I’m saying that this is the incentive the State grants. From the perspective of the State, this is what it can do to.

But we can have other perspectives. Religions have their own set of incentives for people to get married. Women give men incentives to get married and vice versa.

Remember, we are just looking at the legal angle, what concerns the State.

I can understand the feeling that somethings are “tried and true” but those things need testing every decade or so, just as slavery and women’s rights were. Though the two can go hand in hand, tradition really makes something comfortable, not right. While most people are heterosexual and have assumed throughout history that men are Men and women are Women and everyone should feel a hetero-sense of attraction, that’s not always the case, dramatically shown by people such as hermaphrodites and homosexuals, and I think it’s time society accounted for their exceptions to the “rules”. That is the humane way to alter this tradition.

I did bring out Roman Law to say “this is the way it’s always been done. I brought it up as to show that the idea of incentives from the government to create these unions is not new and it is principle that has worked. Remember, many countries in the world model Roman Law specifically because this Empire discovered principles that worked.

Me
“The special qualities the a man and woman bring to the equation cannot be brought any other way.”

By the criteria you are shooting for this is only true if you define man as “a human who produces sperm which may interact with a healthy egg to create a viable offspring”, and define woman similarly. There’d be quite a number of men and women who’d be surprised to learn they are not men or women

But now, you are changing the context of my words. My context is only in relation to the nuclear family.

That’s no excuse. It seems very easy to me to make the system perfect, by the criteria you want for marriage. We can simply deny marriage to those we know are infertile, those born without genitals, those who’ve lost them to disease or accident, those who were born between sexes. We can keep an eye on the fertility clinics and the adoption agencies. When a married couple admits they’ve tried everything and failed, we’d know they don’t meet the criteria and we’d revoke their license. It would no longer be a relationship the state has a desire to encourage, by your standard, right? It’s simply easy to achieve that standard; often times a person’s ability to procreate with another human can be found out at birth, or with as much intrusion as the current blood tests some states require. But is that really what you’re after?

But this is slippery slop argument.

In the years we were trying to become parents we met many such people, married heterosexual couples, who were simply born infertile. Some knew it all their lives; some were given the bad news from a recent doctor’s visit. Though we never met them, I was told the agency we worked with even helped a couple which included a hermaphrodite (one lucky enough to have the right M or F on their birth certificate, I hope). But you could revoke these people’s rights to marriage very easily and make the system “perfect”.

We can’t have a perfect system. We can strive for optimization. Remember my affirmative action example? The policy is far from perfect. It has many flaws, but it works. It has made the system better.

Clearly huh ? “Special status”? We have two very different perspectives. I would love to know how encouraging my union is not in the common good. What kind of life would you prefer gays and lesbians lead, if not a married life? What life would have been better for the common good? You may want to choose the one where no one is homosexual, but you’ll have to take that up with a higher power. How does the existence of my union, my kids, and my family “clearly” harm the common good? Okay, okay, I’m getting a bit catty, but I don’t think we can be rightly written off as exceptions, outside the scope of some perfect family law.

Aren’t you presenting a false dichotomy here? Either you get the special status or your life is negative.

Again, I’m talking about encouraging unions that optimize the system. As far I know, the is no way for man-man relationship to have children unless you take a child away from some biological mother. It is my opinion that the first role of the State is first try to create the environment were the child is with their biological mother.

I don’t believe others should have equal opportunity as the biological mother. Now, if the biological mother forfeits this right, then I would give second choice to a heterosexual couple that can’t have children.

This follows the same logic as if a black woman forfeits the right to her child, we would give first choice to a black couple instead of a white couple.

See, to me, we are not talking about “incentives” for corporations; we are talking about rights, and maybe “incentives”, for individuals. It’s the individual that feels, has wants, and has rights. When you can tie your SS funds to your spouse and I cannot, I’d say you have a right that I lack; it doesn’t seem much different to say you have a privilege or incentive I lack. I don’t think that change of vocabulary makes a practical difference in our lives.

This is not a semantic distinction. We are not equal under the law. When I come to your country to visit, I’m not allowed to work or earn money. I’m simply a tourist. I can’t stay if I want to. I have to leave.

I assume you are a US citizen. And if you are, the only difference between a Salvadoran illegal alien and you is that he was not born there. It was just a matter of timing and origin, that’s all. If he had immigrated 130 years ago, he would have been welcome with open arms.

So, should my compatriot have the exact same privileges as you? He certainly does not have them in his country of origin.

My point is that not all privileges and incentives should be viewed as discrimination, a good example being affirmative action. Another is the work visas the US grants every year to people with special talents or work expertise.

I’ll take that as a compliment . But seems to me the state is terrified to interfere in parental rights. Most take their role as parent to be something deeply sacred, and the state knows this keenly. Maybe it’s just the state I live in, but our Child Protective Services is being raked over the coals for repeatedly putting abused children back into their biological parent’s custody, for “the sake of the family”. For another anecdotal example, about a year ago we were informed a convicted child molester moved in a couple houses down (gratefully he’s since moved). But it was a terrible shock to see he had a bunch of kids, and the state knew all about it, and couldn’t do a thing about it *until* he acted again. The state I see simply respects parental rights, sometimes to a fault.

Taking note at the exception. This shows you that the State follow the guideline that biological custody is the first choice.

I actually can’t say much about her legally or rightfully, particularly to strangers on a public forum. What do you want to know and I’ll see if it’s something I can answer?

No, that’s ok.

And that’s why I’ll respect you, no matter how much we disagree. For a Christian to even admit that I, a gay man, might be capable of love, is so so rare. I got so used to being berated and dehumanized; comments like this catch me very much off guard and they go a long way to ending the cynicism I have left, thank you.

Edited to say that was a poor compliment from me. Instead of "For a Christian" I should have said "For most of the opponents I’ve encountered in this debate". They are not the same thing and I regret equating the two.

I’m glad we can debate this subject on the merit of the ideas.

Your case would be similar to the white kid who is poor and has worked hard to get good grades and does not get the scholarship or spot into college because a black person who got lower scores is taking the spot.

How can I explain to him the merits of affirmative action? He is going to tell me it is not his fault that slavery occurred or that as a whole blacks have disadvantages in society.


Consider that when all this legislation was mounted, the legislators weren’t thinking about discriminating against gay couples. They were thinking about heterosexual people having a more orderly life. They were thinking about children born out of wedlock, irresponsible fathers and mothers. They were thinking in terms of solidifying an institution the would advance the common good.

Now, gays and lesbians see the heaven that they are missing. The place where they could be as a couple. But, the legislation was never intended to discriminate against them. It just happens that this special privilege union has more privileges than any other union.

You see, any one can be a polygamist or have any living arrangement they want. The State just wants to have incentives for the union of a man and a woman.

Certainly not. You should expect my sort of family to be rare (but I get the impression it’s less rare than you think). But that doesn’t mean there’s not a more basic rule that should and could easily account for my exception.

(Let me just say, while we are here, that telling a gay person that they have a deviant or abnormal orientation as some sort of count against gay marriage is kind of odd. No gay man I know thinks we’re in the majority; of course it’s abnormal. Left-handedness is abnormal and deviant too, but we still let left-handed folks get drivers licenses.)

If I use the word deviation, it only has the connotation of being an exception to the rule.

Fade wrote:
This doesn't jive, at all.

If the building block of society is "the family" how would creating more legally recognized families hurt?

I clarified my definition. I meant the nuclear family, the union between a man and a woman.

It would be silly at this point in time to claim that homosexuals don't make good parents, as it is abundantly clear that most people are, in fact, capable of making adequate parents. Homosexual unions are not excluded.

This is not the point. The point is prioritizing.

Who would be at the top of the list? I would always put the biological parents on the top. If they are not apt parents, I would give second choice to a heterosexual couples who could not have children. If there were no apt heterosexual couples left, then I would consider other types of unions. But, it is unlikely that I wont find a heterosexual apt couple.

Disregarding the fact that this is an untruth (The state exists to protect everyone equally. The truth is individual protections are pretty much always more important), I don't see how this relates at all, to anything.

As I already explained, the State does not protect everyone equally. And that is a fundamental premise of my argumentation.

Answer this question (bolded for emphasis):

HOW DOES MARRYING HOMOSEXUALS TAKE AWAY FROM STRAIGHT MARRIAGES?

I've asked this over and over in many places, and nobody can answer.

If I get married tomorrow, how many families will be hurt?

If I get married tomorrow, how many families will break up?


The answer is "NONE."

I agree with you. I want to clarify that this is not my point.

Me:
We must take was is given. Genes and biology demonstrate this special connection between parents and children. The exceptions should not impede the obvious.

Evidence?

Are you saying there is no special connection. Mothers don’t have this special bond with their children because they came out of their womb? I don’t know how to show this to you. Maybe I’m wrong to assume this was self-evident, that normal mothers have this unique connection to their children (fathers too of course, only that motherly love is so universally accepted)

This doesn't relate at all to what you said in the previous paragraph. It also doesn't make any sense in context of your earlier arguments.

You aren't being very coherent.

"Family is important!"
"Genes!"
"Broken homes!"

How do all these things relate?

The State has an interest that the nuclear family exists and develop as the prevalent union in society (from the civil law perspective). The more of this unions exists and are successful the more contribution to the common good will exists.

I don't know this case. Obviously, I don't know the girls state of mind.

We have created a sort of parent mythos. There are *thousands* of adopted children out there that are perfectly happy with their adopted parents. Many of them never, ever realize that they are adopted.

Mommy is mommy. There is no mystical connection. Humans have *no* way of knowing a parent from a nonparent until we learn to recognize faces. If you are 2 years old, and I tell that I am your father, you will believe me. You have *no* way of knowing the difference. Only our science can definitively tell you who is a parent of whom. You could be adopted, and not know it.

Therefore, you have no argument here either.

But you are only taking into consideration the point of view of the child. You are not mentioning the point of view of the parents. Between two loving women, who would you give the child to, the biological mother or the other loving woman?

And an argument based on well she is entitled because she had it, would bring out a weird kind of accession property right argumentation, don’t you think?

Suggestologist wrote:
OK, you've answered the harm to society part. Can you answer which priviledges and incentives in particular should not be granted to same-sex couples seeking marriage; which are already granted to heterosexual couples seeking marriage?

What I could think of are the guidelines used to create this special privileges. In other words, what was the legislator’s intent in granting this right to a married couple as opposed to single persons living together.


Fade wrote
No he hasn't. I will keep pestering people until I get an actual answer.

What he has done is imply that homosexual relationships somehow not part of the greater common good. This is implicit in his comparison. If it isn't the comparison is automatically invalid, because the one thing would not be like the other.

I think I did answer. I’m not implying what you say. And I don’t agree with you.

Also, he's trying to dodge the issue of denial of rights, by saying that he is not thinking in those terms. Well, it doesn't matter. He has X amount of rights, I have X - 1500 rights. I am being denied them. That is undeniable.

I’m not dodging the issue. You want to say that if you have less rights than the next person, that is automatically discrimination, I disagree and have given examples of why.

Fishbob wrote:
Christian has been using definition 1 and ignoring 2 and 3. I am surprised nobody called him on this. If Christian intends law.com to be the final word for what a family is, definitions 2 and 3 are also applicable and any committed relationship for raising kids is a family.

I already clarified this. I said I was speaking about the nuclear family. It not my definition that counts. The State is giving special privileges to the union of a man and a woman who are married.


Ruby wrote:
Hi,

I can help you a little bit on this story. That is, if it's the same one I remember. It was on TV for quite awhile. The girl was a young (blond) teen or pre teen by the time the custody battle was won and she was returned to her non-biological parents. I don't know how much time had passed, maybe a year or two, when she took off to live with her biological parents. I watched a special they had on 20/20 or 60 mins....can't remember which. Anyhow, this girl claimed that her non-biological father had physically abused her, and forced her into saying the things she did back at the trial so that she would not get turned over to her biological parents.

However, there was some question as to whether her story was true. She was not adjusting to her biological family very well, and there were some potential problems brewing in that area. Now, I don't know if the show painted her fairly or not, but they certainly left you with a feeling that this girl was lying about things and hiding things. In their interviews with her, she seemed muddled, and not straight about the supposed abuse from her non-biological parents. It is for sure that finding out she had been switched at birth, and going through a custody trial had traumatised and changed her, but as to whether she was abused etc., who knows. As far as I know, she did not file charges, and was not going to do so. It was such a sad story.

Thanks Ruby. You are right, it was turned into a miniseries. I didn’t know those details.

I presented that example just to show that children have this special connection to biological parents. I know I have to show scientific studies. I will begin my research. But, have that example count as one documented case…

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Christian
You are talking about basic rights here. Each one of those you cite would need special attention to examine. I’m not going to go into each one.


Yeah, I am talking about basic rights here. Basic rights that heterosexuals in love can have that homosexuals in love cannot. Why won't you go into each one? They're clearly applicable to your argument.

"My main point is that it is in the best interest of society that marriage as an institution have special privileges."

Okay, sure, great. Why are we discriminating, then? Who benefits from this discrimination?

"Single people don’t have the privileges of married people for the same reasons above explained."

It wouldn't make a lot of sense for a single person to, say, claim the marital communications privilege, because there's no spouse to testify against that single person. It's stuff like this that influences couples to marry (your "it's in the best interest of society that marriage as an institution have special privileges" argument), yet you think that it's good that a homosexual can be forced to testify against his or her partner under penalty of contempt?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The claim that children feel a special relationship with their biological progenitors - and vice versa - simply isn't true. While I don't have links to sources, there's plenty of psychological research demonstrating that adopted children are as psychologically healthy, and have the same emotional ties with their caretakers, as children raised by immediate blood relatives.

Frankly, the available evidence suggests that emotional relationships have little or nothing to do with genetic ones, although there may be some subtle effects associated with appearance.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Christian


(snipped) Yes, of course the child best interest is paramount. You are using the exception to prove your point. The rule is that the child’s best interest is to be with his/her progenitors. The ideal is that the mother and father take care of the child. This is precisely the logic behind the institution of marriage.
We must take was is given. Genes and biology demonstrate this special connection between parents and children. The exceptions should not impede the obvious.

And we can see a definite correlation between broken homes and children becoming less than they could have been. Which proves the importance of this union.



Maybe someone can help me here. There was this case where a girl who had been switched in the hospital fought the biological parents in a custody battle. The girl won in court and was allowed to stay with the non-biological parents.

Eventually, the girl returned to her biological parents on her own. There is the special genetic connection between parents and children. That is the natural glue of the building block. The unit of society.

You're using an exception, yourself, in the case of the switched baby.

And please don't bring up genetic attraction as a factor for parents and kids to be together. A person who never knows who his parents are, even one parent, has just as much a chance of living a full well adjusted life, so long as the household is nurturing, mature, and fulfilling (barring psycholigcal damages, of course).

-history shows that many family lines are traced maternally, as no one could be sure of who the father was, but there would usually be witnesses on who the mother is
-history has also indicated that a person who is adopted and not related by genetics is still legally considered a member of the family if the family is willing to go through the paperwork
-recent US history has indicated children raised by same sex couples are no more likely (or just as likely*) to become homicidal or mal-adjusted than those raised in non homosexual homes.


*this was a joke

[Keneke]

Originally posted by fishbob

Christian has been using definition 1 and ignoring 2 and 3. I am surprised nobody called him on this.

Earlier, we established that Christian's references to family meant "nuclear family": husband, wife, offspring.


Also, I'd like to express my appreciation for moderated debate threads like this. Having someone cut out the BS so I don't have to is so much easier, though this very paragraph may itself be eliminated for being irrelevant. ::wipes off his brown nose::

[Keneke]

To take a slightly different tangent on this debate, I would like to posit this. The fact that gay marriages seem to be such a gray area, and that neither side can really reach a consensus, means that there may not be common ground. Because of this, the law usually gives equal rights under the guise of lassez-faire government. For example: In the case of animal rights, there is a solid line of animal abuse of which anyone cannot cross, but many things before that line are allowed. However, animal rights groups protest against the mistreatment of just about any animal that's touched by man. Those people may find certain behavior unacceptable, but the government will back off to allow the range of human behavior towards animals, barring clear-cut abuse.

Therefore, gay marriage should be allowed by way of "lowest common denominator".

[Scot C. Trypal]

The encouragement is for couples to make the existing union legal, formal. Or you can see it as an encouragement for people to settle down in monogamous lasting relationships as opposed to furtive multiple ones.

Now wait, I have an “existing union”. Let’s assume encouragement is what it is all about and not about accommodating the existing living situation of individuals, as I have tried to say. The encouragement currently is only given to couples of the opposite sex. Why do you think the state shouldn’t encourage homosexuals “to settle down in monogamous lasting relationships as opposed to furtive multiple ones”?

But you actually say it should be for couples who can, together, create biological offspring, right? Still, that isn’t the standard the law meets, though it can, and we’ll get there.

Again, you are looking at this from a different angle. Single people have mates, it just that their legal status is single. And this very important to understand. So long as they remain in this status, they don’t get the privileges a married couple would.

Many single people don’t want to formalize their relationships because of the responsibility, but those you truly believe in the commitment will see all the advantages of marriage.

Single people may have other people with which they live and sleep, but that a marriage does not make. As I said, there are some very important things missing from “living together” couples, and I agree that one of those things is an awesome commitment. These single people don’t want marriage (though they can have it if they are heterosexual) because they don’t want that commitment, and they, thusly, don’t live as a married couple. If they want to change those things and make those commitments, they can, even if there was no law behind it.

Ok, if we were to take each of the privileges and pass a test, we could probably come up with a list of the ones a gay couple should have as well.
….
At the end of the exercise, (suppose a universe of 100 rights) you show me that at least 60 should be granted to you (and I agreed with this based on the individual analysis)

Either the rights should be given on basic morals of human rights or they should not. If we go through the list and you think 60 should be mine, then we agree on at least 60 of them. You should be arguing for us to have those rights, right? Now if you say, but these 40 are special, and I want these to be for the encouragement of heterosexuals only, we can debate that separately.

Out of curiosity, can you name one or two of the most common rights out there in this debate that you think are clearly not to be given to gay and lesbian couples?

Then, I say, wait a minute. We have missed the central point. The reason why these rights have been give to this institution is the incentive to marriage of heterosexual couples.

So, now I have to shift my focus to show why I justify giving this special treatment to a heterosexual couple. The question then becomes, why is it justified to give heterosexual couples a special treatment.

No, you’re insisting these rights are given to encourage only heterosexual marriages, for reproductive reasons, right? I’m saying they are given to accommodate the existing life of the individual. I’d feel harmed just as much as any married person at the murder of my spouse. It’s that special harm that the government is *reacting* to by giving the right to sue a spouse’s murderer, not acting to *encourage* me to marring someone else, on the off chance they’re murdered.

I don’t see how shifting your focus to special treatment for some couples makes denying those 60 rights, which you think we should have, just. I mean, you could excuse all sorts of greater inequalities in the legal treatment of our relationships in the same way, but it still would not be right. You could say, give heterosexual couples without family histories of cancer a $100,000 dollar tax break per year at the expense of higher taxes for singles and homosexuals (what was that group’s acronym on the Simpsons? :) ) to encourage that sort of living condition, but the justification still wouldn’t hold water.

I put a tremendous value to the fact that heterosexual couple have the natural perfect set up for the nuclear family. Genes and biology has given a heterosexual couple this natural advantage.

No, heterosexual couples don’t by default have the natural perfect set up for the nuclear family. The majority of them do, but many don’t reach your standard.

A guy with a girlfriend for 3 years has the same disadvantages in terms of not being able to enjoy the benefits of married people.

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? They *can* have those rights *if* they want them, we cannot. If they don’t live as though they are married, with the public promise, two people living as one, and so on, they won’t want the law to say they are something they are not. But if they live as married, they’ll want those rights and obligations, and if one has a M on their birth certificate and the other has a F they can have it; my union cannot.

But the set of divorce laws is not a privilege, it is a penalty.

That depends on who you are, right? If you are the breadwinner, the procedures of divorce are a horrible pain and certainly not an encouragement to get married or divorced. If you are a homemaker, it’s a godsend and a possible incentive to get married and divorced. But marriage is a contract to which both people must agree. So is it, in all, a privilege or a penalty? I’d say it’s a much more a privilege granted by government, but also that it doesn’t encourage the *preservation* of marriage. People who marry should be in love and want to protect the other, and if they split up and live as singles again, the law should make that separation just.

If, for example, I went mad, and abandoned all my moral sense, I could go to the bank right now and take away everything my family has and hide it in the Caymens. I could run off and what’s may partner going to say to the people who are supposed to be making sure we citizens treat each other justly? What avenue would he have open to him in the law? He’s a stay-at-home parent; he has access to all our family funds, but can’t “own” them without punitive governmental actions. All his work, in our home, is unnoticed by the law, and without the legal procedure of divorce what’s he to do? Maybe he could get some child support, but nothing for him and that law has never been tested for our parenting legal situation. I could simply burry him in lawyers.

Access to these procedures is a right he wants and I want him to have it; it comforts him; it protects him and our family from a possible future me, if, heaven forbid, I lose sight of what’s important. I’ve seen how gays and lesbians have been cheated in the past and I don’t want that to happen, and the government shouldn’t allow it.

The president of your country is immune from the same type of prosecution a common citizen is subject to.

Yes but there is no government-sanctioned gender discrimination in the requirements to gain this status as “President” (seems though, there is one in the minds of the public). There is in achieving the status “married”, which, unlike the presidency, is a status every adult citizen could be granted without destroying our government.

