More about adults, less about kids
Just in case there wasn’t enough to argue about on this blog.
An Australian parliamentary debate on same-sex adoption shows gay rights to the fore.
Heated debate and controversy swept across the Australian state of New South Wales last week when a bill granting same-sex couples the same rights under adoption laws as heterosexual couples was passed narrowly (45 votes to 43) in the Legislative Assembly (lower house) of its Parliament.
The message that permeated the media was this: that discrimination against same-sex couples has to stop, and that adoption is just one more frontier that needs to be conquered. Passionate letters condemning conservatives and religious beliefs reflected the same theme: one reader of the Sydney Morning Herald said that “[h]omosexuals are just as capable of, and entitled to, raising a child [sic]. The same-sex adoption bill goes some way towards the legitimate and continuing campaign to give same-sex couples the same legal and social rights… as enjoyed by mixed gender parents.” While a campaign to stop discrimination against same-sex relationships clearly formed the underlying objective of this legislation and the undercurrent of debate, the justification for it was marketed by the slogan: “What matters is loving parents, not their sexuality.”
Members of Parliament were allowed by their parties to have a conscience vote, and leaders of both parties voted in favour of the bill. The state premier and self-professed Catholic, Kristina Keneally, went so far as to attempt to reconcile her position to back the legislation with Catholic teaching. Keneally actually hails from Ohio where she attended the University of Dayton, a Catholic institution. Presumably she did not major in theology, judging from how she mixes snippets of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and the morality of sex outside of marriage with quotes from scripture, mostly taken out of context, misunderstood and in any case, irrelevant. Needless to say, while Keneally may have convinced herself of the congruity between her faith and her stand on the placement of children with same-sex couples, she convinced neither those for nor those against the amendments.
In any event, what the NSW premier and the media have in common is this: they have missed the point. What should have been the crux of this debate — the best interests of the child — was lost in the strong tide of sentiment favouring the view that the rights of the prospective adopting parents are paramount and that discrimination against people of same-sex orientation must be eliminated in every way, shape and form.
Loading ...
Giving same-sex couples equal adoption rights IS in the best interest of children: it increases the number of potential adoptive parents. And that’s better than letting children languish in foster homes or orphanages.
Sean,
I would disagree.
Adoption is of worth because it helps restore to a child, as close as possible, what tragedy took away — a man and a woman who were their parents. Its the best we can do in a bad situation.
Adding permanence to foster care by calling it adoption will do little to make it perform better.
On Lawn,
Children need a family, a secure home with loving adults to help them grow. A man / woman couple is one option. So is two men or two women. Studies show children raised in a household of two women do just as well as traditional households.
So if a child had two moms or two dads, or a single parent, can a gay couple adopt them?
Mark,
Do you disagree that children do best when they are raised by the two people who created them, in mutual love and support (i.e. marriage equality…)?
Because, if you want to get reductionist, children need is food, air, water etc… But they need so much more. I say they need a connection to their heritage, and the best way to provide that is with their parents (the people who created them from their own identities). I say children need an example of love and tolerance that is greater (but can include) romance. Children need to see the two people they identify with value each other’s identities.
And one correction, studies show that children raised in broken homes do as well if they are homosexual or heterosexual. I think that isn’t very substantial news.
Studies show children do best when raised within in-tact kinship bonds with parents who really understand what marriage equality is (the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of both genders as well as the children they potentially create together).
Adding permanence to foster care by calling it adoption will do little to make it perform better.
Sean,
When children are created by two men, or two women, we’ll consider your question as relevant, okay?
For now it just seems ill conceived. Feel free to rephrase…
OnLawn, it sounds like you want to outlaw adoption, not same-sex adoption. I completely agree that the biological parents should raise the children. Why are children available for adoption in the first place? Because some of these wonderful mommies and daddies that are so crucial can’t or don’t want to raise their children. I guess not all dual gender parents are good ones!
Children are never created by two men or two women! But many lesbian couples seem to be having no problem finding sperm for their eggs. And man couples appear to be finding eggs to fertilize.