An African-American has certain advantages that white people do not, say entering college. His/her scored don’t have to be as high to get in. Would you say this is discrimination (well some white folks actually argue this)?

Some African-Americans argue it as well; the way I understand it, the African-American community doesn’t have a default support of affirmative action, just as some gays do not support hate crime laws, for instance.

I suppose it’s discrimination by the definition of the word, but the question is if it is justified here. I’ve been swayed by both sides of this argument in the past, but admit I don’t know enough about the issues to debate it.

The question, it seems, is if giving this advantage here, at say college admission, functions to give *equal* status to African-Americans in the end. Does this discrimination in this one area work to make the entire picture non-discriminatory? It’s not about giving special status to any group when the big picture is realized. That’s kind of different from what we are arguing about here, right?

I disagree. There are very few rules that don’t have exceptions. The exception is an anomaly, a deviation. We know it is because there is a rule to follow. And the rule serves us, it gives us a standard.

I know very few rules don’t have exceptions. My point was that we find these exceptions by more basic and encompassing rules. I wonder how do you determine what these anomalies, deviations, are then? Say, to the rule “Do Not Kill”? If it’s by a more basic and encompassing rule, then I don’t understand with what do you disagree.

This is the crux of our disagreement right? I believe that it is a fair assumption to believe that the best place for the child is with his/her progenitors. That as a general rule is good enough the State to grant special privileges to union between a man and a woman.

I’d say our crux disagreement is a bit deeper, as I think marriage rights should be granted to those not able or wanting to have children, and these issues of child rearing are not necessary for marriage rights. That doesn’t mean I wont debate them though :).

Also, it may be the most expedient assumption and a close approximation of reality, but that’s not a safe assumption for the state to make and the state will often times react otherwise. If the genetic progenitors, for example, don’t want their child, the state won’t just assume the child into their care. The state has procedures for terminating and transferring parental rights because *it knows* this assumption is wrong in many instances.

I didn’t say that people main incentive to get married is this special privilege.
The rights that heterosexual couples obtain is the main incentive for marriage.

That’s how it sounded.

But now, you are changing the context of my words. My context is only in relation to the nuclear family.
If the nuclear family is a man and a woman who produce children, how do you fit hopelessly infertile couples into that definition?

But this is slippery slop argument.

No, it would be the slippery slope argument if you said “Marriage rights are dolled out for couples who can produce a nuclear family [by the definition you gave]” and I replied “Well, next thing you know you’ll want them given only to couples who can produce blond children”. That’s not near what I did, as far as I can see. You set that standard of procreation and the “nuclear family”; I did not. I pointed out how we could reach it.

We can’t have a perfect system.

I pointed out we can very easily reach your standard, in forbidding hopelessly infertile couples from marriage. We can make this policy perfect. It’s very easy, at least to catch the most conspicuous of infertile folks.

Got to go, again... There goes my lunch break (and more) :(

edited because I pressed submit accidentally...

[Christian]

Scot:

Thanks for the response. I'll try to get to it Wed. night.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Christian, no hurries, it will give me a chance to catch up. I think we’ve lost our audience anyway; curse my long-windedness :).

Aren’t you presenting a false dichotomy here? Either you get the special status or your life is negative.
“or your life is negative” :confused:? I’m not sure I follow. Here is what you said:
Clearly, bringing in a structure that a priori we know is not an ideal structure (ideal in terms of the biology and natural procreation of life) and giving it special status (encouraging it) is not in the best interest of the common good.
To me this is meant to say “Clearly giving gay and lesbian couples the right to legal marriage does not promote the common good”. I certainly disagree with this, but did I misunderstand?

First, I don’t think you meant it this way, but the above quote is 100% applicable to a couple which includes an 80 year old woman, well past menopause, or any other individual who was born or has become inescapably infertile. We know a priory they cannot reproduce, so is it clearly true that giving them “special status” is not in the common good? Does your above quote apply to all family “structure that a priori we know is not an ideal structure (ideal in terms of the biology and natural procreation of life)”, or is it directed at my sort of family?

If by negative you mean my life is made more difficult, then no, this is not a false dichotomy. Our life is made more difficult than those who live and work as singles.

For example, again, my partner is a homemaker. That’s what he does in life and he does it superbly. If he worked for a paycheck as a hired maid, cook, and/or daycare provider, he’d have income; he’d be paying into his retirement fund; he’d be paying into SS, and so on, as single folks do. Instead, he is, gratefully, *not single* and is a homemaker, and by that division of labor I go out and work.

If we were two heterosexuals, living as we do now, we would still not be singles and we would go to the government and make them aware of our living conditions by applying for a marriage license. They then would account for our situation and his labor, by doing such things as allowing him to be tied to my SS and my work would allow him on my health insurance.

Like I said, there was a time during which we could not get him health insurance at all. If he still worked for his old employer, and we put our kids in daycare, he would have still had his health insurance. But the state shouldn't encourage that unless it has to. More importantly, if we had legal recognition, we could have gotten him insurance through my employer. Can you imagine what would have happened if he had been diagnosed with cancer during that half a year? It would’ve ruined us, just as I’ve seen sudden death in homosexual unions ruin the survivor when the state, or “in-laws”, take away what they, as a couple, not two singles, had built together. The state would be picking up the bill when we hit rock bottom. Yet you are saying non-recognition of my union is for the common good? That’s a tough sell.

I think I get what you’re trying to say. It’s something like “you don’t have less rights than anyone else, you aren’t harmed by your legal status anymore than any other single person is”. But that’s not true, we are not single people. We have a family and we live very differently from single people. Even if we were single, heterosexuals who change their lives to live as a couple can to go to the state and the state will account for that change; it will not for us, making our lives as a couple more difficult than other couple’s or even others who live as singles.

I don’t believe others should have equal opportunity as the biological mother. Now, if the biological mother forfeits this right, then I would give second choice to a heterosexual couple that can’t have children.

Don’t forget lesbian unions; they make up, by far, the majority of gay and lesbian parents. Most reproduce by use of sperm banks (though we do know quite a number of couples who’ve adopted). One genetic progenitor is a man who donated genetic material to these women. He has insisted, in solid cap-locked contract language, that he will not be considered as a parent. In fact, as I understand it, one of the greatest fears of donators is that they will be recognized as a parent.

Furthermore, no one is asking for equal *opportunity* to the biological mother, save perhaps fathers. But when the case occurs, where the biological parents do not want the child or want to harm it, the law must react to the reality, not just assume a rule. It does, and it should, and it has been doing so for centuries.

This is not a semantic distinction. We are not equal under the law. When I come to your country to visit, I’m not allowed to work or earn money. I’m simply a tourist. I can’t stay if I want to. I have to leave.
...
My point is that not all privileges and incentives should be viewed as discrimination
They are discrimination, by definition; the question is if it’s justified discrimination. I think discrimination by characteristics such as sex, race, creed, and so on should be brought as close to zero as possible. Many of the laws and constitutions of the US agree.

A tourist is not a citizen and therefore is not guaranteed all the rights the rest of us enjoy. For my case, I’ve been thinking about citizens of this USoA as I wrote. I should have been clearer; I only used the word a couple times. But, even still, I don’t think the law should use sex as a tool in determining the rights of tourists or immigrants. But we do have a method by which we discriminate between the citizen and non-citizen:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I am a citizen, but gay and lesbian couples, and many of their children do not have equal protections of the law. Changing the name protections or rights to privilege or incentive does not make a difference, as far as I can tell. You’re saying this difference is because of our sex (or ability to procreate, but, as we discussed above, that’s debatable if you won’t back implementing that standard). How is that a compelling reason to deny us these.. what’s a neutral word between rights and privileges?.. considerations :confused:?

I could say, for example, those who are right-handed drivers can have a $100 tax credit. I’d say it’s not to discriminate against southpaws, not to give anyone more rights than another, but to give incentives for drivers to favor their right hand. Maybe, I’d say it was for conformity and guidance in the placement of those tethered pens at the DMV :). It’d be simply too bad that left-handed drivers don’t have that instinct like most everyone else, but they are not being discriminated against :confused:. They have just as many rights as those folks who don’t drive.

I’m not saying some people don’t have their rights abridged; the most obvious example is prison. We restrict prisoner’s rights as they have infringed on the rights of others, and therefore forfeit the protections of that same law. But we discriminate against them, and I think we do it for a very compelling reason. That’s what’s missing in the arguments against gay marriage.

Taking note at the exception. This shows you that the State follow the guideline that biological custody is the first choice.

As I said they respect parental rights, sometimes to a fault, and they’ll continually give biological parents chance after chance. But the question for the state is of parenthood, not genetics. The state, at least my state and as told to us by numerous lawyers, will treat the rights of parents who’ve adopted or had prebirth judgments as being 100% equal to biological parents. Our child protective services do deal mainly with biological parents, but the law treats adoptive parents equally. (Where is Suddenly?? S/He’s a lawyer right?)

Consider that when all this legislation was mounted, the legislators weren’t thinking about discriminating against gay couples. They were thinking about heterosexual people having a more orderly life. They were thinking about children born out of wedlock, irresponsible fathers and mothers. They were thinking in terms of solidifying an institution the would advance the common good.

Gays were greatly invisible, let alone their couplings, when the legislation was drafted. But the same reasons you list above for the laws governing heterosexual marriages are there for homosexual unions as well.

Now, gays and lesbians see the heaven that they are missing. The place where they could be as a couple.

I know you are measuring your words carefully, and I very much appreciate it, but, in my experience, there is a great misunderstanding between our two groups which leads to each side getting steamed when neither of us meant anything hurtful by our words, and this seems to highlight the problem.

I’ll try to explain, but I know it’s very hard for many to imagine our situation as a couple. This difficulty strikes me as awfully odd because it lies in seeing our similarities to heterosexual unions, not our differences. See, we have the heaven, we can be a couple; it’s the rights we are looking for. We are looking for the government to react to the existing reality of our living situation; the law can’t give or take the true essence of marriage to or from anyone.

This brings me back to your comment about marriage rights being (or not :confused: ) the “main incentive” to marry. Whatever you meant, the above quote seems to imply the same misconception about marriage to which I thought I was reacting. The heaven is not what we are asking for; that’s what we have (well, some of us). Referring to your analogy, I did not work real hard to get good grades (a long monogamous and healthy relationship) to get me a scholarship (the legal rights of marriage). I did it because, unlike grades, my union has it’s own precious and immeasurable value.

People shouldn’t be marrying to get rights from the state; that would be doing it for all the wrong reasons. They should be marrying because they want to change their life in a very profound and monumental way. They want their families and friends to know they can count on their union, and that they can and should hold the couple to it. The couple is deeply in love and they want to live as one with another. Gays and lesbian already have this; it’s nothing anyone is missing but those who don’t want it or can’t find a partner. What we want are the rights that are there to recognize the differences in living that comes with this new condition of being coupled.

I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know about marriage. It may be that, when you think “homosexual”, it feels like the situation should be wildly different, as it’s an assault to how you feel your sense of natural attraction. Certainly, I’m just hypothesizing on past experience and I don’t know you as a person, but I’d like understand this difference.

If I use the word deviation, it only has the connotation of being an exception to the rule.

I was reacting someone else’s comment there, sorry. By deviation I mean not normal in a statistical sense. But, keep in mind, the more basic underlying rule that created your characteristics also created mine; mine are just more rare.

Almost caught up...

[Scot C. Trypal]

But, it is unlikely that I wont find a heterosexual apt couple.
Even ignoring the existence of gays and lesbians looking to be parents for a moment, I wonder how unlikely you think it is?

You can’t be an apt parent of a child if you do not want to be that child’s parent.

Let’s look at the numbers: In 2000, 556,000 children were in foster care, 131,000 of them in need of adoption, (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo00/cwo2000.pdf). That year 291,000 entered foster care and 275,000 exited. Of those exiting, only 51,000 children were adopted, the rest either became adults (many with a history of being passed around foster homes) or went back to their original family. This situation is including the kids adopted into gay and lesbian homes. If you don’t whish children to be adopted into gay and lesbian families, how are you going to find these apt heterosexual couples to take their place? Or would you even prefer a child stay in foster care to a gay and lesbian couple that meets or exceeds the current standards for adoption?

Even though the law doesn’t force it, gays and lesbians are simply more likely to adopt kids that most consider “unadoptable”, for disabilities, disease, and so on (erg...I’ll have to look for the reference). You should see the meetings of our local parenting group (no, we don’t discuss our dastardly agenda :), it’s more at the speed of picnicking and zoo trips). It’s full of great loving families and children, many who were adopted out of orphanages or foster care, at ages or in conditions which most folks would simply skip over in favor of healthy newborns.

Are you saying there is no special connection. Mothers don’t have this special bond with their children because they came out of their womb? I don’t know how to show this to you. Maybe I’m wrong to assume this was self-evident, that normal mothers have this unique connection to their children (fathers too of course, only that motherly love is so universally accepted)

I’d say you’ve missed the cause of that special connection. It’s not the genetics or the womb that make a person a Mom or a Dad, it’s the intent, the care, the love, and the effort. It’s that devotion and the effort that accumulates over the years that will make them parents, not some shared pattern of A, T, G, and C’s; without that behavior and emotion the child has no idea who it’s parents are, as Wrath of the Swarm pointed out.

Consider this study: S. Golombok, R. Cook, A. Bish, C. Murray, Child Development, Families Created by the New Reproductive Technologies: Quality of Parenting and Social and Emotional Development of the Children, 66, 285-298 (1995).

It included 184 heterosexual couples. 41 procreated by ivf (in vitro fertilization), 45 by AI (Artificial insemination), 55 by adoption, and 43 by normal procreation.

Not only did they find that non-biological parents parented up to the standards of biological parents, they found that the quality of parenting in IVF and DI families was higher than normal, they were more affectionate and more involved with their children. They concluded: "Findings suggest that genetic ties are less important for family functioning than a strong desire for parenthood", and "the quality of parenting in families where mother and father had gone through great lengths to become parents was superior to that shown by mothers and fathers who had achieved parenthood in the usual way".

Like I said, it’s the intent, the care, the love, and the effort that make a parents. Now, this study certainly does not show these things are lacking from biological parents because they are biological parents. That would be a ridiculous conclusion. It does show that there is no detectable love missing because of missing biological ties. And more, when people need to become parents in ways other than the normal way, many of them will be found ineligible by the natural trials of the process and by the tests within the process. The unqualified and uncommitted folks could have become parents, if they could reproduce naturally, but they were weeded out in the non-biological parent group.

For example, to become the parents we are today, we’ve had a sustained, and active 5 years of consuming effort, 3 emotionally draining years of trying and 2 wonderful years as parents. Statistically, 1 in 5 legal marriages would have divorced by now, and if you count our total years together, then above 1 in 2 marriages would have ended by now. In that way we have shown our commitment to this union and family, and I think that commitment and desire are very important aspects in becoming parents, but there are others things that can possible be a factor.

Before any agency would work with us, we had to be tested (the government, oddly, didn’t much care). We had to give them:
--Criminal background checks
--A detailed personal history
--Interviews with character references
--A wide range of blood work, a complete physical, and family genetic profiles done to asses our chances of creating orphans. They even wanted to know if either of us smoked, which, thankfully, we don’t.
--Credit checks, and full financial disclosures.
--Two separate psychological evaluations. In fact, through the whole process we were in contact with a psychologist, who’d randomly check in on us.
--Numerous interviews and questionnaires, where we were repeatedly quizzed about our parenting styles, our thoughts on discipline, how we’d work together as parents, and so on. We had to have all this planned and settled between us before we became parents, unlike most everyone else.

After all that is done and couple after couple had been rejected, of course, you’ve raised the bar. But would you ignore all that for a single gender litmus test?

But you are only taking into consideration the point of view of the child. You are not mentioning the point of view of the parents. Between two loving women, who would you give the child to, the biological mother or the other loving woman?

The issue of how the parents react is addressed above. But it seems like you are only focusing on what happens most of the time. The law has to account for the exceptions.

I’m sure we all agree that most all of the time the biological mother should raise her offspring. That’s because she is usually the one who, with a solid intent, initiated and planned for the pregnancy, she’s the one anticipating being this child’s parent, she and her family has loved and bonded to this child before she’d even felt the first kick or seen the first ultrasound, she’s the one who has a deep indescribable love for this child, not just any old “loving woman”. But this is not always the case. The genetic parents don’t always do this bonding. In those admittedly rare situations, adoptive, di, and, ivf parents are fully capable of doing that emotional preparation, when the genetic parents are not.

I think you’ve misunderstood the power of what it’s like to be an infertile couple who’ve been given the rights of parents and are expecting a child, on it’s way by birth or adoptive process. They are just as drunk with love, excitement, (a little fear), expectation and an unstoppable longing towards taking on the life of a parent with that particular child, as anyone else could possible be. They bond, even when the genes aren’t there.

In the end, though they usually go hand in hand with the genes, the genes are not necessary or sufficient to make one person a parent to another, in any sense but a genetic sense. It doesn’t make a Parent, in the sense that a parent loves and raises their children.

I better shut up. We haven’t gotten very far, not even to the details of the parenting debate, and I deserve the blame as I--I hope understandably--have a lot to say.
[sigh]

[Fade]

Christian:

I respect your stamina and candor.

I clarified my definition. I meant the nuclear family, the union between a man and a woman.

Then support the argument instead of just asserting it. I agree that having a lot of nuclear families is a great benefit to society, but you still haven't explained how a homosexual families HARMS that. You seem to be forgetting that our laws are meant to protect. I'll have you notice that pretty much ONLY those laws that are not actively protecting things are the ones that are controversial.

Who would protest murder laws? Theft laws? Nobody. They make sense. But there are millions who protest drug laws, and marriage laws, because they don't make any sense. You are advocating a capricious nanny state.


This is not the point. The point is prioritizing.

Then let adoption be done on a point system. Make everything worth a certain amount of points. Never commited a crime? +10. Good stable career? +10. Good stable relationship? +10. Live in a good area? +10. Gay? -1. That way you prioritize hetero couples over equally qualified homosexual couples. This would be perfectly acceptable, as Joe and Jimmy that are much more qualified to BE parents, will get a child over alcohol problem Rhonda and history of abuse Gary.

But, it is unlikely that I wont find a heterosexual apt couple.

There is a giant surplus of children eligable to be adopted. To go off on a minor tangent, adopting a child should not cost any money at all. If one demonstrates a good knowledge of how to raise a child, is a stable person in a stable relationship, and has shown a clear desire to put that child in a wholesome environment, they should be matched to a child. As it stands now, adopting takes too long, costs too much, is too inefficient. Even if a better system were in place, there would still be a LOT of kids out there bounced from home to home with no parental figures they can count on. It's a given that a child with a parent will be happier and healthy than a child without.

As I already explained, the State does not protect everyone equally. And that is a fundamental premise of my argumentation.

Then your argument is unsound. Pointing out current unfair practices and saying they justify other unfair practices is akin to saying "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because negroes can't either." It's unsound reasoning. The state has a vested interest in assuring each and every one of it's citizens is equally protected under the law.

Funny that.

We are guranteed in the foundational document of our nation that we HAVE equal protection under the law.


We must take was is given. Genes and biology demonstrate this special connection between parents and children. The exceptions should not impede the obvious.

Others have taken you to task for this. Genes play absolutely no role in parenting. None.

Of course one has the right to raise their own child (duh) unless they are unable too. But, a child given to a barren couple that is never told it is not related will never know unless told, or if they are obviously not related (white child black parents, for instance). It can be easily demonstrated that the thing a child needs most to develop is love and affection. Once you take care of it's basic physical needs, shelter, food, clothing, it will develop and grow if it's given love and kindness. All children instinctively seek out love from adults. It's part of how we're hardwired. Notice that we are physically incapable of figuring out who mothered and fathered us in absence of scientific evidence. We don't have distinctive smell markers, we don't have any sort of facial markers. You can say "oh this person looks like me" but that proves absolutely nothing. Genetics plays no role, at all, in child-rearing.

Are you saying there is no special connection.

There is none at all. Find one child-centric agency that says either.

But i'll save you time. You won't find a one.

Mothers don’t have this special bond with their children because they came out of their womb?

No special bond whatsoever that can't be duplicated at will by any woman (or man) that wants to form that bond. The physical act of child rearing is only a part of mechanical reproduction and pays absolutely no role in our growth and development.

I don’t know how to show this to you. Maybe I’m wrong to assume this was self-evident, that normal mothers have this unique connection to their children (fathers too of course, only that motherly love is so universally accepted)

You don't know how to show me this because it is a fabrication of our culture. It exists only in your head. Also, fathers have to take mothers at their word that a child is actually theirs. Until recently, it was absolutely impossible to for certain know that a given child was fathered by a given man. Only blood tests can do this now. This couldn't be performed centuries ago.

The bonds we create are part of our natural programming. We have certain instincts that tell us we should love children, protect them. They are universal, across all cultures. Ones motherly/fatherly instincts can be applied to anything, at will.

he State has an interest that the nuclear family exists and develop as the prevalent union in society (from the civil law perspective).

This statement doesn't speak to my question.

It is a biological fact that this will happen without state intervention.

Not hypothesis, or idea. It is a necessity of life. It has happened this way for the entire time our species has been on this planet. It is absurd to think that the government needs intervene in this process at all. Your argument is devoid of meaning.

The more of this unions exists and are successful the more contribution to the common good will exists.

But this goes back to my question! If I get married tomorrow, how many heterosexual unions will be harmed?? You ARE saying (you can't deny this!) that the government has a vested interest in DISRUPTING stable unions! This runs counter to your espoused philosphy! I am amazed you don't see this!

But you are only taking into consideration the point of view of the child.

The only point of view that actually matters, when it comes to parenting. Adults can think things through, small children can't.

You are not mentioning the point of view of the parents. Between two loving women, who would you give the child to, the biological mother or the other loving woman?

You aren't making sense. Nobody has ever advocated taking children away from capable parents. You have given non-information.

I think I did answer. I’m not implying what you say. And I don’t agree with you.

You can't escape the consequences of your argumentation.

For instance, if I make a law stating: "All American citizens are to eat at least one portion of meat each day." I am making a law that violates the rights of vegans and vegatarians.

Now, nowhere in my law have I said anything about vegetarians, or vegans. But, the consequence of that law is that those people will be forced to change. They will be denied certain rights, for no particular reason.

If you say (paraphrased) that "the state has a vested interest in exclusively promoting heterosexual relationships, as they benefit the common good." You are implying that homosexual pairings are counter to the common good.

This is a facet of your argument whether you like it or not. I'm not going to let you weasle out of consequences just because you don't explicitly state the consequences of your arguments.

If you want your argument to hold water, you must demonstrate why a homosexual relationships takes away from the common good. If you can not, then what is the problem exactly? The common good will be served naturally (as it has been for 150,000 years!) and there will be even more goodness to go around because you will suddenly create MILLIONS of stable couples!

I’m not dodging the issue. You want to say that if you have less rights than the next person, that is automatically discrimination, I disagree and have given examples of why.

No, you have not. You have stated made a priori assertions, most of them untrue (and it can be demonstrated as such) and used the same rhetoric discriminatory rhetoric. In a debate, you can't just say something and make it true. You need to reason why.

[Keneke]

No, Scot, I'd say your well-mannered, and ultimately reasonable argument gives you full right to expound on this issue with impunity. Welcome again, and I hope you stay here for a long time.

::applauds::

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal

Even ignoring the existence of gays and lesbians looking to be parents for a moment, I wonder how unlikely you think it is?

You can’t be an apt parent of a child if you do not want to be that child’s parent.

Let’s look at the numbers: In 2000, 556,000 children were in foster care, 131,000 of them in need of adoption, (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo00/cwo2000.pdf). That year 291,000 entered foster care and 275,000 exited. Of those exiting, only 51,000 children were adopted, the rest either became adults (many with a history of being passed around foster homes) or went back to their original family. This situation is including the kids adopted into gay and lesbian homes. If you don’t whish children to be adopted into gay and lesbian families, how are you going to find these apt heterosexual couples to take their place? Or would you even prefer a child stay in foster care to a gay and lesbian couple that meets or exceeds the current standards for adoption?

Even though the law doesn’t force it, gays and lesbians are simply more likely to adopt kids that most consider “unadoptable”, for disabilities, disease, and so on (erg...I’ll have to look for the reference). You should see the meetings of our local parenting group (no, we don’t discuss our dastardly agenda :), it’s more at the speed of picnicking and zoo trips). It’s full of great loving families and children, many who were adopted out of orphanages or foster care, at ages or in conditions which most folks would simply skip over in favor of healthy newborns.



I’d say you’ve missed the cause of that special connection. It’s not the genetics or the womb that make a person a Mom or a Dad, it’s the intent, the care, the love, and the effort. It’s that devotion and the effort that accumulates over the years that will make them parents, not some shared pattern of A, T, G, and C’s; without that behavior and emotion the child has no idea who it’s parents are, as Wrath of the Swarm pointed out.

Consider this study: S. Golombok, R. Cook, A. Bish, C. Murray, Child Development, Families Created by the New Reproductive Technologies: Quality of Parenting and Social and Emotional Development of the Children, 66, 285-298 (1995).

It included 184 heterosexual couples. 41 procreated by ivf (in vitro fertilization), 45 by AI (Artificial insemination), 55 by adoption, and 43 by normal procreation.

Not only did they find that non-biological parents parented up to the standards of biological parents, they found that the quality of parenting in IVF and DI families was higher than normal, they were more affectionate and more involved with their children. They concluded: "Findings suggest that genetic ties are less important for family functioning than a strong desire for parenthood", and "the quality of parenting in families where mother and father had gone through great lengths to become parents was superior to that shown by mothers and fathers who had achieved parenthood in the usual way".

Like I said, it’s the intent, the care, the love, and the effort that make a parents. Now, this study certainly does not show these things are lacking from biological parents because they are biological parents. That would be a ridiculous conclusion. It does show that there is no detectable love missing because of missing biological ties. And more, when people need to become parents in ways other than the normal way, many of them will be found ineligible by the natural trials of the process and by the tests within the process. The unqualified and uncommitted folks could have become parents, if they could reproduce naturally, but they were weeded out in the non-biological parent group.

For example, to become the parents we are today, we’ve had a sustained, and active 5 years of consuming effort, 3 emotionally draining years of trying and 2 wonderful years as parents. Statistically, 1 in 5 legal marriages would have divorced by now, and if you count our total years together, then above 1 in 2 marriages would have ended by now. In that way we have shown our commitment to this union and family, and I think that commitment and desire are very important aspects in becoming parents, but there are others things that can possible be a factor.

Before any agency would work with us, we had to be tested (the government, oddly, didn’t much care). We had to give them:
--Criminal background checks
--A detailed personal history
--Interviews with character references
--A wide range of blood work, a complete physical, and family genetic profiles done to asses our chances of creating orphans. They even wanted to know if either of us smoked, which, thankfully, we don’t.
--Credit checks, and full financial disclosures.
--Two separate psychological evaluations. In fact, through the whole process we were in contact with a psychologist, who’d randomly check in on us.
--Numerous interviews and questionnaires, where we were repeatedly quizzed about our parenting styles, our thoughts on discipline, how we’d work together as parents, and so on. We had to have all this planned and settled between us before we became parents, unlike most everyone else.

After all that is done and couple after couple had been rejected, of course, you’ve raised the bar. But would you ignore all that for a single gender litmus test?



The issue of how the parents react is addressed above. But it seems like you are only focusing on what happens most of the time. The law has to account for the exceptions.

I’m sure we all agree that most all of the time the biological mother should raise her offspring. That’s because she is usually the one who, with a solid intent, initiated and planned for the pregnancy, she’s the one anticipating being this child’s parent, she and her family has loved and bonded to this child before she’d even felt the first kick or seen the first ultrasound, she’s the one who has a deep indescribable love for this child, not just any old “loving woman”. But this is not always the case. The genetic parents don’t always do this bonding. In those admittedly rare situations, adoptive, di, and, ivf parents are fully capable of doing that emotional preparation, when the genetic parents are not.

I think you’ve misunderstood the power of what it’s like to be an infertile couple who’ve been given the rights of parents and are expecting a child, on it’s way by birth or adoptive process. They are just as drunk with love, excitement, (a little fear), expectation and an unstoppable longing towards taking on the life of a parent with that particular child, as anyone else could possible be. They bond, even when the genes aren’t there.

In the end, though they usually go hand in hand with the genes, the genes are not necessary or sufficient to make one person a parent to another, in any sense but a genetic sense. It doesn’t make a Parent, in the sense that a parent loves and raises their children.

I better shut up. We haven’t gotten very far, not even to the details of the parenting debate, and I deserve the blame as I--I hope understandably--have a lot to say.
[sigh]

What you said really touched me and it sounds like your children are lucky to have you as are the vast majority of children who have been adopted by homosexual couples. Love and devotion are far more important than genes, in my opinion.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Would people please stop quoting very long posts in their entirety for the sole purpose of expressing a minor message? It is very annoying, not to mention wasteful.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal: Even ignoring the existence of gays and lesbians looking to be parents for a moment, I wonder how unlikely you think it is? . . . . . . . . . . snipped to make Wrath happy . . . . . . . .

I better shut up. We haven’t gotten very far, not even to the details of the parenting debate, and I deserve the blame as I--I hope understandably--have a lot to say.
[sigh] I'm glad you cleared that up.

Welcome.

[smalltlalk_2k]

I think Gay Marriage is Ok, it you are gay. I am an athiest, so I don't have any myth based theistic beliefs or comglomerated books that run my life and tell me that it is 'supposed' to be right or wrong.

Anyways I don't think that theistic people should be making laws based on their religeous beliefs unless 100% of the theistic population aggrees on it. Given that their are 2000+ denominations of christianity in the US. I don't think that will happen soon. How can people make religous based laws when they can't even aggree on the constructs of their religion.

[Christian]

I was unable to respond on Wed. night. I'm still here and I do have responses.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Again, no hurries. I’ll try to not add anything else to your plate, and, besides, the longer you take the less I have to feel that defensive urge.

Thank you much Keneke, rachaella, gentlehorse, and fishbob; I was starting to think I’d messed up the flow of the debate with the long posts (A quick thank you in this moderated thread is okay, I hope. If not I’ll take full responsibility for my actions :) ).

I think Gay Marriage is Ok, it you are gay

What’s funny is that I’ve actually ran across arguments against gay marriage that seem to hint that gay marriage will be coerced onto those who aren’t gay. Something like: If gay marriage is allowed, people, who’d otherwise be heterosexual, will feel a pressure, however slight, to have a gay marriage, and so it can’t be allowed :confused:.

Commonly, you’ll hear that gay marriage is being forced on, for example, the people of California. Now, that’s certainly a valid way of looking at it, but the way it’s phrased is odd. I mean, gay marriage would be forced on other citizens just as much as legal Wicca marriages are currently. But legal recognition of such unions doesn’t show a state’s promotion of, or it’s citizen’s forced involvement in paganism anymore than it would of homosexuality, and I think most people can see this.

Still, I think this sort of word choice may be meant to bring up the emotions that come with thinking that a sexual orientation you don’t feel is being forced upon you. Those, I know, are some pretty powerful emotions, and I think some gay marriage opponents are using them adeptly.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
What’s funny is that I’ve actually ran across arguments against gay marriage that seem to hint that gay marriage will be coerced onto those who aren’t gay.I don't think it is such a strange idea. After all, the people who believe such a thing are probably the same as those who have advocated that gay people be coerced into heterosexual marriage. And wouldn't homosexuals do the same thing unto them out of revenge? ;)

[Kopji]

There is a complex interaction between what happens in the workplace, and what goes on in society. We speak of having a ‘corporate culture’ rather than ‘corporate society’ because there is a subtle difference in the meaning of the words. Both words describe integrity of behavior, or fabric of human interaction. Society seems a surface aspect of culture, which is made of deeper stuff.

We have several homosexual employees. You find that out in everyday interaction with people you work with: it is discovered in a casual remark, or afterhour’s problem so common to workers. Regardless of our opinion on sexuality, it was easy to see the everyday injustice of not providing 'same sex partner' health care benefits. Treating people fairly is foundational to any well operating organization: it is simply good business. But regardless of that obvious point, it took several years to make it a reality: a simple confidential checkbox on the annual benefits form.

The business is not required to provide same sex benefits. We do it because sometimes homosexuals are the right person for the job and we want to encourage them to work for us. Fairness is part of our corporate culture (and many other companies); this is what I mean by ‘deeper stuff’. Society may not be fair, or practice fairness, or display it… but beneath it all must lay core values of justice, of fairness, of balance.

Ultimately, I do not understand the cold logical analysis of ‘gay marriage or not’. Scot’s excellent posts remind me that the answer always seems to come back around to personal feeling: In my case, a longtime gay minister friend who I will never fully understand… but I do understand his desire to be happy and have a life with love just like I do.

Does gay marriage have the potential to disturb society? I don’t think it matters because society rises from culture and not the other way around. (Is that an assertion that needs to be proven?)

Is gay marriage an answer to a cultural demand for justice (or some other quality)? I would say yes. Is it the best answer? – that is more difficult.

[Christian]

I'm half way through. Possibly tomorrow I get to post the full response.

[Christian]

Sorry for the delay, but here we go.

Scot wrote:
Now wait, I have an “existing union”. Let’s assume encouragement is what it is all about and not about accommodating the existing living situation of individuals, as I have tried to say. The encouragement currently is only given to couples of the opposite sex.

Yes, because these are ideal for procreation and development of society.

Why do you think the state shouldn’t encourage homosexuals “to settle down in monogamous lasting relationships as opposed to furtive multiple ones”?

Because, homosexual unions are not the only kind of unions that are possible if you take away the procreation element. Why should homosexual become a special kind of union protected by special kind of privileges?

Say, there are two best male friends who have a non-sexual relationship. If I’m to accept your whole argumentation as valid, what prevents them from using the same argumentation to create their special union?

As a matter of fact, what's to prevent any kind of union based on your argumentation? You see, what makes the union between a man an a woman special is that the woman can procreate.

But you actually say it should be for couples who can, together, create biological offspring, right? Still, that isn’t the standard the law meets, though it can, and we’ll get there.

This is correct, the institution of marriage has the main purpose to create a stable environment where offspring’s will develop in society.

Either the rights should be given on basic morals of human rights or they should not. If we go through the list and you think 60 should be mine, then we agree on at least 60 of them. You should be arguing for us to have those rights, right?

Wrong. But I am trying to say is that the state wants to grant these special privileges because it is interested in this particular kind the union. If I were to accept your premise that these are basic human rights then there should no reason why I would deny these rights to any kind of union sexual or nonsexual. Two business partners could marry and acquired these rights. Why would you deny them the same rights they wants based solely on the fact that you have a sexual relation and they do not?

Out of curiosity, can you name one or two of the most common rights out there in this debate that you think are clearly not to be given to gay and lesbian couples?

I don't think gay couples should have the right to adopt children.

No, you’re insisting these rights are given to encourage only heterosexual marriages, for reproductive reasons, right?

Yes, this is what I’m saying. If one wants to be blunt, what can be said is this: marriage is a way to tie men to their children. It's like saying that men are the problem and marriage is a solution.

I’m saying they are given to accommodate the existing life of the individual. I’d feel harmed just as much as any married person at the murder of my spouse. It’s that special harm that the government is *reacting* to by giving the right to sue a spouse’s murderer, not acting to *encourage* me to marring someone else, on the off chance they’re murdered.

Somebody could murder your best friend. That would be devastating. Still, the surviving friend does not have certain rights that married couples do.

I don’t see how shifting your focus to special treatment for some couples makes denying those 60 rights, which you think we should have, just. I mean, you could excuse all sorts of greater inequalities in the legal treatment of our relationships in the same way, but it still would not be right.

But that wasn't what I was trying to say. Yes if you look at each right individually, you can make an argument for each one. But that is the wrong way of looking at it. These rights are granted because of the special qualities of the makeup of the union.

You could say, give heterosexual couples without family histories of cancer a $100,000 dollar tax break per year at the expense of higher taxes for singles and homosexuals (what was that group’s acronym on the Simpsons? ) to encourage that sort of living condition, but the justification still wouldn’t hold water.

As I understand it, married couples do get tax breaks.

And you know, we do have a similar situation going on. Some people pay less money for insurance because of their history. Some people pay less taxes based on their qualities (income level, the kind of work they do, like charities)

No, heterosexual couples don’t by default have the natural perfect set up for the nuclear family. The majority of them do, but many don’t reach your standard.

Public policy must be made according to general rules. Most heterosexual couples have the natural set up for a nuclear family.

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? They *can* have those rights *if* they want them, we cannot. If they don’t live as though they are married, with the public promise, two people living as one, and so on, they won’t want the law to say they are something they are not. But if they live as married, they’ll want those rights and obligations, and if one has a M on their birth certificate and the other has a F they can have it; my union cannot.

That is correct, all other kinds of unions cannot, not only yours.

That depends on who you are, right? If you are the breadwinner, the procedures of divorce are a horrible pain and certainly not an encouragement to get married or divorced. If you are a homemaker, it’s a godsend and a possible incentive to get married and divorced. But marriage is a contract to which both people must agree. So is it, in all, a privilege or a penalty? I’d say it’s a much more a privilege granted by government, but also that it doesn’t encourage the *preservation* of marriage. People who marry should be in love and want to protect the other, and if they split up and live as singles again, the law should make that separation just.

The government works from the premise that males have to be responsible for their offspring. We should see divorce as a threat to marriage not as a privilege.

If, for example, I went mad, and abandoned all my moral sense, I could go to the bank right now and take away everything my family has and hide it in the Caymens. I could run off and what’s may partner going to say to the people who are supposed to be making sure we citizens treat each other justly? What avenue would he have open to him in the law? He’s a stay-at-home parent; he has access to all our family funds, but can’t “own” them without punitive governmental actions. All his work, in our home, is unnoticed by the law, and without the legal procedure of divorce what’s he to do? Maybe he could get some child support, but nothing for him and that law has never been tested for our parenting legal situation. I could simply burry him in lawyers.

This is true of all other types of unions. You could have made arrangements with your best friend to take care of her children in exchange for economic security. There’re lots of people who make economic arrangements based on goodwill. There’re lots of people who've been con out of their money.

Access to these procedures is a right he wants and I want him to have it; it comforts him; it protects him and our family from a possible future me, if, heaven forbid, I lose sight of what’s important. I’ve seen how gays and lesbians have been cheated in the past and I don’t want that to happen, and the government shouldn’t allow it.

As I’ve said, lots of people have been cheated out of their money and the government does not give them special protection.

Yes but there is no government-sanctioned gender discrimination in the requirements to gain this status as “President” (seems though, there is one in the minds of the public). There is in achieving the status “married”, which, unlike the presidency, is a status every adult citizen could be granted without destroying our government.

You’re completely missing the point here. I'm giving an example of how the law treats people differently based on a special quality they hold. The parallel here is that someone with a special quality is treated differently under the law, that's all I’m saying.

Some African-Americans argue it as well; the way I understand it, the African-American community doesn’t have a default support of affirmative action, just as some gays do not support hate crime laws, for instance.

I suppose it’s discrimination by the definition of the word, but the question is if it is justified here. I’ve been swayed by both sides of this argument in the past, but admit I don’t know enough about the issues to debate it.

The question, it seems, is if giving this advantage here, at say college admission, functions to give *equal* status to African-Americans in the end. Does this discrimination in this one area work to make the entire picture non-discriminatory? It’s not about giving special status to any group when the big picture is realized. That’s kind of different from what we are arguing about here, right?

My affirmative-action example only shows you that the government's enacts laws to further what it believes is the common good. It is a clear example of laws that provided special privileges to a group of people in the name of common good.

If the nuclear family is a man and a woman who produce children, how do you fit hopelessly infertile couples into that definition?

As I said, this is the general policy. Your argument seems to suggest that, if infertile couples can get married, why couldn't you? Or you’re saying, if this is what the government intends then they shouldn’t let these couples marry.

I don't agree with this. Why should the government create special rules and burdens if there is an obvious criterion to use? A man and a woman can usually have children. They shouldn't have the burden to prove they can. The only thing that is sufficient is that they are a man and a woman. This makes the system efficient.

I don't need to prove or to show that same-sex relation cannot procreate.

No, it would be the slippery slope argument if you said “Marriage rights are dolled out for couples who can produce a nuclear family [by the definition you gave]” and I replied “Well, next thing you know you’ll want them given only to couples who can produce blond children”. That’s not near what I did, as far as I can see. You set that standard of procreation and the “nuclear family”; I did not. I pointed out how we could reach it.

Is a slippery slope because your saying, if the principal reason why heterosexual unions have special privileges is because they can have children than all of the couples who can’t shouldn't be able to get married. Or you’re saying, if those unions are allowed to get married then, I should be allowed to get married as well.

First, I don’t think you meant it this way, but the above quote is 100% applicable to a couple which includes an 80 year old woman, well past menopause, or any other individual who was born or has become inescapably infertile. We know a priory they cannot reproduce, so is it clearly true that giving them “special status” is not in the common good?

Is a clear example of the slippery slope. You're pointing out exceptional circumstances here. I don't see how this marriage contributes to the common good.

Also, consider that this would not be an ideal couple to adopt children, especially based on the age of the older woman.

Does your above quote apply to all family “structure that a priori we know is not an ideal structure (ideal in terms of the biology and natural procreation of life)”, or is it directed at my sort of family?

I understand the argumentation.

Like I said, there was a time during which we could not get him health insurance at all. If he still worked for his old employer, and we put our kids in daycare, he would have still had his health insurance. But the state shouldn't encourage that unless it has to. More importantly, if we had legal recognition, we could have gotten him insurance through my employer. Can you imagine what would have happened if he had been diagnosed with cancer during that half a year? It would’ve ruined us, just as I’ve seen sudden death in homosexual unions ruin the survivor when the state, or “in-laws”, take away what they, as a couple, not two singles, had built together. The state would be picking up the bill when we hit rock bottom. Yet you are saying non-recognition of my union is for the common good? That’s a tough sell.

It's not a tuff sell at all. You're trying to say that I have to solve the problem of the breakdown of the nuclear family by accepting your kind of union. That is what is tuff sell. I'm much rather use all the effort to encourage and protect the nuclear family where children naturally come from.

Same Sex Marriages (SSM) do not promote the purposes of marriage--which focus on that mother and child and how to get the father involved, not just as a source of money (though that's important too), but as a source of love and willing protection as well.

think I get what you’re trying to say. It’s something like “you don’t have less rights than anyone else, you aren’t harmed by your legal status anymore than any other single person is”. But that’s not true, we are not single people. We have a family and we live very differently from single people. Even if we were single, heterosexuals who change their lives to live as a couple can to go to the state and the state will account for that change; it will not for us, making our lives as a couple more difficult than other couple’s or even others who live as singles.

Well, this is the problem too. SSM, in many cases, take children away from their biological mother. To me, the ideal situation is that she keep her offspring.