Sean: OnLawn, it sounds like you want to outlaw adoption
It is better to discuss what I actually say, rather than what I didn’t.
Children are never created by two men or two women!
Exactly. Thanks!
On lawn: “Studies show children do best when raised within in-tact kinship bonds with parents who really understand what marriage equality is (the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of both genders as well as the children they potentially create together).
Actually, studies show children do just as well in same sex families. Basically, if a child is in a home where they feel loved, secure and nurtured they do well. And my niece grew up to be a strong, independent woman starting her own family after being raised by my sister alone (after her divorce) and then by her mom and step dad when my sister remarried. A man who had nothing to do with my nieces conception.
Mark: Actually, studies show children do just as well in same sex families.
Okay, you are on. Show me one study which shows that same-sex families do as well as in-tact families. You won’t find one, I know I’ve issued this challenge for the past four years. And most of the studies that are shown are based on poor samples, or other major errors.
Just because I think you are on the square, but deceived, I’ll let out the trick. Married in-tact families are a subset of heterosexual households. Other heterosexual households include co-habiting man and woman, or even step-parents (remarried). Homosexual studies feel it is a more fair comparison to include these groups because 1) it lowers the bar and 2) same-sex families are all comprised of broken families also.
Basically, if a child is in a home where they feel loved, secure and nurtured they do well.
All else being equal, they do better when they are raised by the two people who they identify with, who’s identity and heritage they share. Where those two people show he value of the child’s identity by equally valuing the identities that went into creating them.
http://www.americanvalues.org/briefs/edoutcomes.htm
(Follow the links to the full PDF with references to the studies)…
The absence of a father has a particularly strong influence on rates of teenage pregnancy according to a study of two large population samples in the U.S. and New Zealand. In both countries, the longer a father was absent from the family, the more likely it was that his daughter would have sex at a young age and become a teenage mother. The strong effect could not be explained away by behavioral problems of the girls, by family stress, parenting style, socio-economic status, and by differences in the neighborhoods in which these girls grew up. See Child Development (2003) 74 (3): 801-21, as cited in The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett, p. 127.
OnLawn said:
“….children do best when they are raised by the two people who created them”
Like I said, it sounds like you want to outlaw adoption. Anyone else but the biological parents are second-best.
Why don’t we force adults to raise the children they created, rather than putting them up for adoption? I guess society doesn’t really care that much about “what’s best” for children, does it?
It is offensive, to say the least, to argue that it’s ok for biological parents to dump there spawn off on the state to take care of, but a loving same-sex couple wanting to be parents shouldn’t be allowed to do so. There are some sick minds here!
“All else being equal, they do better when they are raised by the two people who they identify with, who’s identity and heritage they share.”
Sounds like an argument against adoption, rather than an argument against same-sex parenting.
On lawn:
Here is the web site http://www.nllfs.org.
I will try to get through the “study” you reference. So far, I am unimpressed. No where have I seen the number of families included or the methods. But I think it is interesting that the study you site also compares the “non-traditional” families as well. Oh, and “same-sex families are all comprised of broken families also” is a false statement.
“All else being equal, they do better when they are raised by the two people who they identify with, who’s identity and heritage they share.”
I agree with the first part of this sentence which includes same sex couples. The second part of your sentence can also be met by same sex couples but, if you meant to say that the child needs to be genetically related to both parents, I think that kind of proof would be hard to find.
Sean: Like I said, it sounds like you want to outlaw adoption. Anyone else but the biological parents are second-best.
Hey, Sean. You repeated it twice so I have to say that is your own reaction. When you learn that children do best raised in mutual love and tolerance between the two people who combined to give them life, you seem to conclude that means you need to outlaw adoption.
If you want to know my reaction to that news, then just ask. But since you assumed, rather than asking, I’ll simply correct. If marriage is so good for the parents and children they have together, then it makes sense that the closer we can come to that standard the better for the children. So, if a child can’t be raised by the people who created them, then they should be raised in a home where that same mutual love and tolerance for each gender is given. Sure they lose some aspects of seeing their own identity being cherished, but when you still validate identities by showing that love and tolerance between both genders.