Don’t forget lesbian unions; they make up, by far, the majority of gay and lesbian parents. Most reproduce by use of sperm banks (though we do know quite a number of couples who’ve adopted).

This is what talking about. SSM denaturalizes the whole procreation process. Why would the government want to promote this?

One genetic progenitor is a man who donated genetic material to these women. He has insisted, in solid cap-locked contract language, that he will not be considered as a parent. In fact, as I understand it, one of the greatest fears of donators is that they will be recognized as a parent.

Exactly. It is promoting the father’s irresponsibility.

A tourist is not a citizen and therefore is not guaranteed all the rights the rest of us enjoy.

Exactly. This seems completely normal to you. Why not? What is the justification for this? Why would a tourist not have the same basic human rights as you? The point is obvious. He should not. And this is unequal treatment by the law is correct and just.

I am a citizen, but gay and lesbian couples, and many of their children do not have equal protections of the law. Changing the name protections or rights to privilege or incentive does not make a difference, as far as I can tell. You’re saying this difference is because of our sex (or ability to procreate, but, as we discussed above, that’s debatable if you won’t back implementing that standard). How is that a compelling reason to deny us these.. what’s a neutral word between rights and privileges?..

The compelling reason is that you cannot procreate. Your union is indistinguishable from any other union I can think of. Any number of people can get together for any reason and claim they should have these rights. I see no reason why, if I accept your argumentation, I should not accept any type of union with equal protection under the law.

I could say, for example, those who are right-handed drivers can have a $100 tax credit. I’d say it’s not to discriminate against southpaws, not to give anyone more rights than another, but to give incentives for drivers to favor their right hand. Maybe, I’d say it was for conformity and guidance in the placement of those tethered pens at the DMV . It’d be simply too bad that left-handed drivers don’t have that instinct like most everyone else, but they are not being discriminated against . They have just as many rights as those folks who don’t drive.

What is the reason I would give right-handed drivers the credit.. Based on what should I do this? What would be the justification?

I’m not saying some people don’t have their rights abridged; the most obvious example is prison. We restrict prisoner’s rights as they have infringed on the rights of others, and therefore forfeit the protections of that same law. But we discriminate against them, and I think we do it for a very compelling reason. That’s what’s missing in the arguments against gay marriage.

I don’t think it is missing. I think it is compelling.

Someone who is 20 can’t legally drink. He does not have the right to. A 20 year old can’t have sex with a 17 year old. Would you call all those discrimination?

As I said they respect parental rights, sometimes to a fault, and they’ll continually give biological parents chance after chance. But the question for the state is of parenthood, not genetics. The state, at least my state and as told to us by numerous lawyers, will treat the rights of parents who’ve adopted or had prebirth judgments as being 100% equal to biological parents. Our child protective services do deal mainly with biological parents, but the law treats adoptive parents equally. (Where is Suddenly?? S/He’s a lawyer right?)

This is true only if the biological parents have lost parental rights. Biological parents who have not lost these rights have absolutely more rights to the child than any one else.

Me:
Now, gays and lesbians see the heaven that they are missing. The place where they could be as a couple.

I know you are measuring your words carefully, and I very much appreciate it, but, in my experience, there is a great misunderstanding between our two groups which leads to each side getting steamed when neither of us meant anything hurtful by our words, and this seems to highlight the problem.

I’ll try to explain, but I know it’s very hard for many to imagine our situation as a couple. This difficulty strikes me as awfully odd because it lies in seeing our similarities to heterosexual unions, not our differences. See, we have the heaven, we can be a couple; it’s the rights we are looking for. We are looking for the government to react to the existing reality of our living situation; the law can’t give or take the true essence of marriage to or from anyone.

I’m sorry, I threw you off with that word. I misspelled it. I meant HAVEN.

Me:
But, it is unlikely that I wont find a heterosexual apt couple.

Even ignoring the existence of gays and lesbians looking to be parents for a moment, I wonder how unlikely you think it is?

You can’t be an apt parent of a child if you do not want to be that child’s parent.

Let’s look at the numbers: In 2000, 556,000 children were in foster care, 131,000 of them in need of adoption…

And that is the point. We want parents to want to be the parents of the child. We want to encourage that. Why would we not want that?

Statistics can and sometimes are very misleading. We need to see patterns, trends, statistics in context.

That year 291,000 entered foster care and 275,000 exited. Of those exiting, only 51,000 children were adopted, the rest either became adults (many with a history of being passed around foster homes) or went back to their original family. This situation is including the kids adopted into gay and lesbian homes. If you don’t whish children to be adopted into gay and lesbian families, how are you going to find these apt heterosexual couples to take their place? Or would you even prefer a child stay in foster care to a gay and lesbian couple that meets or exceeds the current standards for adoption?

I would ask what the trend is. How many children have been adopted year by year in the last 10, 20 years? Is the trend getting worse or getting better? Are we having more marriages or less marriages? and so on.

And these statistics would serve to strengthen the position that the nuclear family should be encouraged even more. Programs should be installed to educate parental responsibility. The encouragement of marriage between a man and a woman can only help not hurt.

And why would we want to look for the farthest off solution to this problem?

Your argument seems to be. "Ideal X is unattainable, therefore we should not hold X as an ideal." I don’t agree with this at all.

I’d say you’ve missed the cause of that special connection. It’s not the genetics or the womb that make a person a Mom or a Dad, it’s the intent, the care, the love, and the effort. It’s that devotion and the effort that accumulates over the years that will make them parents, not some shared pattern of A, T, G, and C’s; without that behavior and emotion the child has no idea who it’s parents are, as Wrath of the Swarm pointed out.

This is the chicken or the egg thing. What creates that intent, the care, the love, the motivation for the effort? Carrying a child for 9 month then watching him/her for the first time, does that create the special connection? Mothers love their children because it is cultural? Sorry, I can’t buy that. That goes against all the experience I see in the world around me. That goes against all the legal structures presupposition there are about mothers.

A biological mother has rights like no other person over the child.

Consider this study: S. Golombok, R. Cook, A. Bish, C. Murray, Child Development, Families Created by the New Reproductive Technologies: Quality of Parenting and Social and Emotional Development of the Children, 66, 285-298 (1995).

It included 184 heterosexual couples. 41 procreated by ivf (in vitro fertilization), 45 by AI (Artificial insemination), 55 by adoption, and 43 by normal procreation.

Not only did they find that non-biological parents parented up to the standards of biological parents, they found that the quality of parenting in IVF and DI families was higher than normal, they were more affectionate and more involved with their children. They concluded: "Findings suggest that genetic ties are less important for family functioning than a strong desire for parenthood", and "the quality of parenting in families where mother and father had gone through great lengths to become parents was superior to that shown by mothers and fathers who had achieved parenthood in the usual way".

So, what are we concluding? We can dispense with nuclear families? We can promote these technologies because biological mothers are indistinguishable from non-biological parents?

What is the ultimate conclusion here? Is it that, there is no problem to take away children from their parents, so long as there are other motivated parents that can take care of the child?

Before any agency would work with us, we had to be tested (the government, oddly, didn’t much care). We had to give them:
--Criminal background checks
--A detailed personal history
--Interviews with character references
--A wide range of blood work, a complete physical, and family genetic profiles done to asses our chances of creating orphans. They even wanted to know if either of us smoked, which, thankfully, we don’t.
--Credit checks, and full financial disclosures.
--Two separate psychological evaluations. In fact, through the whole process we were in contact with a psychologist, who’d randomly check in on us.
--Numerous interviews and questionnaires, where we were repeatedly quizzed about our parenting styles, our thoughts on discipline, how we’d work together as parents, and so on. We had to have all this planned and settled between us before we became parents, unlike most everyone else.

After all that is done and couple after couple had been rejected, of course, you’ve raised the bar. But would you ignore all that for a single gender litmus test?

Why is it that biological mothers don’t have to go through all this tests? Why is that? Would you advocate that biological mothers have to pass these tests to be able to have and raise their children? These are rhetorical questions, of course.

I’m sure we all agree that most all of the time the biological mother should raise her offspring. That’s because she is usually the one who, with a solid intent, initiated and planned for the pregnancy, she’s the one anticipating being this child’s parent, she and her family has loved and bonded to this child before she’d even felt the first kick or seen the first ultrasound, she’s the one who has a deep indescribable love for this child, not just any old “loving woman”.

We can safely assume all of this. This is the thing. This is what I want to encourage. This is what the State wants to encourage.

But this is not always the case. The genetic parents don’t always do this bonding. In those admittedly rare situations, adoptive, di, and, ivf parents are fully capable of doing that emotional preparation, when the genetic parents are not.

And the solution I want to use to solve this problem is first education and incentives to marriage. Then we look for adoption as I explained before.


Fade wrote:
Then support the argument instead of just asserting it.

Well, I’ve done that.

I agree that having a lot of nuclear families is a great benefit to society, but you still haven't explained how a homosexual families HARMS that.

You agree that having a lot of nuclear families is great for society? This is exactly what I’m saying, this is the crux of the matter. It is self-evident. I want the State to encourage this to the max.

Why would I be interested in promoting homosexual marriages if I already know that the ideal is a heterosexual nuclear family?

As I said, the argument in essence is, "Ideal X is unattainable, therefore we should not hold X as an ideal."

To me, this syllogism is an attack on the very concept of an ideal, and ultimately on the idea that ideals should be pursued.

The State has the obligation to enact laws that strive for ideals.

Here is my ideal: It's best for children to be raised by their own parents, who are married to each other. It's second best for them to be raised by one parent married to an opposite-sex step-parent. It's not as good for them to be raised by gay couples. It's also not good for them to be raised by single parents. The law should and does recognize these principles.

You seem to be forgetting that our laws are meant to protect. I'll have you notice that pretty much ONLY those laws that are not actively protecting things are the ones that are controversial.

This is the problem with having little notion of the spectrum of laws. You are thinking probably of penal laws only. Yes, penal laws are specially created to protect a juridical good. But the whole body of laws includes lots of types of laws that don’t have protection as a main component. Most adjective laws don’t have such component.

Who would protest murder laws? Theft laws? Nobody. They make sense. But there are millions who protest drug laws, and marriage laws, because they don't make any sense. You are advocating a capricious nanny state.

This is a very narrow view of jurisprudence. The whole body of civil law is pretty much uncontroversial, and believe me, they make lots of sense. Adjudication, succession, transfer, etc. are pretty much solid real rights. And their main component is not protection.

The State’s role is to promote the common good. You can characterize it as you wish, but we get the many benefits from things that must be handled by the State and no other entity.

The monopoly for prosecuting penal offense belongs strictly to the State. The more advanced the State, the more regulations there are.

Then let adoption be done on a point system. Make everything worth a certain amount of points. Never commited a crime? +10. Good stable career? +10. Good stable relationship? +10. Live in a good area? +10. Gay? -1. That way you prioritize hetero couples over equally qualified homosexual couples. This would be perfectly acceptable, as Joe and Jimmy that are much more qualified to BE parents, will get a child over alcohol problem Rhonda and history of abuse Gary.

I think this is the way it is done. (not exactly, but that is the idea.)

There is a giant surplus of children eligable to be adopted. To go off on a minor tangent, adopting a child should not cost any money at all. If one demonstrates a good knowledge of how to raise a child, is a stable person in a stable relationship, and has shown a clear desire to put that child in a wholesome environment, they should be matched to a child. As it stands now, adopting takes too long, costs too much, is too inefficient. Even if a better system were in place, there would still be a LOT of kids out there bounced from home to home with no parental figures they can count on. It's a given that a child with a parent will be happier and healthy than a child without.

This is precisely why the State legislates to protect the institution of marriage. It is striving for the ideal.

Me:
As I already explained, the State does not protect everyone equally. And that is a fundamental premise of my argumentation.

Then your argument is unsound. Pointing out current unfair practices and saying they justify other unfair practices is akin to saying "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because negroes can't either." It's unsound reasoning. The state has a vested interest in assuring each and every one of it's citizens is equally protected under the law.

Funny that.

We are guranteed in the foundational document of our nation that we HAVE equal protection under the law.

Just because you say it is unsound does not make it so. And you are wrong. We are not protected equality under the law. I have given you enough examples to show you that you are wrong. If I’m wrong and we are protected equally, then you should refute my specific examples as false. Let me give you some more that show we are not equal under the law.

1. A 17 year old can’t vote
2. A mafia member who rats on his organization can be exempt from prosecution (the common criminal cannot)
3. A 17 year old can’t buy alcohol
4. A disabled person with a parking permit can park in special areas.

And, as you can see, all this privileges or lack of them, are for the common the good and based on the special qualities of the individual.

Others have taken you to task for this. Genes play absolutely no role in parenting. None.

Of course one has the right to raise their own child (duh) unless they are unable too.

Ok, if this is so obvious, then explain to my why it is so. Why do we have this notion de facto?

But, a child given to a barren couple that is never told it is not related will never know unless told, or if they are obviously not related (white child black parents, for instance). It can be easily demonstrated that the thing a child needs most to develop is love and affection. Once you take care of it's basic physical needs, shelter, food, clothing, it will develop and grow if it's given love and kindness. All children instinctively seek out love from adults. It's part of how we're hardwired. Notice that we are physically incapable of figuring out who mothered and fathered us in absence of scientific evidence. We don't have distinctive smell markers, we don't have any sort of facial markers. You can say "oh this person looks like me" but that proves absolutely nothing. Genetics plays no role, at all, in child-rearing.

This logic is dangerous. What you are saying is that biological parents are indistinguishable to non-biological parents. If this is true, why would biological parents have a better claim on children? Why don’t we set up this point system, where the best humans raise children? This is a model of a society where lineage, ancestry, biological ties are meaningless.

I submit to you that the love, affection, dedication families show themselves has a lot to do with lineage, ancestry and biological ties. If you want to argue that that’s just cultural and nothing more, fine. If it is only cultural, it is one of the most fundamental cultural things society has. (I don’t agree that it is only cultural, of course)

Me:
Mothers don’t have this special bond with their children because they came out of their womb?

No special bond whatsoever that can't be duplicated at will by any woman (or man) that wants to form that bond. The physical act of child rearing is only a part of mechanical reproduction and pays absolutely no role in our growth and development.

By your logic, a woman who is only marginal in motherhood should let a excellent mother (to be) have the child. What would be the moral justification for letting marginal mothers keep their children if they can be taken care much better. If you are correct, it would be immoral for many mothers who do a less than average job at raising children, keep them.

If there is no biological connection, then I can logically conclude (and with certainty) that the only legal claim I have on my offspring is property right (accession).

You don't know how to show me this because it is a fabrication of our culture. It exists only in your head. Also, fathers have to take mothers at their word that a child is actually theirs. Until recently, it was absolutely impossible to for certain know that a given child was fathered by a given man. Only blood tests can do this now. This couldn't be performed centuries ago.

The bonds we create are part of our natural programming. We have certain instincts that tell us we should love children, protect them. They are universal, across all cultures. Ones motherly/fatherly instincts can be applied to anything, at will.

The conclusion that one can arrive from your logic should be an additional reason why we must be against gay marriages.

This statement doesn't speak to my question.

It is a biological fact that this will happen without state intervention.

Not hypothesis, or idea. It is a necessity of life. It has happened this way for the entire time our species has been on this planet. It is absurd to think that the government needs intervene in this process at all. Your argument is devoid of meaning.

Only because you don’t understand my argument (Civil Law). And I will show why you don’t understand it. Can you tell me why a biological marginal in performance mother should have a better right than a superb mother? What justification (legal or not) can you give?

But this goes back to my question! If I get married tomorrow, how many heterosexual unions will be harmed?? You ARE saying (you can't deny this!) that the government has a vested interest in DISRUPTING stable unions! This runs counter to your espoused philosphy! I am amazed you don't see this!

Well. If you as a gay couple are going to promote that biological mothers not keep their children, then you are harming the common good. But this is not what I’m saying.

You aren't making sense. Nobody has ever advocated taking children away from capable parents. You have given non-information.

Ah, but how about not so capable parents? What about marginal parents? What about those parents that are only infinitesimally above penal prosecution?

You can't escape the consequences of your argumentation.

I think you can’t escape yours.

For instance, if I make a law stating: "All American citizens are to eat at least one portion of meat each day." I am making a law that violates the rights of vegans and vegatarians.

Now, nowhere in my law have I said anything about vegetarians, or vegans. But, the consequence of that law is that those people will be forced to change. They will be denied certain rights, for no particular reason.

If you say (paraphrased) that "the state has a vested interest in exclusively promoting heterosexual relationships, as they benefit the common good." You are implying that homosexual pairings are counter to the common good.

But you want to single out homosexual pairing as the target of discrimination. All other types of unions are excluded, not just homosexual pairing.

What’s wrong with your focus is that you are pointing out your specific union as target of discrimination. That is not the intent of the law.

With your rational, two single people living together could argue that the law implies their pairing is counter to the common good.

I don’t see why it is a black or white thing (an either or situation.)

Many unions are neutral to the common good, they neither help or hurt. Your false dichotomy is obvious.

This is a facet of your argument whether you like it or not.

No it is not, whether you like it or not.

I'm not going to let you weasle out of consequences just because you don't explicitly state the consequences of your arguments.

I wasn’t aware you can forbid me to do anything. And get this straight, I have ABSOLUTELY NO WEASEL LIKE BEHAVIORS.

What ever I want to say explicitly, I will.

If you want your argument to hold water, you must demonstrate why a homosexual relationships takes away from the common good.

No, I don’t agree. If I want my argument to hold water, all I have to show is that the nuclear family is an ideal to strive for.

If you can not, then what is the problem exactly?

As I said, the problem is that I don’t agree with your logic: "Ideal X is unattainable, therefore we should not hold X as an ideal."

The common good will be served naturally (as it has been for 150,000 years!) and there will be even more goodness to go around because you will suddenly create MILLIONS of stable couples!

No, I don’t agree with your view. The natural world is chaotic and amoral. I don’t believe nature is just. I believe humans have to create laws that make things just. If you look at the animal kingdom, it is amoral and unjust (from our standpoint). The strong eat the weak, the weakest die, only the fittest survive.

Humans don’t ascribe to the forces of nature, and they should not.


Me:
I’m not dodging the issue. You want to say that if you have less rights than the next person, that is automatically discrimination, I disagree and have given examples of why.

No, you have not. You have stated made a priori assertions, most of them untrue (and it can be demonstrated as such) and used the same rhetoric discriminatory rhetoric. In a debate, you can't just say something and make it true. You need to reason why.

Yes, I have, yet again. And I have given you my reasoning.

[Silicon]

All I see from Christian is circular reasoning:


A:
We should strive for heterosexual marriages because they are superior.

B: Homosexual marriages are inferior because they cannot produce children.

C: Homosexual marriages where people are producing children shouldn't be encouraged because they aren't superior like heterosexual ones. (See A).



I'm going to ask Upchurch for some moderation in this one. Is there some way we can get Christian to reason in a non-circular way here, as in showing some evidence of superiority or inferiority, rather than a circular assertion?

[Scot C. Trypal]

No this thread has not died, though it would probably be more healthy for me if it did. :)

Silicon, I just wanted to say I didn’t forget about tallying up the extra expenses. I’ve been short on time and it turned out to be more complicated than I imagined (I’m actually waiting for another reason to call our family lawyer to bring it up, as even those quick phone calls add up :) ).

Christian:
Yes, because these [heterosexual couples] are ideal for procreation and development of society.
Why can’t we agree on this? It seems like an obvious fact to me. If you are talking biology, couples of the opposite sex are not “ideal” for procreation; the majority is able but many aren’t. Only couples that include working male and female organs can procreate without aid, but that in no way means they are ideal or others are not, for the development of society.

Is “ideal” really the appropriate word to be using here anyway? There is only one ideal couple out there, if that, and could anyone say the ability to create a fetus together makes homeless heroin-addicted heterosexuals, for example, ideal for procreation and development of society in comparison to the average homosexual couple, who need the involvement of an outside party to have children?


Me: Why do you think the state shouldn’t encourage homosexuals “to settle down in monogamous lasting relationships as opposed to furtive multiple ones”?
Christian: Because, homosexual unions are not the only kind of unions that are possible if you take away the procreation element. Why should homosexual become a special kind of union protected by special kind of privileges?
You think the state shouldn’t encourage homosexuals “to settle down in monogamous lasting relationships as opposed to furtive multiple ones” because “homosexual unions are not the only kind of unions that are possible if you take away the procreation element”? What’s the connection?

Are you saying, as you seem to later on, that the government shouldn’t want to encourage homosexuals to be monogamous, because there are other possible unions having nothing to do with sexual orientation? It seems to me the deep trauma a split causes in children and extended family (and the possible spread of STD’s in couples who engage in sex acts witch include fluid exchange) is a good reason to encourage monogamy in couples, and these reasons are not in the relationships of “business partners”. So what do those other unions have to do with your reasoning here regarding monogamy?

Say, there are two best male friends who have a non-sexual relationship. If I’m to accept your whole argumentation as valid, what prevents them from using the same argumentation to create their special union?
What indeed. What stops two best friends of the opposite sex from going out and getting married? Not the state. So yes, if gay marriage is allowed, some same sex folks could have it for all the wrong reasons, just as opposite sex folks can today.

If you’re meaning to ask why we can’t have more than one of these “special” unions recognized, then polygamy was addressed in a pervious post and, as I said, there are completely different considerations, pro and con, for such situations. I’m looking for equality in rights for the most important institution in my life, for my family, not for more than what others have.

I wish you could read your words through my eyes. Do you really see the relationship between two best friends and the associated living conditions as anywhere near that of a married couple? My arguments suggest they require the same governmental reaction to their relationship as a married couple? To me that greatly mischaracterizes marriage and the situation of being a couple.

Do you know two best friends out there who’d want to legally tie the knot? Bind their financial futures, debts and all? Be liable to support the other even if they split up? Live and act as close to one entity as possible? Are they willing to promise be true to each other till death do them part, be subject to punishment if not, and become a part of the other’s family? How many “best friends” really want that? None I’ve ever known. The rights for marriage are specifically designed for those who live as a couple.

But let’s be practical; show me two same-sex “best friends” who want to live as one for the rest of their lives and I’ll show you a gay couple. :)

If you see my argument as applicable to mere friends then something is really wrong. I mean, isn’t it a bit unnerving to equate the living situation of “best friends” to two people who’ve pair bonded? It’s a world of difference and two best friends, even if they could get it (and they can if they are heterosexual), they would not want it as it would force them to live in a way in which they do not want to live. It would force them to live as a family. We, on the other hand, have gladly been living that way for years and years; we are raising children together, and just want the rights and protections for our family that everyone else in our situation has.

Oh how I need Vulcan Mind-Meld technology.

As a matter of fact, what's to prevent any kind of union based on your argumentation? You see, what makes the union between a man an a woman special is that the woman can procreate.
Again, only some men and some women can procreate.

What makes a marriage special is the relationship between people, the way it connects families, and the way it alters lives in all sort of social, financial, and emotional ways. This happens with or without the ability to procreate, and to this the law is reacting.

And as I said in the past, I think the government should react to people’s relationships. There is nothing it can rightfully do to “prevent any kind of union”, unless trampling on that freedom stops a greater crime, such as statutory rape. These freedoms of association and couplings between humans are very basic rights.

The rest, regarding other kinds of unions, is addressed in my reply to csense (If you’re interested csense, I’d still like to know your reaction on those issues of gender).

me: Either the rights should be given on basic morals of human rights or they should not. If we go through the list and you think 60 should be mine, then we agree on at least 60 of them. You should be arguing for us to have those rights, right?

Christian: Wrong. But I am trying to say is that the state wants to grant these special privileges because it is interested in this particular kind the union.
Even if that were so, it would not make it right. If you think, for example, I should be able to get my partner onto our family’s health insurance or be able to sue his killer on an individual basis; it would not be moral to deny that for the sake of encouraging a sort of union in some other group.

Like I said, maybe the state would like to give special encouragement to couples without a family history of cancer. There are arguably some compelling reasons for the state to do that, but none of them are humane, moral, or just.

If I were to accept your premise that these are basic human rights then there should no reason why I would deny these rights to any kind of union sexual or nonsexual. Two business partners could marry and acquired these rights. Why would you deny them the same rights they wants based solely on the fact that you have a sexual relation and they do not?
Two business partners can marry and acquired these rights, if they are of the opposite sex. They don’t even have to have sex; no one will force them :).

Seriously, if you can’t tell the difference between the way of life of two business partners and a deeply committed married couple living in the same household, raising children, acquiring assets as one, and taking on debts as one, I don’t know how better to explain it than I already have. You don’t see the rights associate with pair bonding as basic?

You’ve brought up sex a couple times now and I’m beginning to suspect some common biases are creeping in.

In all my reasons I’ve written in past posts, where have I ever said we deserve these rights “based solely on the fact that (I) have a sexual relation” with my partner?

The fact that you are portraying the debate about marriage rights as being about a sexual relation and not the intimate and life-altering union of two people is simply provocative and factually incorrect. I mean, you read my 1st post, right? Tell me where sexual acts fit in there. How do they define our family, our living condition, or the reasons why we need equality in these rights? We’ve been a couple for over a decade; we’re in our thirties, not our teens, we are raising twin toddlers. We’re lucky to find time and energy for even a pat on the shoulder :), and sex, as far as I’m concerned, could disappear off this planet tomorrow and we wouldn’t skip a beat as a couple or a family.

Let me vent a bit (not at Christian here--he’s already shown more compassion than most--but at the general gay marriage opposition): This has been one of the issues that has annoyed me most of my life. Sure I’m gay, but, save for my teens, I’ve simply never had a strong drive. It seems to be a characteristic that runs in my family (I know most men wouldn’t dare say this but what are you going to do? Insult a gay man’s machismo :) ?). I was celibate in every sense until I met my partner and have been monogamous ever since; I’m not even sure if, by the majority’s definition, I’m not technically a virgin (probably best we not get into the technicalities though :)).

When people look at my union and all they can see is an assumed sex life--one which, never fail, includes acts in which we’ve never participated--I’m at a total loss. My jaw just drops. The most disturbing sexual imagery I’ve ever encountered has come out of the mouths of our opponents as accusations. I mean, I’m the one who is supposed to have the perverted mind, right? I’m the one denigrating the sacred unions of others, right? But they don’t see the deep psychological ties, the love, the commitment, the family, and so on. It’s maddening.

Granted, the phrase sexual orientation and homosexuality could be seen as confusing. But just look into yourself, at your own sexual orientation to see what it means. There are psychological realms of sexual orientation, which have nothing to do with any sex act and are much more compelling than any sex drive. It’s on these ties that a marriage will be built. True, I’m only attracted to members of my same sex, but the physical aspect of this attraction is not near the end of the story, and, after so many years, it’s not anything my union could be characterized by.

The way I see it, I just happened to get the orientation that is usually turned on in women when the chemicals of puberty start pumping. As most women will tell you, sex acts are not near what it means to couple up, pair bond, get married, and raise a family with the object of their attraction. That is basic human nature for myself and most everyone else, and sex is trivial and base in comparison.

Rant ended but my goodness man, if you think I’m asking for these rights “based solely on the fact that (I) have a sexual relation”, I haven’t gotten my words across at all and the space between our two points of view is nothing less than tragic. I mean “solely”? Can you imagine how wrong this characterization would be if it were applied to any marriage in your life that you know, respect, and depend upon? Wouldn’t it be an obscene suggestion and an incredible insult to your parents, for example, for you to say they went down to the courthouse and got a marriage license solely because they thought they deserved “special rights” for their sexual relationship? I’d imagine it would be to me if I weren’t so used to it.

I never said these rights should be given to us because we have a “sexual relation”; it hurts my head to even think that. I’ve said we should have these rights for basic morals of equality, which should be as blind as possible to such things as sex. We should have them for the same reasons any other couple who lives as married should, to reflect our way of life as a couple, to let us effectively take care of each other in areas of insurance and inheritance, to make our union just if one of us decides to ditch our responsibilities. Though we are more fortunate, for some couples this is also a question of getting insurance and inheritance rights for their kids. These children do not have equal governmental status, and I can’t see how anyone would say that they shouldn’t.

You simply can’t equate this sort of union with “friends” or “business partners” without demeaning and mischaracterizing what it means to be married.

Me: Out of curiosity, can you name one or two of the most common rights out there in this debate that you think are clearly not to be given to gay and lesbian couples?

Christian: I don't think gay couples should have the right to adopt children.
That was not one I was expecting, as it’s only slightly coupled to marriage. I guess I was wondering about the rights I’ve expressed concerns about.

A right to adopt is not tied to marriage rights in all but about 5 states, as of the last time I checked. Furthermore, in those states which do make this connection, singles may adopt (gay or straight). There are simply too many kids in need of homes to refuse them. What’s sad is that these states will adopt to single people, gay or straight, but not to couples, if they are gay. Is that what you are saying you want? Gay couples in these states have to break up, at least for the years the adoption is occurring, to fulfill their desire to become parents. The homosexual must break one of the most basic human drives to fulfill another, and the state here is placing children into single parent homes when it could have found two-parent homes. What’s worse is that they’ll ignore the research they don’t want to see and claim it’s all for the sake of the children.

Somebody could murder your best friend. That would be devastating. Still, the surviving friend does not have certain rights that married couples do.
I don’t know how to say this more plainly, but by equating friends or business partners with married, by that you are debasing marriage. You must know it’s a world apart. If, for example, I was murdered tomorrow, can you imagine the mess my partner would be in? It’s nowhere comparable to “devastating” in the case of a friend. It’s the deepest sort of psychological wound; we measure everything by our family and if one of us went missing the other would never recover. And more, to add insult to injury, if I died the state would then take a huge chunk of everything we own, the estate we’ve accumulated as a couple. We haven’t had enough time to transfer our assets equally, and even when we do, that only shelters half of them.

Can I ask if you are married and in love? If so, I can’t understand how you could say the loss of anyone in your life, aside from children, would be anything near loosing a spouse or require anywhere near the legal recourse currently given to married couples.

You could say, give heterosexual couples without family histories of cancer a $100,000 dollar tax break per year at the expense of higher taxes for singles and homosexuals (what was that group’s acronym on the Simpsons? ) to encourage that sort of living condition, but the justification still wouldn’t hold water.

As I understand it, married couples do get tax breaks.
The point was the bit about encouraging a sort of family that is more “ideal”; they don’t pass on destructive cancer genes or leave orphans as often. But, as I said above, the argument your using still wouldn’t hold up.

Me: No, heterosexual couples don’t by default have the natural perfect set up for the nuclear family. The majority of them do, but many don’t reach your standard.

Christain: Public policy must be made according to general rules.
Public policy should be made to achieve justice, not justice on average. Even if we grant that you’re argument is 100% right and marriage rights should be only for those who can procreate, then it would still not be just for me to not have the same rights as other couples who can’t procreate the normal way. Why do they get a pass and my family doesn’t? Just because the parents were born looking like a couple that can procreate and we weren’t? Just because the state doesn’t want to bother with testing? An infertile hermaphrodite can marry his/her male partner if he/she had an F marked on his/her birth certificate but not otherwise? How is that just?

Public policy must account for its exceptions, if it is to be humane and moral. Simply because men commit around 97% of all rape, for example, doesn’t suggest, in the least, that public policy should go by the general rule and only have rape laws that prosecute men. Is killing another human wrong? Sure, by the general rule. But the law doesn’t and shouldn’t follow the general rule. If a cop kills a man who was making threats of eminent violence and pointing a gun at group of kids, he should not be punished for murder, even if the lunatic’s gun was unloaded and even if that only happened once in our entire history. The government should want justice for every situation, not merely for the general rule.

The government works from the premise that males have to be responsible for their offspring. We should see divorce as a threat to marriage not as a privilege.
If that were the case then why are the people of Chili protesting in the streets to gain this punishment? There are very real abusive relationships for which divorce would be a great privilege to the abused.

If the premise of responsible child rearing is true, then why not force gay and lesbian parents to that same standard? Why do married couples without children have to go through divorce and why do the homemakers of those marriages get alimony? Marriage is simply not all about having children for many Americans or for our government.

I still don’t get how you can say divorce laws aren’t a privilege for the homemakers. Furthermore, if the breadwinner actually loves the homemaker, they too should see it as a privilege as the legal proceedings of divorce comfort and assure his/her partner. What protects and comforts your partner should feel protective and comforting to you.

You could have made arrangements with your best friend to take care of her children in exchange for economic security. There’re lots of people who make economic arrangements based on goodwill. There’re lots of people who've been con out of their money.
First, just because others get “conned” out of money doesn’t mean the law should turn a blind eye to it elsewhere. What kind of ethic would that be?

I don’t think you understand our situation. To compare this to “arrangements with your best friend to take care of her children in exchange for economic security”, is stomach-churning. Could you please try to see how this would sound to you (assuming you are married and have children)? This is not an “economic arrangement”; this is family.

What’s sad is that this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this and it’s actually something we, shamefully but briefly, looked into. I mean, to “hire” your spouse, your children’s parent, to take care of your children in some sort of employee-employer relationship! It’s sickening and dehumanizing. But we were also told, if the laws ever turned against our parental rights, such a situation could be used to question the legal standing of his parenthood. I mean who gets a taxable paycheck for being a loving husband and father? It was horrible to think of it and we were relieved to have a non-emotional reason to avoid it.

But more to the point, single people who are cheated after entering into “economic arrangements” do have the law to protect them, even if it was on goodwill. If I got a maid/babysitter/house keeper for two-weeks and on payday refused to pay, they’d have a case. Even if they were naive enough to not get it in writing, they could show evidence of their work and it would be obvious to the court that this was an economic arrangement. But my partner can’t go to a judge and demand I pay him for taking care of his own children. In fact, I could turn it right around and demand reimbursement for all those years of “room and board”.

Even if two non-coupled single people wanted to contort their lives in such a way to be harmed similarly to a married couple without legal protections, it wouldn’t take away from my point. For example, let’s say all left-handed drivers must be hit on the head with a hammer at the end of their driving exam if they want to pass (to encourage right handed drivers; they’re better :) ). It's true that wouldn’t stop right-handed non-drivers from hitting their heads with a hammer if they wanted to, but they are not being compelled by the state to do so.

Could two straight people put themselves in the predicament we are in? It would take significant effort and I don’t think they could do it fully, but without the indescribable rewards in love union and family, I know no one would want to.

In the end, for the law to treat a pair bonded couple with children as friends or business associate is plainly wrong.

I’ll try to catch up, if you want to wait for it...

[Christian]

Scot:

I will respond when I get a chance, but two things:

1. From your responses, I think my poor communication abilities are getting in the way of presenting argumentation, because you are arguing against things I'm not advocating or hold. I'll try to fix that.

2. I find myself in a disadvantage because you are presenting your case as a defense of your particular situation. You are using a lot of emotional appeal based on your unique experience.

And I find your situation to be quite unique.

You don't represent the general homosexual population by any means or measure. So, I'm find myself to be arguing against the best possible homosexual situtions with the worst heteresexual situation. But I will address this in my direct responses to your comments.

I'm still here.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
But it just promotes discrimination. On an application form I tick the box for "kinnage" or "marriage", if they both are the same apart from the name all it is doing is saying whether I am "gay" or "straight". Is it right then, if on an application for say house insurance, I have to say if I am gay or straight?

Details like that can be worked out. For example, there could be just one box that says "marriage or kinnage" just as there is often only one box for "single, divorced, widowed".

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Christian
Why should homosexual become a special kind of union protected by special kind of privileges?

Who says it has to be "special"? Why not allow any kind of union that consenting adults wish to enter?


Say, there are two best male friends who have a non-sexual relationship. If I’m to accept your whole argumentation as valid, what prevents them from using the same argumentation to create their special union?

Sounds OK to me. What's the objection?


As a matter of fact, what's to prevent any kind of union based on your argumentation?

As long as we're talking about consenting adults, who cares?


You see, what makes the union between a man an a woman special is that the woman can procreate.

Actually, people other than you might consider their own union to be "special" for other reasons. Is there some reason their options should be limited by what you think is "special"?

This is correct, the institution of marriage has the main purpose to create a stable environment where offspring’s will develop in society.

Sounds like a personal opinion to me. Why not allow others the ability to choose according to their ideas about marriage rather than yours, or the majority's?

But I am trying to say is that the state wants to grant these special privileges because it is interested in this particular kind the union.

Then it is has its priorities out of whack.

Most heterosexual couples have the natural set up for a nuclear family.

And there is absolutely nothing about allowing homosexual couples to marry that interferes with the "set up" of those heterosexual couples.

I'm giving an example of how the law treats people differently based on a special quality they hold.

And there should be a good reason for doing so. There isn't one where this issue is concerned.

My affirmative-action example only shows you that the government's enacts laws to further what it believes is the common good.

Actually, a better example might be laws that once prohibited interracial marriage. A "common good" argument was probably often used as justification for those as well.

Why should the government create special rules and burdens if there is an obvious criterion to use?

And in a free society, what better criterion than "consenting adults"?

Same Sex Marriages (SSM) do not promote the purposes of marriage--which focus on that mother and child and how to get the father involved, not just as a source of money (though that's important too), but as a source of love and willing protection as well.

Again, why not let those wanting to get married base their choice on what they think the purposes of marriage are, rather than what you think they are?

SSM denaturalizes the whole procreation process.

:confused:

Why would the government want to promote this?

What makes you think procreation is the government's business at all?

The compelling reason is that you cannot procreate.

I hate to break it to you, but that's not a "compelling reason".

Why would I be interested in promoting homosexual marriages if I already know that the ideal is a heterosexual nuclear family?

Um ... how about just allowing them for those who want them?

The State has the obligation to enact laws that strive for ideals.

Nonsense. The state has an obligation to enact laws that protect freedom, property, and safety. The kind of stuff you're talking about should be left up to individuals to work out for themselves.


Originally posted by Fade
If you want your argument to hold water, you must demonstrate why a homosexual relationships takes away from the common good.

Originally posted by Christian
No, I don’t agree. If I want my argument to hold water, all I have to show is that the nuclear family is an ideal to strive for.

Actually, if you're arguing against allowing homosexual marriage, demonstrating why they take away from the common good is probably the least you should do.

I believe humans have to create laws that make things just.

And making things "just" is somehow achieved by not allowing consenting adults to marry who they want to marry?

[Scot C. Trypal]

2. I find myself in a disadvantage because you are presenting your case as a defense of your particular situation. You are using a lot of emotional appeal based on your unique experience.

And I find your situation to be quite unique.

You don't represent the general homosexual population by any means or measure. So, I'm find myself to be arguing against the best possible homosexual situtions with the worst heteresexual situation.

Oh but it’s only going to get worse :). My family is being put at a disadvantage, and I’d say harmed in very real ways. I can’t help it if it gets right to the heart of my emotional life, and I’m sure years of fighting has left me a bit quick to react, but the practical concerns are still there.

Sure, many of your characterizations of my union have struck me as emotionally provocative, but I think I’ve made the case that they are also factually incorrect. My family is not like two “best friends”, or “business partners”; it is not characterized by a “sexual relationship”. The rights granted to those relationships are not the same as those granted to other families for all the same reasons I’m asking for those rights.

Also, my family should not be lumped in with some general homosexual population in the creation of law; each case should be examined on it’s own merits. Justice needs to account for even the most rare of situations. Besides, I’m sure our situation is less rare than most might think (All our homosexual friends are in our same situation, but we are the only ones speaking out; the rest are too scared, and rightfully so).

I’ll go on..

You’re completely missing the point here. I'm giving an example of how the law treats people differently based on a special quality they hold. The parallel here is that someone with a special quality is treated differently under the law, that's all I’m saying.
I discussed prisons as an example of this and so I don’t see how I missed your point. My emphasis is on the reasons for discriminating and I think gender is a very poor reason.

My affirmative-action example only shows you that the government's enacts laws to further what it believes is the common good. It is a clear example of laws that provided special privileges to a group of people in the name of common good.
The common good is found in equality of rights. As I said, “The question, it seems, is if giving this advantage here, at say college admission, functions to give *equal* status to African-Americans in the end.” I could use your example here to ask for special rights to make up for the time I was compelled to leave a government job because of my boss’s vocal bigotry against homosexuals, for example. But I wouldn’t want such rights. I want equality.

Me: If the nuclear family is a man and a woman who produce children, how do you fit hopelessly infertile couples into that definition?

Christian: As I said, this is the general policy. Your argument seems to suggest that, if infertile couples can get married, why couldn't you? Or you’re saying, if this is what the government intends then they shouldn’t let these couples marry.
If your criteria is fertility, but then you allow infertile couples these rights just because they were born looking like fertile couples, then, yes, that is a case of unjust discrimination against my union. It’s not supported by your basis of procreation; it’s more of an “Oops, nobody’s perfect” excuse. I’m saying that, if this is your principle, you should support it fully and not just excuse it as too difficult or as an inconvenience. In many cases it’s not difficult at all.

I don't agree with this. Why should the government create special rules and burdens if there is an obvious criterion to use? A man and a woman can usually have children. They shouldn't have the burden to prove they can. The only thing that is sufficient is that they are a man and a woman. This makes the system efficient.
Efficient is not just. Some very brutal and inhumane governments were efficient, so what? We should be striving for justice.

You’ve made it sound hard, but it’s really easy, and there are “obvious criterion to use” to meet your goal. Some infertile people are identifiable at birth; we could have one more checkbox on birth certificates. Many people know they are infertile long before they get married. All it would take to catch the honest ones would be one more question added to the marriage license forms, right? For a woman, we could simply check their driver’s license, which we already do, to see if she is well past menopause. Does that really sound like an unreasonable burden for the sake of your ideal? For what you are calling a compelling reason to discriminate against my family? Some states already do much more intrusive tests in blood work.

I simply want to know if you’ll actually back this standard, particularly when it’s trivially easy to do so, or if this angle of reproductive organs is more about homosexuality.
--Would you support asking couples if they know if they are infertile before you granted them these rights?
--Would you check the age of the woman?
--Since the rights are given on the basis of procreation in your mind, would you say a couple who knew they were infertile had a moral obligation to not take advantage of these rights even if they were offered to them?
If not, it will continue to sound like your trying to let infertile couples slip under the fence just because of their gender, when you could easily stop many of them. It will seem as though you’re looking at the entire population of infertile couples, which live as married, and singling out the homosexuals.

I of course think they should be able to get married, along with us, another infertile couple, because marriage and its governmental recognition is not all about procreation. Still we, personally, do have a family and we are both parents by law and by all the deeper familial bonds.

I don't need to prove or to show that same-sex relation cannot procreate.
Neither would you for an eighty-year-old woman, or a person who’d had all the tests and knew they were infertile. Check a driver’s license and ask a question.

What’s funny is that, with our newfound ability to coax cells into various tissue types, this might not be true for very long, but that’s a topic for another forum that I don’t wish to debate :).