Adoption is the next best thing. I’m glad you realized that. Why you want to outlaw it, or even conclude that means it should be outlawed, is your own faulty logic.
Briefly, same-sex parenting means what, precisely?
I think that it is merely euphemism for parenting in the context of homosexualized relationships. There are plenty of mom-daughter “same-sex parenting” scenarios, for example, but these are not what SSMers mean. In other words, their emphasis is again on sexualized context for adults rather than on outcomes for children.
And that stands in contradiction to the purpose of adoption, as On Lawn is discussing, where the priority is on the needs of children rather than the neediness of adults.
Mark: I will try to get through the “study” you reference.
It is a review, technically. A summary of a larger study, which itself is a review of many studies.
So if you are going to use quotes, use the correct terms
Oh, and “same-sex families are all comprised of broken families also” is a false statement.
It is a true statement. It is comprised of a broken family as opposed to an in-tact family from conception. An in-tact family requires more than genetics, but it is where the family began. And the child has a mother and a father.
Not that it means they are anything but noble, people who are doing their best in a broken circumstance are indeed noble. And that includes, I believe you will find, far more family situations of same-sex couples than gay coupes.
On lawn: Well if its “a review, technically. A summary of a larger study, which itself is a review of many studies.” then I won’t waste my time. Without actually seeing the information a review can say just about anything.
And, no, you continue to show bias with the use of “a broken family” when referring to a same-sex family. I take care of several families who have been together since the conception of their children and they are far from broken.
Chairm: For someone who uses a lot of unknown and undefinable terms, I find it interesting (but not surprising) that you question its definition.
“In other words, their emphasis is again on sexualized context for adults rather than on outcomes for children.”
And that is exactly what you use to define one man / one woman marriage. Please, at least, be consistent and don’t shoot your own arguments in the foot.
Chairm: Somehow my first sentence was deleted. I was referring to the phrase “same-sex parenting”.
Mark: then I won’t waste my time
Imagine that, finding what studies have shown time and time again is a waste of your time. Doesn’t fit the conclusion you are after, I assume…
Mark: you continue to show bias with the use of “a broken family”
Your reading comprehension issues are not my problem
On lawn: If its a STUDY (i.e. research) I enjoy reviewing what it has to say. If it an interpretation of multiple other findings by people who are looking for a certain result, then its of no interest to me.
And my reading comprehension is quite good, thank you very much. I am sorry that you are so blinded you can’t see your own bias.
But, I notice you haven’t mentioned the study I referred you to. A 25 year study with actual people and everything. I know it doesn’t prove what you believe but truth isn’t always easy to take.
Mark: If its a STUDY (i.e. research) I enjoy reviewing what it has to say.
… is directly undermined by the fact that you are not interested in reading the review of many studies, or look into the studies behind it
Say what you will, your actions speak louder.
And my reading comprehension is quite good, thank you very much. I am sorry that you are so blinded you can’t see your own bias.
If you read bias into my remarks, you are obviously lacking comprehension. So why not explain where you read the bias from?
I notice you haven’t mentioned the study I referred you to.
Because it didn’t meet the criteria I was asking for.
It seems you have trouble understanding what an in-tact family refers to, and that caused you to misunderstand the criteria.
So its up to you to keep trying.
On lawn: “Because it didn’t meet the criteria I was asking for.”
Well, here’s a good example of your bias. And your hypocrisy, to condemn me for not reading your article and then dismissing the one I recommend. Sad
And it is you that lacks the basic understanding of what an “in-tact family” refers to. Your vision of a “Leave it to Beaver” type of family never really existed and is only one form of family. Sad that you dismiss major organizations who define it in view of your narrow, outdated model.
Mark: Well, here’s a good example of your bias. And your hypocrisy, to condemn me for not reading your article and then dismissing the one I recommend. Sad
Mine was on-topic. Yours wasn’t. Sad as it may be, that is the facts.
Your vision of a “Leave it to Beaver” type of family never really existed [...]