Today, most lesbian parents, for example, go together to a fertility doctor; they find a donor together who, typically, has the characteristics of the non-biological parent, and as a couple they become pregnant. They initiate the pregnancy together, and they prepare for it together, just like any other couple. This person, their child, would not live without this union; it would have been irrevocably destroyed at the woman’s next period or the recycling of sperm within the donor. Though they needed help, just as many heterosexual couples do, this child is the result of this union. The way I see it, they did procreate, it just took more steps than most everyone else.

Me: First, I don’t think you meant it this way, but the above quote is 100% applicable to a couple which includes an 80 year old woman, well past menopause, or any other individual who was born or has become inescapably infertile. We know a priory they cannot reproduce, so is it clearly true that giving them “special status” is not in the common good?

Christian: Is a clear example of the slippery slope. You're pointing out exceptional circumstances here. I don't see how this marriage contributes to the common good.
Can I get some of the more experienced viewing audience to chime in here and tell me if I’m in error?

Slippery slope is not about “pointing out exceptional circumstances” to someone’s standard, but saying the standard will lead elsewhere. Here is the definition I found online and it’s what I thought “The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.” I have not said your standard of procreation will lead to a stricter or more lenient standard. You, Christian, are the one proposing the standard, and it has those circumstances built into it.

And they aren’t’ all that exceptional. Just in my family, my grandpa was married once, had many children and his wife died; from age 70 to his death he married 3 more times! My aunt has always known she was infertile, but got married nonetheless. I could go on.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that you have a standard but feel it’s too hard to implement. It’s the too hard part that is wrong; for the 80 year old woman, for example, all you need to do is look at her driver’s license, which is already a part of the marriage procedure. But I’m sure she’ll tell you, just as I am, that marriage and the government’s recognition thereof is about much more than you’re portraying it to be.

Me: Like I said, there was a time during which we could not get him health insurance at all. If he still worked for his old employer, and we put our kids in daycare, he would have still had his health insurance. But the state shouldn't encourage that unless it has to. More importantly, if we had legal recognition, we could have gotten him insurance through my employer. Can you imagine what would have happened if he had been diagnosed with cancer during that half a year? It would’ve ruined us, just as I’ve seen sudden death in homosexual unions ruin the survivor when the state, or “in-laws”, take away what they, as a couple, not two singles, had built together. The state would be picking up the bill when we hit rock bottom. Yet you are saying non-recognition of my union is for the common good? That’s a tough sell.

Christian: It's not a tuff sell at all. You're trying to say that I have to solve the problem of the breakdown of the nuclear family by accepting your kind of union. That is what is tuff sell. I'm much rather use all the effort to encourage and protect the nuclear family where children naturally come from.
Where did I say you “have to solve the problem of the breakdown of the nuclear family by accepting (my) kind of union”? If I keep having to salvage my position this will take a long long time :), but I guess you might feel the same.

The “the breakdown of the nuclear family” happens for at least one adult’s weakness, selfishness, cruelty, misunderstanding of what it means to be married, and/or so on. My family is not threatened by any of that as far as I can see into the future, and my family does not cause that in others.

Now, we, as a couple, can help those marriages we’re near to, and we do every opportunity we’re given. I think, if you’re an invited guest at a wedding, you have a responsibility to it, and I’ve been a best man twice in as many years. But gaining legal recognition for my union will neither help nor hurt any other marriage. I never said it would.

This is getting weird. I gave you an example of how not protecting our union puts a burden on the state, and then you said I said something I did not, and that you’d “rather use all the effort to encourage and protect the nuclear family where children naturally come from”? What about the effort spent in picking up gays and lesbians who are not given the legal tools to take care of each other and who had to rely on the government when an unexpected death or illness occurred in their union? Wouldn’t you rather spend that effort elsewhere?

Furthermore, why do you think it important to protect where children come from and not where they grow up? Back to our hypothetical lesbians, their child is a result of their union; it would not have lived without them and it will grow up with them. No matter what you personally think is best; you won’t stop such families without a great deal of force, and, making laws for the existing reality of human life that assume your idea of Utopia is existing instead, that would be distopic (No, it’s not a word, but you get it :) ).

I’m almost caught up...

[Scot C. Trypal]

I’m spent; this will be it for a while.

SSM, in many cases, take children away from their biological mother. To me, the ideal situation is that she keep her offspring.
Oh my, SSM (same sex marriages) take nothing away that isn’t already taken or freely given. It’s not either the mother keeps her offspring in loving commitment or gay men take the baby away. She does not want to be that child’s mother and no one can force her, no matter what is ideal.

In fact marriages do not necessarily lead to “taking” children and gays and lesbians have been making families for years without legally recognized marriage, so this is not a gay marriage issue as far as I can see.

:) The way you make it sound it’s as if gays are lurking in the shadows and stealing children out of their bassinets, as mothers weep helplessly. In fact, some of these children come from genetic parents specifically looking to help create families such as ours, as horrifying as that may be to some.

Me: Don’t forget lesbian unions; they make up, by far, the majority of gay and lesbian parents. Most reproduce by use of sperm banks (though we do know quite a number of couples who’ve adopted).

Christian: This is what talking about. SSM denaturalizes the whole procreation process. Why would the government want to promote this?
First I’ve never understood how anything that occurs is unnatural. How is artificial insemination anymore unnatural than human flight (it’s actually a very non-technical procedure that could be done in any home and even in very primitive cultures). Even if something were denaturalized why would it then be something the state shouldn’t want to promote?

Second, these children are real and these families have the same needs of any other, promoted or not. If you would lessen these children’s inheritance rights, for example, just because they weren’t produced in the typical manner, you’d be promoting injustice.

Just to nip a bud, one can’t rightfully say, “These lesbians knew we, as a people, would mistreat their child. For that reason they shouldn’t have had that baby in the first place.” The onus is on those directly causing the harm, else we could just as well punish a grandfather for his grandson’s crimes.

It is promoting the father’s irresponsibility.
How is a sperm donor a Father with responsibility? The standard for that title should be and is much higher than that. If you look at the parent-child relationship in an ignoble animal husbandry sort of way, I guess, but that’s not the way it is for humans.

A father is a male parent; a parent, by our law and by account of everyone I’ve discussed this with, is a person who takes on the responsibilities of raising a child. Would you really stop thinking of your dad as dad if you found out he was unrelated? Are adopted children not raised by their mother and father? I know 6 adopted individuals and all know and love who their parents are, and none think it has to do with genetics. Are they wrong?

To me, a sperm donor is no more a father than is a pharmacist who gives an infertile couple a prescription for fertility drugs. It takes a lot of work and dedication to truly be someone’s parent.

Me: I am a citizen, but gay and lesbian couples, and many of their children do not have equal protections of the law. Changing the name protections or rights to privilege or incentive does not make a difference, as far as I can tell. You’re saying this difference is because of our sex (or ability to procreate, but, as we discussed above, that’s debatable if you won’t back implementing that standard). How is that a compelling reason to deny us these.. what’s a neutral word between rights and privileges?..

Christian: The compelling reason is that you cannot procreate. Your union is indistinguishable from any other union I can think of. Any number of people can get together for any reason and claim they should have these rights. I see no reason why, if I accept your argumentation, I should not accept any type of union with equal protection under the law.
These compelling reasons, where we discriminate, have to do with harm caused to others. But “you cannot procreate” is not a compelling reason, anymore than “you are left handed” would be.

Correct me if I’m wrong but, it doesn’t even seem compelling enough to you in the cases of infertile heterosexual couples. If you don’t think promoting this inequality is compelling in one case why does it become compelling in the other? If you are going to discriminate, you are going to have to show the harm in the equality of my family.

Now, “Your union is indistinguishable from any other union I can think of.” This is directed at me, “Your union”. How can you say you are thinking of our union as an exception, as you said in your last post? This sort of thing is what is setting me off.

Do you really think this? Two people living together in love for over a decade, who’ve tied their family, financial, and social lives together, who were joined in a religious ceremony and are seen as married by their friends and both their families; two people who are parents and are raising children together… That’s indistinguishable from any other union you can think of? It’s certainly indistinguishable, in any non-trivial way, from the legally recognized families of my brothers and sisters. If anything, we’re an oddly happy and stable family.

Step back a bit and think about where we seem to be headed here. Just how far are you willing to push this angle? Will you really knock family, marriage, and the profound meaning of joining two lives together and raising a family together down to something as animal as working reproductive organs? The law is there for the way of life that is in the family, not for the organs, mechanisms, and motions that get us there. We had to get there differently than most folks; why should that matter?

Me: I could say, for example, those who are right-handed drivers can have a $100 tax credit. I’d say it’s not to discriminate against southpaws, not to give anyone more rights than another, but to give incentives for drivers to favor their right hand. Maybe, I’d say it was for conformity and guidance in the placement of those tethered pens at the DMV . It’d be simply too bad that left-handed drivers don’t have that instinct like most everyone else, but they are not being discriminated against . They have just as many rights as those folks who don’t drive.

Christian: What is the reason I would give right-handed drivers the credit.. Based on what should I do this? What would be the justification?
I gave a silly reason. But it would seem more appropriate now to have just said “because they are right-handed! Everyone knows they’re better drivers” :).

Southpaws are more likely to have schizophrenia, and epilepsy (Those are good reasons to keep them from driving, right? Or no?). They are also more likely to be homosexual, *gasp* :bigsmile: .

Someone who is 20 can’t legally drink. He does not have the right to. A 20 year old can’t have sex with a 17 year old. Would you call all those discrimination?
Yes, as I’ve said all such things are cases of discrimination. But we are arguing about your compelling justification to discriminate against my existing family.

This is true only if the biological parents have lost parental rights. Biological parents who have not lost these rights have absolutely more rights to the child than any one else.
Lost or surrendered. But how did that detract from my point? Once people become legal parents, the state treats biological and non-biological parents equally. We’ll get into the reason biological parents get 1st chance below (Note though, this is not always the case. Donors of genetic material, at least in the state laws I’m aware of, are never considered the parents. It’s the people who intended to create a child, and intended to raise it, that are the legal parent, even before conception happens).

I’m sorry, I threw you off with that word. I misspelled it. I meant HAVEN.
Noted and appreciated. Still much of my reaction is applicable. Nothing stops us from being a couple, for example, and, at least for us, this is not about being rewarded for some way of life, but being recognized, legally, as having that way of life.

Christian responding to the statistics on adoption and foster care showing many children are going un-adopted even with single and gay adoptive parent in the process:
I would ask what the trend is. How many children have been adopted year by year in the last 10, 20 years? Is the trend getting worse or getting better? Are we having more marriages or less marriages? and so on.

And these statistics would serve to strengthen the position that the nuclear family should be encouraged even more. Programs should be installed to educate parental responsibility. The encouragement of marriage between a man and a woman can only help not hurt.

I don’t feel you met my point. In response to you claiming you could find apt heterosexual parents, I pointed out that there is a horrible problem in our foster care system, right now. Can you find them or not? I also asked if you’d rather children be in foster homes than with gay parents which pass all the necessary tests.

I asked how you would find homes for them, but your plans are far into the future? You can do research on trends if you want, I’m sure the data is around the same place as the link I gave, but it will be a cold comfort to these kids. They’ll find nothing in waiting for you to implement your programs to educate on parental responsibility. I mean, at least admit these existing parentless kids need homes now.

But let me also say, If you can make it so no child is ever in need of adoption, you’d be a hero in my book, in need of a monument, but until then these kids need homes and families now. They aren’t going to wait for you to change the society and no one can change their history.

Most adoptive heterosexual couples, simply don’t want many of these children (Not that I’m blaming anyone; our twins are relatively healthy and it’s very difficult to be a parent on its own. Add to that mental or physical disabilities and you’ve got a job for a saint).

What follows is emotionality again, but it’s reality, and I don’t think you’re seeing it. We just had breakfast yesterday with a lesbian couple. They had adopted an older child from an Eastern European orphanage. Another lesbian couple we know adopted a child with a disability from the same place (both children came home visible malnourished). Friday both families got an e-mail from the lady that runs the adoptive programs there, asking if they knew of any other homosexual couples who she could contact. She was searching for parents for an older girl with no arms but, nonetheless, a perfect little girl (who knows if it’s true or just a ploy, but the lady also said her government will eventually place children like her in mental hospitals). We were asked if we would consider it, and it’s heartrending, but we feel like our family has all it can handle.

My point is that this is just one little girl, in just one orphanage, whom we, in our small sphere of friends, know about; there are many more (The statistics I gave show this but only for the US). The only kids with special needs we know are the children of gays and lesbians and this is not a coincidence. As this lady in Eastern Europe has discovered in her experience with our lesbian friends, gays and lesbians are some of the most hopeful outlet for such children.

And why would we want to look for the farthest off solution to this problem?
I’m not going to be able to continue this under the moderation rules if you start using blanket statement to imply we’re bad parents. You don’t know us as people or parents, and even if this is just meant for some gay stereotype, it’s still wrong. You haven’t even shown evidence that gay folks, as a group, are worse parents.

Can you honestly tell me, knowing the history of our family, the extraordinary effort we’ve put into it, and all the tests we passed, with flying colors, in our attempts to become parents, that we’re farther “off “ than any heterosexual couple?

I’d say we have created a well above average home for kids. Our lives are all about them. I used to care about my career, but now it’s just something I do for them. I used to feel like I owned my life; but now I know I’m just renting. I’m not the sort to boast about any of my accomplishments in life--I care very little about them anyway--but I’m not too humble to say that I’m a good father; we both are.

We both come from huge extended families; our kids have nearly 40 cousins and extended family is always around; we moved within 5 min of my parents and they see their grandkids almost every day; our kids have a stay at home parent dedicated to making their home cozy and conducive for their development; I have a career that provides well; there is nothing more important to us than our roles as parents… How many families produced in the normal way meet or exceed our situation?

It feels ridiculous that I even need to defend this family, yet here I am, and I guess, in part, I do understand why. Though my family feels like the most perfect and natural thing to us--believe it or not, I can go days without ever consciously realizing our family is different--the majority sees us through a another set of eyes. But they should try to see past gender stereotypes and sex to see the family. One cannot rightfully eclipse the other to make us “the farthest off solution”.

Your argument seems to be. "Ideal X is unattainable, therefore we should not hold X as an ideal." I don’t agree with this at all.
First, you cannot look at this on stereotypes, even if you gave evidence to support them. We should be concerned about individuals; individuals feel, have wants, and make choices by which we can judge them.

Second, being a heterosexual couple does not make that couple an ideal parent. The way they treat their child does. That is the ideal we should have. X should not be gender, it should be parenting skill, nurturing, dedication, love, and so on. But, as we’ll get to below, we wont be able to reach that or your ideal. I know many unfit heterosexual parents, and I’m sure you do too, many far further “off” than we’ll ever be.



Me: I’d say you’ve missed the cause of that special connection. It’s not the genetics or the womb that make a person a Mom or a Dad, it’s the intent, the care, the love, and the effort. It’s that devotion and the effort that accumulates over the years that will make them parents, not some shared pattern of A, T, G, and C’s; without that behavior and emotion the child has no idea who it’s parents are, as Wrath of the Swarm pointed out.

Christian: This is the chicken or the egg thing. What creates that intent, the care, the love, the motivation for the effort?
I too first thought I could use a chicken or the egg analogy here, but wouldn’t that be asking “do parenting skills create genes or do genes create parenting skills”? :)

I’m saying it’s the parenting skills that are important to kids, not the genes. Though genes usually go with parenting skills, this is clearly not always the case. It’s the genetic parent’s intent to have a child, their planning and so on that bring on the bonding, but the biological parents don’t always have that intent or the bonding that it leads to.

Carrying a child for 9 month then watching him/her for the first time, does that create the special connection?
Most of the time, but certainly not always. Surely you can think of many cases where a biological mother didn’t bond with her genetic offspring, even though she carried it. You’ve read, for one example, the news stories about mothers killing their newborns right when they are born, right? If you’re saying genes just create this love then what happened there?

Mothers love their children because it is cultural? Sorry, I can’t buy that. That goes against all the experience I see in the world around me.
I don’t think I said it was cultural? To me, it seems deeply biological, but it’s not knowledge of genetics or carrying a fetus around that cause the love of a parent. It’s the intent and want to raise the child, the knowledge that the child is yours to raise, and so on, that begin the process. When non-biological parents are given those same cues, waiting for the arrival of a child to whom they will be legal parents, they bond just as deeply as anyone.

You bond with your children on a very deep level, but biology has no way of telling us about genes. To say non-biological parents don’t bond would contradict the most obvious fact in my life, our love for our children.

In a way we have fooled our genes, but so what? For example, our friend’s sister and her husband adopted 3 African-American children many years ago. Being Caucasian parents, it’s clear to everyone they are not related, but a more principled and loving family would be hard to find. In fact, I think it’s best for adopted children to know their full history; that way they can avoid all the Harry-Potter’esk idealization of their origins in their teens (which are kind of contributed to with suggesting that genes make parents). At least, in talking with the adopted people I know, that’s the impression I get.

That goes against all the legal structures presupposition there are about mothers.
Now that’s just wrong. The law has many many ways by which a genetic mother may not be the Mother; the reasons for these methods are there because the law presupposes they are needed and they are. For example, donors of genetic material, male or female, are presupposed to not be parents by the law.

Christian responding to the Golombok study showing non-biological parents had better parenting skills (due to the fact they have to past tests and have a sustained effort to become parents, not because they aren’t biological parents):
So, what are we concluding? We can dispense with nuclear families? We can promote these technologies because biological mothers are indistinguishable from non-biological parents?

What is the ultimate conclusion here? Is it that, there is no problem to take away children from their parents, so long as there are other motivated parents that can take care of the child?

This is dry research; it shows facts, and gives some pretty reasonable conclusion beyond which you are wildly extrapolating. I do think I can understand your dread though. I think, you are seeing this as some sort of attack on family, but it’s no such thing. It mainly shows that families produced with outside help are not deficient. That’s in no way an attack on regular families (This is reminiscent to an argument I hit sometimes. Something like: “Your homosexuality means that you think heterosexuality is wrong or that you’re against heterosexual marriage”; that’s just silly; my parents are heterosexually married :) ).

“We can dispense with nuclear families?” This research shows we can dispense with nuclear families to the same extent research on peanut allergies suggest we can dispense with peanut farms. To think the researchers meant to say nuclear families should be dispensable would be a conclusion right out of the wildest articles on World Net Daily.

“We can promote these technologies because biological mothers are indistinguishable from non-biological parents?” What does promotion have to do with this? Promote or not, they are here to stay, and they do not produce inferior families. In fact, due to the trials of the process, the non-biological parents were more committed and better at parenting. I was very careful to explain how this does not disparage biological parents; it disparages parents who are not committed to being parents. How is that not reasonable?

“Is it that, there is no problem to take away children from their parents, so long as there are other motivated parents that can take care of the child?” Here you’ve swum far into the deep end. Surely you can see, it’s not just children that have rights as humans. The people who created a child also have rights; they’ve prepared for it; their whole family has; they, usually, are deeply in love long before the baby has any sense of them. Even in the world’s worst but willing parents you’d cause a great pain in their entire family to steel a child from them. No one could morally or justly ignore that, even if a child would have a better life in another family, and no one I know is suggesting this.

Christian reaction to all the tests a person must go through to become parents if you are infertile:
Why is it that biological mothers don’t have to go through all this tests? Why is that? Would you advocate that biological mothers have to pass these tests to be able to have and raise their children? These are rhetorical questions, of course.

Like I said above, adults have nearly unassailable rights to procreate and become a family (even prisoners can do it). It’s a very basic human right. A biological mother who wants to be a mother doesn’t have to go through these tests, but it’s not because everyone knows she’d pass them and that she’s absolutely the best parent for her child. Many wouldn’t pass and many mothers are absolutely barbaric in their abuse.

Can you see that? It’s not that she’s the best, it’s that she and her family have rights to procreate. Even when mothers abuse their children repeatedly the state will not put the child in another home, which we’d both agree is far better. They don’t leave the kid there because it’s a given that she’s a good parent. The state sees the rights of people to procreate, and the extended family of those procreating, as very basic.

But when there are no rights held by the biological parents because they gave them up or abused their kids to too great an extent, the State can fortunately choose from group of parents. It’s not just forced by facts of biology. So, of course, when you can choose, when it’s not trampling on the rights of people who intended to raise some child, you’ll try to find the best. And that research shows people who are better at parenting are found. What’s the mystery here?

You should know that most all of those tests are not even done by or for the government. They were done for private agencies. The agency wants a reputation for finding good parents. They don’t want to be responsible for creating abusive families and so on. But, for the rights of our citizens, we can’t and I don’t think we should interfere with families created by normal procreation, unless they want the state to interfere or the children are being abused.

Again I should also point out that donors of genetic material are not considered parents by the state from the get go, at least with the law I’m familiar. The people who made the surrogacy or artificial insemination arrangement are considered to be the parents and they don’t need to pass these tests for the government.

Me: I’m sure we all agree that most all of the time the biological mother should raise her offspring. That’s because she is usually the one who, with a solid intent, initiated and planned for the pregnancy, she’s the one anticipating being this child’s parent, she and her family has loved and bonded to this child before she’d even felt the first kick or seen the first ultrasound, she’s the one who has a deep indescribable love for this child, not just any old “loving woman”.

Christian: We can safely assume all of this. This is the thing. This is what I want to encourage. This is what the State wants to encourage.
Assume if you want, but it’s not always true, and in those cases it is certainly a far from safe assumption. In those cases the State would be party to some serious human misery if they encouraged a person, who does not want to be a parent, to be a parent. You just cannot make a person feel for, love, or want their child; they’ll either do it or they wont.

Me: But this is not always the case. The genetic parents don’t always do this bonding. In those admittedly rare situations, adoptive, di, and, ivf parents are fully capable of doing that emotional preparation, when the genetic parents are not.

Christian: And the solution I want to use to solve this problem is first education and incentives to marriage. Then we look for adoption as I explained before.
First, giving education and incentives to marry to a 16 year old couple who get pregnant, for example, might slow down adoptions, but it will not stop any of this. No matter what you do or how educated you make them, some people wont want their children. Some children will be borne with disabilities, which no one but the rarest of adoptive parents will want to take on. These things happen in the real world, with or without encouragement.

Second, a lot of ivf and di (direct insemination, also means artificial insemination), families will be surprised to learn you think they are a problem. How are they a problem? How will your education and incentives to marriage affect them?

They are mainly married heterosexuals and I’d be surprised if you didn’t know one in your personal life or family. The next biggest group is lesbians, who, by this way of thinking, should have marriage to protect their family too. These families are not going to be stopped without a lot of punishment, and they shouldn’t be. Infertile couples have no problems making good parents or good, productive families. They do it just as well or better than average.

If you could make every person who gains the rights of parenthood become good parents then, as I said, you’d be my hero. But there is only so much you can do until fixing such a problem starts creating others in Orwellian proportions.

The reality is that there are children in need of homes in orphanages and foster care now, and they wont and shouldn’t have to wait for your programs to take effect. Also, there are gay and lesbian families existing now and, without great force, there will be from here on out. In the end, all these people need the protections given to everyone else living as a family.

[LFTKBS]

I'd like to ask Christian if there is literally any evidence or argument that would convince you that marriage equality for gays and lesbians is needed and won't cause the Earth to immediately explode a la Krypton.

What would it take?

Edited to remove baiting.

[Christian]

Scot:

I'm going to change my approach here because the posts are getting longer and longer. I'm going to pick one battle at a time and see if that works better. We both don't have the time for these long exchanges, plus it keeps getting more and more complicated.

I will start with the most basic (fundamental) part of my argumentation.

Me:
Why is it that biological mothers don’t have to go through all this tests? Why is that? Would you advocate that biological mothers have to pass these tests to be able to have and raise their children? These are rhetorical questions, of course.

Scot wrote:
Like I said above, adults have nearly unassailable rights to procreate and become a family (even prisoners can do it). It’s a very basic human right.

Why Scot? Why is this?
You didn't answer this.

A biological mother who wants to be a mother doesn’t have to go through these tests, but it’s not because everyone knows she’d pass them and that she’s absolutely the best parent for her child. Many wouldn’t pass and many mothers are absolutely barbaric in their abuse.

Exactly. And this still have this universal right.

Can you see that? It’s not that she’s the best, it’s that she and her family have rights to procreate. Even when mothers abuse their children repeatedly the state will not put the child in another home, which we’d both agree is far better. They don’t leave the kid there because it’s a given that she’s a good parent. The state sees the rights of people to procreate, and the extended family of those procreating, as very basic.

So, again. (I don't want to put words in your mouth). Why do mothers have this basic right?


Me:
And why would we want to look for the farthest off solution to this problem?

Scot wrote:
I’m not going to be able to continue this under the moderation rules if you start using blanket statement to imply we’re bad parents.

I have to comment on this. Listen, I mean no desrespect to your family.

I'm not implying you are bad parents. I'm saying straight out that even if you were the best parents on earth and the biological mother were marginal at best, she has a better right to her child than you. (please, I mean in the general sense, not your particular family).

[DoubleStreamer]

Good grief! What has happened to this forum? I saw the post by LFTKBS before it was censored, and I was thinking "right on!" How can a thorough discussion of anything take place if ridiculous arguments cannot be commented on as such?

[LFTKBS]

"Edited to remove baiting."

Normally, Upchurch, in a moderated thread I'd let your decision be final. In this particular instance, however, I protest.

a) Christian's arguments against marriage equality are based on his religious beliefs, b) he has brought up issues tangential to this in support of his argument (the legal drinking age), and c) he has not been edited. Why are my objections to his propositions a) and b) cut?

[LFTKBS]

Scot - "Like I said above, adults have nearly unassailable rights to procreate and become a family (even prisoners can do it). It’s a very basic human right."

Christian - "Why Scot? Why is this?
You didn't answer this."

Turner v. Safley. What's your point?

"I'm not implying you are bad parents. I'm saying straight out that even if you were the best parents on earth and the biological mother were marginal at best, she has a better right to her child than you. (please, I mean in the general sense, not your particular family)."

You're just making stuff up again! It's not like the biological mother in this instance wants her baby back from the SINFUL GAYS. In this instance, she doesn't want it at all. how is she a better mother no matter what? Are straight abusive parents better than peaceful gay ones?

[Upchurch]

It figures this would be the one time I don't save the pre-edited text of a post...
Originally posted by LFTKBS

a) Christian's arguments against marriage equality are based on his religious beliefs, b) he has brought up issues tangential to this in support of his argument (the legal drinking age), and c) he has not been edited. Why are my objections to his propositions a) and b) cut? My main concern was personal attacks. I left the essence of your post ("What would it take to convince you?") and removed the portions that, if I remember correctly, had mostly to do with Christian's religious fanaticism while simply reiterating the above question.

If there was more to your post than what I had gleaned from it, please feel free to repost it, but I will remind you, and everyone, to stick to the topic and avoid critiquing other posters.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
My main concern was personal attacks.

I saw no "personal attack". Isn't this just an over-the-top, overused spin for criticism?


If there was more to your post than what I had gleaned from it, please feel free to repost it, but I will remind you, and everyone, to stick to the topic and avoid critiquing other posters.

Am I missing something here? When did "critiquing other posters" become a problem? I've taken my share of slings and arrows on message boards, but in the interest of honest discourse, the last thing I would want is for others to have to watch what they say for fear of, God forbid, critiquing me! When did everyone get so thin-skinned around here?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Scot:

2. I find myself in a disadvantage because you are presenting your case as a defense of your particular situation. You are using a lot of emotional appeal based on your unique experience.

And I find your situation to be quite unique.

You don't represent the general homosexual population by any means or measure.

Christian, what an incredible assertion. Do you have any evidence to back this up? What an arrogant, wrong-headed assertion. Who are you to say this?

Scot, my respects to you and your partner. It is truly an injustice that any uneducated, immature, ill-prepared heterosexual couple is free to reproduce at will, while the parenting skills of intelligent, loving, committed homosexual couples are questioned and insulted. What a backwards world-view opponents of gay marriage and adoption have.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Christian, what an incredible assertion. Do you have any evidence to back this up? What an arrogant, wrong-headed assertion. Who are you to say this?

Careful. You might get accused of a "personal attack". :rolleyes:

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Christian


2. I find myself in a disadvantage because you are presenting your case as a defense of your particular situation. You are using a lot of emotional appeal based on your unique experience.

And I find your situation to be quite unique.

You don't represent the general homosexual population by any means or measure.



Christian, why do you find their relationship to be quite unique?

Why do you say that he doesn't represent the general homosexual population?

It doesn't seem unique to me. It is nearly identical to my mother-in-law's situation. It's similar to just about every homosexual person that I know. If they're in a commited relationship (I have only one single gay friend, among dozens of gay couples I know, many of which have been together longer than I've known my wife). Many have raised or are currently raising children. A lesbian raised my wife by herself, so it's nothing that I fear, obviously.

Christian, I am tempted to ask how many gay people you know (who are out to you), and why you think that's a representative sample of the gay community at large. Of course, I could also say that you're hanging out with the wrong gay people!


So, I'm find myself to be arguing against the best possible homosexual situtions with the worst heterosexual situation.

If the two overlap, shouldn't that tell you something about the quality of the relationships?

Shouldn't that tell you that you need to provide ACTUAL SOCIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE rather than use generalizations, because it isn't patently obvious that there even is a distinction in the quality of the families.


(Still waiting for the evidence I asked you for nearly a week ago, Christian. Some evidence of superiority of heterosexual marriage, or inferiority of gay marriages.)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer

Am I missing something here? When did "critiquing other posters" become a problem?Perhaps you have missed something. This is a moderated thread. As such, extra rules are applied which are posted in the first post of this thread. The first of those rules is "no flaming". It was my opinion that portions of LFTKBS's post constituted flame bait. As per the rules of the thread, I removed what I considered to be bait and only what I considered to be bait.

If you continue to read the rules for this thread, you will see that there are no appeals for these special rules. By posting in this thread, you are implicitly agreeing to those rules and my judgement of them. If you still feel the need to discuss this, feel free to PM me or discuss in Forum Management.

Any further posts on this topic in this thread will be deleted.

[Earthborn]

What an arrogant, wrong-headed assertion.I disagree. I think Christian is probably right here. Scot's relationship is probably not typical of all homosexual relationships, however this is not relevant in any way.

What is relevant is whether Scot's relationship is typical of homosexual couples who want to marry. If you look among those, you'll probably find that his' is not exceptional at all.

[Silicon]

What Earthborne said.

I realized that her phrasing was more logical than mine.

In my life I have a circle of people who may not be a representative sample either.

But as Earthborne said, Scot is probably a representative sample of people who want to be married.

And I stand by my assertion that if heterosexual unions and homosexual unions overlap in their range of quality, that Christian needs to show evidence that there is no general harm in allowing all straight marriages, but a need to disallow all gay marriages.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I disagree. I think Christian is probably right here. Scot's relationship is probably not typical of all homosexual relationships, however this is not relevant in any way.

What is relevant is whether Scot's relationship is typical of homosexual couples who want to marry. If you look among those, you'll probably find that his' is not exceptional at all.

Christian is wrong because he seems to be comparing Scot and his partner to ALL homosexuals while limiting his discussion of heterosexuals to married, childbearing or childrearing, committed ones.

My wife and I are happily married and raising two children. You could say that we are NOT representative of the great majority of heterosexuals. What does that tell you? Nothing. As you say, it's irrelevant.

[Christian]

I want to narrow down so as to be more effective in my argumentation. So I will wait for Scot reply to this (and any other poster who wants to answer that specifically. The answer goes to the heart of my argumentation):

Why do biological mothers, by default, have full rights to her child? Why does she get first choice?

Then, a follow up question to that is:

Why does she remain with this rights, even thought she is only marginally a good parent?

Yes, it is a basic right, why is it?

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Christian
I want to narrow down so as to be more effective in my argumentation. So I will wait for Scot reply to this (and any other poster who wants to answer that specifically. The answer goes to the heart of my argumentation):

Why do biological mothers, by default, have full rights to her child? Why does she get first choice?

Then, a follow up question to that is:

Why does she remain with this rights, even thought she is only marginally a good parent?

Yes, it is a basic right, why is it?

As the person who apparently started this thread (and requested the high level of moderation associated with it), if you're going to expect others to answer your questions, would you mind first answering the questions that others have taken the time to ask of you, in response to statements you've made?

[Christian]

DoubleStreamer wrote:
As the person who apparently started this thread (and requested the high level of moderation associated with it), if you're going to expect others to answer your questions, would you mind first answering the questions that others have taken the time to ask of you, in response to statements you've made?

I've been posting a lot of responses. I don't think I have the time or stamina to counter every single point brought up. The posts are getting longer and longer.

I'm attempting to change the dynamics by narrowing down the discussion to single points at a time.

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. (or participate for that matter).

If you look at the whole thread, I have been writing a lot and have tried to respond.

I'm still convinced that we can stick strictly to the merits of the ideas.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Christian
I want to narrow down so as to be more effective in my argumentation. So I will wait for Scot reply to this (and any other poster who wants to answer that specifically. The answer goes to the heart of my argumentation):

Why do biological mothers, by default, have full rights to her child? Why does she get first choice?

Then, a follow up question to that is:

Why does she remain with this rights, even thought she is only marginally a good parent?

Yes, it is a basic right, why is it?Important questions, but I don't see how these are relevant in a discussion about gay marriage.

It is also interesting to note that when it comes to lesbian couples, the biological mother is sometimes denied these basic rights for no other reason than her homosexuality, according to the ACLU (http://archive.aclu.org/news/n050797b.html).

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Christian
I've been posting a lot of responses. I don't think I have the time or stamina to counter every single point brought up. The posts are getting longer and longer.

Then it might be a good idea to deal with questions others took their time asking in response to comments you made, before bringing up additional ones that you'd like to have answered.


I'm attempting to change the dynamics by narrowing down the discussion to single points at a time.

Nevertheless, you apparently started this discussion. And it would be sporting of you to deal with questions asked under the previous, um ... "dynamic", before changing it.


You don't have to answer if you don't want to. (or participate for that matter).

But I do want to participate. That usually means a willingness to answer reasonable questions about the statements I've made. And I expect the same courtesy from others.


If you look at the whole thread, I have been writing a lot and have tried to respond.

I have looked at the whole thread, and I have not seen answers to the questions I've asked, questions you made relevant.


I'm still convinced that we can stick strictly to the merits of the ideas.

Sounds good to me. All of the questions I asked are certainly compatible with that

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
I want to narrow down so as to be more effective in my argumentation. So I will wait for Scot reply to this (and any other poster who wants to answer that specifically. The answer goes to the heart of my argumentation):

Why do biological mothers, by default, have full rights to her child? Why does she get first choice?

Then, a follow up question to that is:

Why does she remain with this rights, even thought she is only marginally a good parent?

Yes, it is a basic right, why is it?

What do you mean by biological mother?

Plus as I said right at the beginning of this thread this is not true in the UK. In the UK the child's rights are paramount; the parents (biological or otherwise) are subservient to the child’s rights and what is in the child's best interest.

In the UK when a parent abuses a child the child may be taken from the parent and put up for adoption or placed into custodial care. In the case of custodial care it is quite common that the parents lose most of their “default” rights and in the case of state forced adoption the parent loses all their "default" rights.

It would seem that you are advocating refusing the right to marriage of anyone who is not capable of reproducing and stating that adoption should not be allowed? Is this the criteria that you are therefore using to say why homosexuals should be denied the right to marry?

[Ipecac]

Christian,

I'm with Earthborn. I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. Rather than wait for a response, maybe you could just proceed with explaining your reason for asking the question and tell us why it's important.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Christian


Why do biological mothers, by default, have full rights to her child? Why does she get first choice?

Then, a follow up question to that is:

Why does she remain with this rights, even thought she is only marginally a good parent?

Yes, it is a basic right, why is it?

I'm not sure it IS a basic right, care to define "basic right"?

I couldn't find a legal definition of "basic right" on the Law.com legal dictionary, therefore I'm going to conclude that it's not a legally valid term.

By saying "full rights" to the child, i'm going to guess you mean custody. That is also not by any means automatic. If the biological mother is a surrogate, she may not have automatic custody of the child.

Custody can also be decided by a court "in a divorce or if a child, relative, close friend or state agency questions whether one or both parents is unfit, absent, dead, in prison or dangerous to the child's well-being."

So I'm not sure it exists as a "basic right".

However it's a good default position, as it establishes kinship in the most direct way possible. You KNOW who that baby's next-of-kin is, just by who gave birth to it.


By "default position", I mean, by default, government takes no action upon the birth of a child. Government, by default, doesn't start grabbing children away from mothers.

Why? Because government has no standing to find the best or most fit parent for each child born, nor to promote only the best parental situations.

Government only the standing to protect children from the worst cases listed above.


But, of course, I'd rather YOU define why you think it IS a basic right.

[Christian]

Ok, I will stick to the answer the posters that addressed my question directly.

Ipecac wrote:
Christian,

I'm with Earthborn. I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. Rather than wait for a response, maybe you could just proceed with explaining your reason for asking the question and tell us why it's important.

It is relevant. This is the foundation of this types of rights.


Darat wrote:
Plus as I said right at the beginning of this thread this is not true in the UK. In the UK the child's rights are paramount; the parents (biological or otherwise) are subservient to the child’s rights and what is in the child's best interest.

Child's welfare is paramount, I guess you mean. A child has limited rights. The legal guardian exercises his rights for him and the child is subservient to the criteria of the adult.

In the UK when a parent abuses a child the child may be taken from the parent and put up for adoption or placed into custodial care.

This is true of any modern State. Parents can loose rights over children, specially if the welfare of the child is at stake. This is not my point.


Silicon wrote:
I'm not sure it IS a basic right, care to define "basic right"?

I did not use the term originally. It was Scot. I used it so as to be in sync with his terminology.

I would use fundamental or universal right.

I couldn't find a legal definition of "basic right" on the Law.com legal dictionary, therefore I'm going to conclude that it's not a legally valid term.

Universal is.

By saying "full rights" to the child, i'm going to guess you mean custody. That is also not by any means automatic. If the biological mother is a surrogate, she may not have automatic custody of the child.

Yes, custody is automatic to a biological mother (of course not a surrogate)

Custody can also be decided by a court "in a divorce or if a child, relative, close friend or state agency questions whether one or both parents is unfit, absent, dead, in prison or dangerous to the child's well-being."

Correct. Please, don't confuse the issues here. We are all born with the fundamental right to be free. We can loos this write. There are many States that even take away the most fundamental of rights, life.

But, we are born with them, and unless we transgress, we are entitled to them.

So I'm not sure it exists as a "basic right".

I'm sure.

However it's a good default position, as it establishes kinship in the most direct way possible. You KNOW who that baby's next-of-kin is, just by who gave birth to it.

So, you would say that you be free and not in prison, is a good default position? Come on.

By "default position", I mean, by default, government takes no action upon the birth of a child. Government, by default, doesn't start grabbing children away from mothers.

The Government does not automatically put you in jail? It takes no action. It does not start grabbing people and putting them in jail? That's how you mean default position? I would never characterize it this way.

Listen, there many rights you are not born with.

Why? Because government has no standing to find the best or most fit parent for each child born, nor to promote only the best parental situations.

I disagree. This is the heart of the matter. The State has a vested interest in what is best for the child. Public policy demonstrates this is most modern States. Family Courts all over the world have been created for this purpose. Look at Darat's posts. (I told him he was making part of my case, but he disagreed). Now, your statement contradicts his assertions.

Government only the standing to protect children from the worst cases listed above.

I totally disagree.

But, of course, I'd rather YOU define why you think it IS a basic right.

This is my question. Why is it a fundamental right?

This presupposes that you actually believe it is a fundamental right. If you don't believe it is, then we would never be able to go to the next level of the argument of why I don't agree with SSM.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, I will stick to the answer the posters that addressed my question directly.

What "question" are you talking about? I asked you to go back and answer questions already on the table, that were directly prompted by statements you made, before raising new questions! Are you ever going to get around to doing so? If not, why not? They are as relevant to your position as anything else. If it will help make it easier, I will repeat them for you, along with the comments of yours that prompted them.

[Christian]

What "question" are you talking about? I asked you to go back and answer questions already on the table, that were directly prompted by statements you made, before raising new questions! Are you ever going to get around to doing so? If not, why not? They are as relevant to your position as anything else.

Why is it so hard to understand I want to simplify the discussion? Yes, eventually we will get to those questions. Particularly, I'm interested in showing that the homosexual population is different from the heterosexual population in very important aspects. But there is stuff that comes way before that.

I realize now, that I needed to show some premises that are indispensible. Premises that have to do with how humans acquire rights or have them and the role of the State in assigning them or intervening in social life.

[Upchurch]

DoubleStreamer would like to discuss my performance as moderator of this thread. Those who are interested may participate here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37899).

Sorry for the interruption.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Christian


But, of course, I'd rather YOU define why you think it IS a basic right.

This is my question. Why is it a fundamental right?



No, you mis-state my question. I'm not asking you why it IS a fundamental right. I'm asking you what evidence is there that it is INDEED a fundamental right.

I'm not going to supply your reasoning for you.

Is what you're getting at the same thing you've said for 4 pages now, that a biological mother has a better bond?

Because you've already said that without any factual attribution.

If there is indeed a better bond, you should be able to find studies that show it, right?

Don't just get us to stipulate it, based on some invented idea of a fundamental right. Actually show data, please!

[Earthborn]

It is relevant. This is the foundation of this types of rights.That does not explain to me why you think it is relevant. It merely asks what we think is the jusitification used for instituting these laws. Perhaps your argument would be clearer if you told us your opinion on why biological mothers are defined by law to have full rights over her kids.

Another problem with that assertion is that it isn't even true. If the biological mother choses a partner of the same sex, she cannot trust the law to give her full rights and responsibility over her own child, even if she is a perfectly good mother. Her child can be taken away from her for no other reason than the gender of her partner.If you don't believe it is, then we would never be able to go to the next level of the argument of why I don't agree with SSM.You are speaking in riddles now. Your argument depends on what someone else believes? Why don't you just tell us your argumentation and the assumptions you make to come to such a conclusion, instead of waiting for someone else to tell you what their assumptions are.Why is it so hard to understand I want to simplify the discussion?I think it is because you seem to be the one who is complicating the discussion. Trying to limit the discussion to the things you want to talk about is not simplifying the debate.I realize now, that I needed to show some premises that are indispensible. Premises that have to do with how humans acquire rights or have them and the role of the State in assigning them or intervening in social life.Then tell us what you think those premises are.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Christian
Why is it so hard to understand I want to simplify the discussion?

I've said nothing to indicate any difficulty understanding that that's what you want to do. What I have suggested is that it would be courteous of you to deal with unfinished business first.


Yes, eventually we will get to those questions.

Why not before simplifying the discussion?