Poor reading comprehension again. What never existed was me alluding to a “Leave it to Beaver” type of anything…
and is only one form of family
I’m interested in helping all forms of families, each according to their type. Thanks for asking
Mark, if “same-sex parenting” is euphemism for the homoexualized context, as you just agreed, then, why would you not use a more accurate descriptor?
As I said, there are nonsexualized same-sex parenting scenarios.
When it comes to comparision with the standard by which all other forms of family structures are compared, the intact marriage of mom-dad duos raising their offspring has an obvious sexual basis arising from the nature of human procreation.
The nonsexualized context is much like the homosexualized context in that regard when it comes to the family structure that excludes one or the other sex.
If it is the sexualization that makes all the differnce, okay, please provide the reasoning behind your emphasis on homosexualized context as opposed to the nonsexualized. It is not identical to the reasoning that applies to the intact married mom-dad duo raising their own offspring.
On lawn: Back to the “poor reading comprehension again”. You really a better response when you are stumped and/or find your argument is poor.
“I’m interested in helping all forms of families, each according to their type.”
Another lie. But, if it makes you feel better, you keep believing it.
Chairm: Back to sex again, eh? With you, its either sex or children, neither of which is necessary for OSM but somehow is involved in all your discussion. And you are rather disingenuous. In the past, you jump on my mentioning of gays and now you ask me to use that term instead of the common term of same-sex. Please, in these discussions, be consistent.
The basic term, same-sex, is far more inclusive than your term, gay. If gay is not the sexualized context for what you meant by ‘same-sex parenting’ or ‘same-sex couple’ then perhaps you would explain yourself more clearly.
I have forthrightly noted the obvious gaycentric emphasis throughout your remarks. Where you temporarily put aside that emphasis, I have also noted the vagueness with which you have described the SSM idea. Both your emphasis and your vagueness have been consistent through our exchanges.
That sort of consistency is present in your remarks on parenting.
Hmmm, Mark seems to claim he knows me better than me, when I say I’m interested in something he knows it is a ‘lie’.
Aside from it being untrue, it seems it shows how Mark is getting wound around the axles pretending things that don’t exist. That would also explain why he keeps assuming arguments I don’t make (which looks exactly like poor reading comprehension to me).
Mark, I can’t help how poor the arguments you create on your own from misunderstanding me
Perhaps you could start being more honest with what is going on in the conversation. Start with showing (as I’ve asked you to produce) just where you get the ideas you do from what I write.
Thanks,
–Me.
p.s. Sex creates children. These aren’t disparate acts which create a contradiction when we talk about both of them
I recommend this site on this issue.
http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/
On Lawn, Chairm,
I appreciate your comments very much.
For the enhanced security and protection of children is probably the best reason to encourage same-sex marriage. Kids do better with married parents, according to Maggie Gallagher. I think the children of same-sex couples deserve as good a shot in life as the children of opposite-sex parents!
Nice video, Leo. I guess we should tell childless couples that their marriages are fraudulent, eh?
I still think all children deserve to have married parents, for their own security and well-being.
For the enhanced security and protection of children is probably the best reason to encourage same-sex marriage.
Its best when the two people who created the child equally share the responsibility and equally recognize each others entitlements as well as the child they created.
After that it is all bandage work, and that bandage should be open to people who are raising children … which includes many couples who are not sexual.
Thats the best way to help everyone. Anyone who thinks that the best way to help kids is to both remove marriage equality between the genders in each marriage plus extend benefits to only gays, is clearly thinking only about gays.
I guess we should tell childless couples that their marriages are fraudulent, eh?
Why?
Sometimes these things act like Rorschach tests. We present something, you interpret it in new and crazy ways. Why would you want to call them fraudulent?
I still think all children deserve to have married parents, for their own security and well-being.
Yes, the two who created them (parents) should be married. Thanks for the plug…
Oh wait, you re-defnined parent to mean anyone who happens to be raising a child, and marriage to just mean people who are sexual. Seems you have the pieces but haven’t put two and two together about what marriage means by combining them yet.
A fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. Common law fraud requires nine elements: a representation of an existing fact; its materiality; its falsity; the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity; the speaker’s intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff; plaintiff’s ignorance of its falsity; plaintiff’s reliance on the truth of the representation; plaintiff’s right to rely upon it; and consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.