Particularly, I'm interested in showing that the homosexual population is different from the heterosexual population in very important aspects.

I'm not.


I realize now, that I needed to show some premises that are indispensible. Premises that have to do with how humans acquire rights or have them and the role of the State in assigning them or intervening in social life.

Nevertheless, some of those earlier questions I asked (in response to stuff you posted) are at least as relevant to understanding your position as anything new you're bringing up. For that matter, at least a couple of those questions would probably contribute just as much to "simplifying the discussion". If you have confidence in your views, I would think you would want to spend less time explaining why you're not answering those questions, and just answer them.

[Christian]

Silicon wrote:
No, you mis-state my question. I'm not asking you why it IS a fundamental right. I'm asking you what evidence is there that it is INDEED a fundamental right.

Then, can I assume don't believe it is a fundamental right?

I'm not going to supply your reasoning for you.

Why not? Are we discussing this to get to an objective perpective, a learning process? Or is this the kind of debate where it does not matter what is right, just to win?

Is what you're getting at the same thing you've said for 4 pages now, that a biological mother has a better bond?

No, that she has a better right, a higher right, a fundamental right.

Because you've already said that without any factual attribution.

If there is indeed a better bond, you should be able to find studies that show it, right?

Don't just get us to stipulate it, based on some invented idea of a fundamental right. Actually show data, please!

I can show objectively that it is considered a fundamental right.

What studies would you propose to show that a human keep his life is a fundamental right?

In other words, how do you show that some rights are fundamental?

I say some are self-evident. But, if you want objetiver criteria, I can show it.


Earthborn wrote:
That does not explain to me why you think it is relevant. It merely asks what we think is the jusitification used for instituting these laws. Perhaps your argument would be clearer if you told us your opinion on why biological mothers are defined by law to have full rights over her kids.

Yes, I have to explain why it is a fundamental right.

Another problem with that assertion is that it isn't even true. If the biological mother choses a partner of the same sex, she cannot trust the law to give her full rights and responsibility over her own child, even if she is a perfectly good mother. Her child can be taken away from her for no other reason than the gender of her partner.

Again, the problem here is the exceptions. You bring out the except to disprove the rule or principle.

That a mother have custody of her child is a fundamental right. And not because I say so.

You are speaking in riddles now. Your argument depends on what someone else believes? Why don't you just tell us your argumentation and the assumptions you make to come to such a conclusion, instead of waiting for someone else to tell you what their assumptions are.

What I'm trying to do is to have agreement on at least some premises. If we don't agree on the premises, there is no way to arrive at any conclusion.

I think it is because you seem to be the one who is complicating the discussion. Trying to limit the discussion to the things you want to talk about is not simplifying the debate.

No, no. I'm trying to have agreement on premises. If I can't get agreement on premises, there is no point in a discussion.

If I can't get people to agree that custody of a child is a fundamental right of the mother, there is no way I'm going to get my point across of why I don't agree with SSM.

Then tell us what you think those premises are.

That is one. Another is what the roles of a State should be. What role it plays in society, not from the marriage perspective but from the theory of the State. If people can accept that one of the mayor roles of the State is the common good and that this common will not satisfy everyone, then again, I have no way to continue.

I can show example where the role of the State in search of the common good, hurts a certain group in favor of a another, and that there is no way around that.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Gay people souldn't marry; they should be stoned to death Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Ipecac]

I've got to say, Christian, while I don't believe any of the arguments were actually making an impact on you, at least up until the last page something was being discussed in this thread. Now, due to your insistence on "simplifying" without actually telling us what the heck you're trying to say, the discussion has pretty much ground to a dead halt.

Please, state your idea, belief, thesis, in a paragraph or two so we can discuss it.

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
I've got to say, Christian, while I don't believe any of the arguments were actually making an impact on you, at least up until the last page something was being discussed in this thread. Now, due to your insistence on "simplifying" without actually telling us what the heck you're trying to say, the discussion has pretty much ground to a dead halt.

Please, state your idea, belief, thesis, in a paragraph or two so we can discuss it.

I disagree. When the post were long, it was only Scot and me on it and it took for ever for both to respond and there were so many points within that I just couldn't be effective at explaining myself. Now, things are moving again.

Ok, this is my first premise(and what is the problem here, no one want to commit to my premises because they fear they will lead to a conclusion they don't want to hold. Why the stonewalling?)

Child custody is a fundamental right of a woman.

Can we agree on this?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian


...snip...Child custody is a fundamental right of a woman.

Can we agree on this?

Absolutely not! The "biological" mother does not have a "fundamental" right to custody, for a start the father has the same rights to custody.

In the past, for many of the countries currently making up Europe, the father had more rights over the child then the mother, it is only (comparatively) recently that a mother’s rights have been placed on an equal footing with a father’s rights.

And again to emphasis the UK position (and most of the rest of the EU countries) it is the child that has the right to safety and protection. If one or both of the parents can provide this fantastic, if not the rights of the child to safety and protection will prevail and the parents will have no right to custody of the child.

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
Absolutely not! The "biological" mother does not have a "fundamental" right to custody, for a start the father has the same rights to custody.

Now we are getting somewhere. Ok, then I really have to show why it is a fundamental right.

In the past, for many of the countries currently making up Europe, the father had more rights over the child then the mother, it is only (comparatively) recently that a mother’s rights have been placed on an equal footing with a father’s rights.

Yes, of course, as slavery used to be legal and not it is accepted the freedom is a universal right.

And again to emphasis the UK position (and most of the rest of the EU countries) it is the child that has the right to safety and protection. If one or both of the parents can provide this fantastic, if not the rights of the child to safety and protection will prevail and the parents will have no right to custody of the child.

We already agreed that we can lose universal rights.

Ok, now to the universal right thing.

The UN Proclamation of Universal Rights states this:

Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Don't pay attention to #3 for now. Then it goes on to say this:

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Now, why does the mother have this special status. The same people explain it like this:

World Summit for Children held in September 1990:

Empowerment of all women to breast-feed their children exclusively for four to six months and to continue breastfeeding, with complementary food, well into the second year.

Realizing Infants’ Nutrition Rights George Kent* July 21, 1998

In 1992, the World Declaration and Plan of Action for Nutrition agreed upon at the conclusion of the International Conference on Nutrition in Rome made several explicit references to breastfeeding. One of its pledges was to "to reduce substantially within this decade . . . social and other impediments to optimal breastfeeding". The Plan of Action asserted, in article 30, that "Breastfeeding is the most secure means of assuring the food security of infants and should be promoted and protected through appropriate policies and programmes." Article 33 stated that "Governments, in cooperation with all concerned parties, should . . . prevent food-borne and water-borne diseases and other infections in infants and young children by encouraging and enabling women to breast-feed exclusively during the first four to six months of their children’s lives." Article 34 provides a detailed call for action on promoting breastfeeding.

And this is just from the biological standpoint. A woman's bond to her child is asserted universally.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Um, no. Any lactating woman will do. So will a man with a bottle full of human breast milk - and in fact, there's work being done now on making men capable of full lactation. They have the anatomy for it, and with a little hormone juggling, they can produce milk too.

Removed personal attack

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Christian
(snipped)

And this is just from the biological standpoint. A woman's bond to her child is asserted universally.

Except of course those children who have lost their mother, are abdonded, abused, or put up for adoption by said mother, and taken into a loving home that just might be single sex, same sex, or both sexes. Woman-as-food-source argument is unnessary; children can become allergice to breast milk, the woman might fail to make enough milk, there are alternative food sources.

Edited to add: darn you Swarm!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

What's this? Edited? Fine.

Christian's argument is grossly discriminatory, logically incoherent, downright wrong, and worst of all: stupid. It cheapens the board to have it present, and contaminates the wires over which it is transmitted to reach my computer. I look forward to the day when all such beliefs can be purged from the face of the Earth.

There. There's not a personal attack in the lot.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian

...snip...

Now we are getting somewhere. Ok, then I really have to show why it is a fundamental right.

...snip...[/B]

That should be interesting but just so we don’t go round the houses just to find we both mean different things with the same words.

What do you mean by “biological mother"? What I mean is the person who provided the egg.

What do you mean by "biological father"? What I mean is the person who provided the sperm.

What do you mean by the use of and what is the difference of "fundamental right", "universal right" and "right"? The only one I use is "right" and all I mean by that is what the current legal system of a particular nation says is a "right".

Once we’ve made sure we can communicate then I suggest you proceed to showing why custody is a “fundamental right” of a mother.

[Ipecac]

I will freely admit that I'm not the smartest person around, but I still fail to see what the custody rights of women have to do with gay marriage. I know we were talking about gay adoption as well, but I don't see how that's related either. Is it just me?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I will freely admit that I'm not the smartest person around, but I still fail to see what the custody rights of women have to do with gay marriage. I know we were talking about gay adoption as well, but I don't see how that's related either. Is it just me?

I'm as confused as you are but willing to go along for a while. (But I do wish Christian would give us a hint! HINT ;) )

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
What do you mean by “biological mother"? What I mean is the person who provided the egg.

What I mean is the person who got pregnant by natural insemination and went through the period of gestation and gave birth. This is how 99% or more of births happen.

What do you mean by "biological father"? What I mean is the person who provided the sperm.

The guy who had sex with her or made her pregnant.

What do you mean by the use of and what is the difference of "fundamental right", "universal right" and "right"? The only one I use is "right" and all I mean by that is what the current legal system of a particular nation says is a "right".

Fundamental right is a right the State were you live says it is a right you have from birth. For example, in my country, abortion is illegal. The right to life is a fundamental right from the point of conception. (in the US I believe is in the later part of gestation)

A universal right is a right that you should have from birth regardless where you live. The UN proclamation of Universal Rights is an instrument that details these rights that have been accepted as such.

A right is rule of conduct that gives you the capacity to do or not do something which is sanction (protected) by the State you live in. Women in the US have the right to an abortion, women in my country do not.

Once we’ve made sure we can communicate then I suggest you proceed to showing why custody is a “fundamental right” of a mother.

Ok.

Ipecac wrote:
I will freely admit that I'm not the smartest person around, but I still fail to see what the custody rights of women have to do with gay marriage. I know we were talking about gay adoption as well, but I don't see how that's related either. Is it just me?

Darat wrote:
I'm as confused as you are but willing to go along for a while. (But I do wish Christian would give us a hint! HINT )


Well, isn't this the way we demonstrate stuff logically.

Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3
therefore conclusion.

I'm trying to establish premise 1. (which I thought was going to be very easy to prove, but no, every premise is going to be a battle).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Christian
Well, isn't this the way we demonstrate stuff logically.

Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3
therefore conclusion.

I'm trying to establish premise 1. (which I thought was going to be very easy to prove, but no, every premise is going to be a battle). Christian, we've been on this biological mother's rights/fundamental rights for quite a while. I let it go because I kind of had an idea where you might be taking all this. But, frankly, I'm starting to get lost in the details. Why don't you cut to the chase and connect the dots for us so we can see where you're going with this and, more importantly, how it relates to gay marriage.

[Silicon]

Or you could, conversely, do it all in one post.

Is there a reason you're going to do this step by small small small step? If your logic was sound, shouldn't you be able to do this all at once?


(I can see this is going to be a very long thread.)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Christian
No, that she has a better right, a higher right, a fundamental right.
Others have said it already, but this just isn't true.

First of all, forget everything about "parental rights" - you don't have any. In divorce/custody situation, it is all about the best interests of the child. Normally, there is a bias towards the primary caregiver for the child. Historically, this has been the mother, but that is slowly changing. In any event, it just is not true that a woman has any higher fundamental right to custody of a child than a father.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
What's this? Edited? Fine.

(snipped)

well, no, you said pretty much what I had said and pressed your "send" button just before me.

Sorry Upchurch. I realized this is not appropriate in this thread. Forgive please.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Christian
What "question" are you talking about? I asked you to go back and answer questions already on the table, that were directly prompted by statements you made, before raising new questions! Are you ever going to get around to doing so? If not, why not? They are as relevant to your position as anything else.

Why is it so hard to understand I want to simplify the discussion? Yes, eventually we will get to those questions. Particularly, I'm interested in showing that the homosexual population is different from the heterosexual population in very important aspects. But there is stuff that comes way before that.

I realize now, that I needed to show some premises that are indispensible. Premises that have to do with how humans acquire rights or have them and the role of the State in assigning them or intervening in social life.


Frankly, Christian, I haven't seen a good argument against gay marriage.

First, how does the homosexual population differ from the hetrosexual population in very important aspects?

Second, Scott and his husband sound like an ordinary vanilla couple to me. Most gay couples are ordinary and vanilla. Most hetro couples are ordinary and vanilla. Many couples, gay and straight, are not ordinary and vanilla. Would you take a child from its biological parents because you found out that its parents were into BDSM, swinging, et?

Third, the state does give bio parents many chances at parenting even if the bio parents are 14 years old, but how does this really support or not support the ban on gay marriage?

Fourth, how will gay marriage impact our society? Don't give me this stuff about "breakdowns". Will gay marriage cause divorce rates to rise among straight couples? Will gay marriage cause more spousal abuse among hetro spouses? Will gay marriage cause parents to abandon their children?

Fifth, how will gay marriage harm my marriage between my husband (male) and myself (female)? We will be no more or less committed to our marriage because Scott and his man are allowed to wed legally. If a hetro marriage can come apart because two guys can wed, then maybe, just maybe the marriage wasn't that strong to begin with and the couple was headed to divorce anyway.

My argument for gay marriage is an argument for freedom. People should be able to enter the marriage contract with the person of their choice. Plain and simple, no legal reason why Scott and his man should not be joined in wedlock exists. Until you can make a convincing argument that gay marriage will harm society, which you haven't, I cannot see why we should abridge Scott's freedom to marry his man.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Fade
No special bond whatsoever that can't be duplicated at will by any woman (or man) that wants to form that bond. The physical act of child rearing is only a part of mechanical reproduction and pays absolutely no role in our growth and development.

While I agree with you completely, I must point out that this "no special bond" idea simply does not exist in US law. The "tender years doctrine" is frequently invoked to deny fathers custody.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Thanz

Others have said it already, but this just isn't true.

First of all, forget everything about "parental rights" - you don't have any. In divorce/custody situation, it is all about the best interests of the child. Normally, there is a bias towards the primary caregiver for the child. Historically, this has been the mother, but that is slowly changing. In any event, it just is not true that a woman has any higher fundamental right to custody of a child than a father.

I'm going to disagree with you on the historical aspect but agree with the part about the best interest of the child.

It appears that in most of the EU countries the right of custody has historically been vested in the father not the mother. This is understandable given that children used to be viewed as property and property rights were held by the father/husband. (Many EU countries did not even allow women to own property in their own right until the 20th century.)

It would seem that only in the last half of the 20th century that a change in perception happened and mothers gained equal rights to custody of a child (and perhaps more then the father by convention).

[Darat]

It is a good thing I asked about definitions as we were using very different meanings for the two words.

Originally posted by Christian

What I mean is the person who got pregnant by natural insemination and went through the period of gestation and gave birth. This is how 99% or more of births happen.



That means a child conceived by the many forms of IVF does not have a biological mother! That just seems an incredible definition.

What about caesarean section births? That isn't "giving birth" - it’s a totally unnatural procedure just like IVF - are the children from such a birth biologically motherless as well?

Also does the gestation period have to be the full "9 months" to count?

Who is the biological mother of a child conceived by egg donation and carried by a surrogate?

Originally posted by Christian


The guy who had sex with her or made her pregnant.


Sperm donation - how is this accounted for in your definition? What about a man who has a "low" viable sperm count so IVF has to be used? Is the resultant child biologically "fatherless"?

Your definitions seem to me to avoid many issues of establishing biological parentage.

Can I suggest we use my definitions for biological mother & father as these give a biological mother and father to every child so far born (we'll leave cloning out of this!).


Originally posted by Christian


Fundamental right is a right the State were you live says it is a right you have from birth. For example, in my country, abortion is illegal. The right to life is a fundamental right from the point of conception. (in the US I believe is in the later part of gestation)



Ok so your fundamental "right" equals my "right".

Originally posted by Christian


A universal right is a right that you should have from birth regardless where you live. The UN proclamation of Universal Rights is an instrument that details these rights that have been accepted as such.


This is, as far as I can undertand a "bigger" version of your fundamental right; you are saying that the bigger conglomerate can say what is your “fundamental right” no matter what your country may say. I understand this definition but without sidetracking let me just say that without any way to enforce the right or protect the right (as a nation can and does) then it is really an irrelevance. And let me expand on that. The Roman Catholic Church has a set of universal rights that is in conflict with some of the UN universal rights - so how do you determine whose rights are the rightist?

Originally posted by Christian

A right is rule of conduct that gives you the capacity to do or not do something which is sanction (protected) by the State you live in. Women in the US have the right to an abortion, women in my country do not.


I think we don't need fundamental right and right do we - they would seem to be the same?



(Edited for lots of just, somes and that thens.)

[Christian]

Wrath of the Swarm wrote:
What's this? Edited? Fine.

Christian's argument is grossly discriminatory, logically incoherent, downright wrong, and worst of all: stupid. It cheapens the board to have it present, and contaminates the wires over which it is transmitted to reach my computer. I look forward to the day when all such beliefs can be purged from the face of the Earth.

There. There's not a personal attack in the lot.

Since this was not edited, I feel compelled to respond. Your comment is most of all ignorant and lacking in any meaningful thought process. Also please note that it is the one of the most racist comments I have seen in here so far.

Upchurch wrote:
Christian, we've been on this biological mother's rights/fundamental rights for quite a while. I let it go because I kind of had an idea where you might be taking all this. But, frankly, I'm starting to get lost in the details. Why don't you cut to the chase and connect the dots for us so we can see where you're going with this and, more importantly, how it relates to gay marriage.

Premise 1: A child's custody is a universal right of mother's (yes and father's too) because this is build block of society.
Premise 2: Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal institution to protect this right and build society.
Premise 3: The common good is served by protecting this specific institution.
Premise 4: One of the main roles of the State is to promote with laws and policies the common good which favor some groups over others justied by said common good.

Conclusion: The State must protect and promote the institution of marriage between a man and a woman over other types of unions.


Silicon wrote:
Or you could, conversely, do it all in one post.

Is there a reason you're going to do this step by small small small step? If your logic was sound, shouldn't you be able to do this all at once?


(I can see this is going to be a very long thread.)


The logic will be sound if (and only if) the premises are demonstrated to be true. This is the gist of the debate, right? I have to demonstrate the premises are true. If they are, then the conclusion is inevitable.


Me:
No, that she has a better right, a higher right, a fundamental right.

Thanz wrote:
Others have said it already, but this just isn't true.

First of all, forget everything about "parental rights" - you don't have any. In divorce/custody situation, it is all about the best interests of the child. Normally, there is a bias towards the primary caregiver for the child. Historically, this has been the mother, but that is slowly changing. In any event, it just is not true that a woman has any higher fundamental right to custody of a child than a father.

All the jurisprudence in the modern world say it is true. What other evidence must I present?

What other evidence is there. This is not a philosophycal issue, it is an objective verifiable thing. All anybody has to do is go to look that the laws in your country and READ that women have this fundamental right (as any law literate person would defined it)


Suezoled wrote:
well, no, you said pretty much what I had said and pressed your "send" button just before me.

Sorry Upchurch. I realized this is not appropriate in this thread. Forgive please.

Your comments would deserve the same response I gave to Wrath of the Swarm.


dmarker wrote:
Frankly, Christian, I haven't seen a good argument against gay marriage.

It the premises are true, the conclusion is inevitable.

First, how does the homosexual population differ from the hetrosexual population in very important aspects?

They represented about 2-3% of the population. The couple % is less than 1%.

The State must take this into acccount at dictating public policy.

Second, Scott and his husband sound like an ordinary vanilla couple to me. Most gay couples are ordinary and vanilla. Most hetro couples are ordinary and vanilla. Many couples, gay and straight, are not ordinary and vanilla. Would you take a child from its biological parents because you found out that its parents were into BDSM, swinging, et?

This is what gets me. Where is the analitical mind of the skeptic here. It is so easy to be polically correct (and be scientifically wrong) No one is looking at the data and making a judgement solely on the hard evidence. All I see is an emotional appeal.

Take this specific comment. Let me ask you, how do you know that Scott and his husband is an ordinary vanilla couple?

Analyse please. The data on heterosexual couples is enormous, there are so many that you can have statistical relevance. You can be confident about these statistics because they have been replicated countless times, and in long periods. These are solid numbers.

How in the world are you going to compare that group (those statistics) with the statistic of gay couples. There is no comparison. The data on gay couples (and specially on gay couple with children) is suspect at best. The group isn't even statistically relevant.

So, explain to me how you make a comment like that? Show me with an objective criteria that your comment has any weight.

Third, the state does give bio parents many chances at parenting even if the bio parents are 14 years old, but how does this really support or not support the ban on gay marriage?

Look at premises I possed.

I tell you this: I can defend those premises with objective evidence I can show that they are true.


Fourth, how will gay marriage impact our society? Don't give me this stuff about "breakdowns". Will gay marriage cause divorce rates to rise among straight couples? Will gay marriage cause more spousal abuse among hetro spouses? Will gay marriage cause parents to abandon their children?

It has nothing to do with this. I already pointed out (and now could refute it) that that is a false dichotomy.

Fifth, how will gay marriage harm my marriage between my husband (male) and myself (female)? We will be no more or less committed to our marriage because Scott and his man are allowed to wed legally. If a hetro marriage can come apart because two guys can wed, then maybe, just maybe the marriage wasn't that strong to begin with and the coupl