A childless marriage might be a disappointment, but it is not a fraud, unless all nine elements above were somehow present. A marriage where one partner represented that he or she was not of the sex he or she actually was could be a case of fraud if the nine elements above were present.
OnLawn, you have a crazy way of interpreting plain English.
You may prefer that the two people who created the child be married but the reality is, same-sex couples are raising children, as are a biological parent and a step-parent. Research shows that children do best when raised by married parents. Why? Because they experience two people living in a more secure relationship. Try to put kids ahead of your ideology on this one.
No one I know is trying to give gay couples special benefits, just equal benefits, befitting the equal nature of their committed, intimate relationships.
In calling the marriages of childless couples fraudulent, I am using your definition of marriage: a couple that is procreative. Perhaps you meant “a couple that is, or appears to be, procreative.” Argue for whatever definition you want for who may marry but be precise lest you exclude couples you don’t mean to exclude.
I didn’t say the two parents who created the child should be married I said the two people raising the child should be married. The child gets no benefit from having the two people who created them be married at the time of conception if they are not married while raising the child.
Leo, feel free to offer another word, then, for marriages where the couples has no children. Evidently, according to you and other posters here, a marriage can only occur where partners in the marriage produce a child. Hence all the emphasis on “responsible procreation.”
@Sean
“…according to you and other posters here, a marriage can only occur where partners in the marriage produce a child…”
Sean, a straw man attack does not become more valid regardless of how many times it is repeated (especially when it has already been repeatedly refuted).
Sean, that is not the definition of marriage that has been put forth. You have been advised this on several occassions and yet here you are again misrepresenting what has been said.
You no longer have the excuse of misreading or misconstruing.
1. We are speaking of responsible procreation which is a set of principles that are at the core of the social institution of marriage.
2. We are not speaking of forced procreation nor of Government enforcement of a 100% guarantee.
If you are relying on such a rule, then, sayso and let’s apply that rule to all that you claim about your SSM idea. Let the chips fall where they may.
If you would eschew that rule, do so right now. Explicitly.
Thanks.
You may prefer that the two people who created the child be married but the reality is, same-sex couples are raising children, as are a biological parent and a step-parent.
Its sad that you don’t prefer it, we know from the studies that children do.
But you keep flinging around the label “marriage” as if itself helps couples stay together, and it sounds the same as the school administration in the 80′s that wanted to declare ketchup to be a fresh vegetable because fresh vegetables are healthier for children.
Sure government recognition would help keep people together longer, but if that is the case then your preference for gays to get recognition above other same-sex couples who are not sexual is highly suspect of outright bigotry.
I’ve never seen anyone able to argue that civil unions and domestic partnerships wouldn’t help just as much. And remember the political capital behind marriage (or its ability to keep couples together) has greatly diminished since the 60′s.
I am using your definition of marriage: a couple that is procreative.
It is interesting to me that you call that a definition of marriage, let alone my definition of marriage. I have provided a definition of marriage equality many times, twice in this thread alone…
Argue for whatever definition you want for who may marry but be precise lest you exclude couples you don’t mean to exclude.
Note the use of “potentially create together” in that definition.
But it is curious to me that you would like to exclude people based on a disability. I mean, we still let people without legs compete in marathons. We let people who cannot see be writers. People who cannot speak are still lecturers.
Are you arguing that gays are disabled? Are they handicapped? Are they infertile? Because if we make an exception for the disabled, it is part of a grand social desire to help them have everything they otherwise could have if it were not for their disability. It used to be that one could get an annulment if they tried but couldn’t have kids, but that was back in the day that blind people were beggars and such. We are much more socially humane these days and help the disabled.
So the definition of marriage is fine, but are you saying that homosexuality is a handicap that they should be provided the same exception that the infertile have.
The child gets no benefit from having the two people who created them be married at the time of conception if they are not married while raising the child.
And in your own way you described why marriage (as we’ve defined it) is important.
Leland, the claim that marriage is reserved only for opposite-sex couples because of “responsible procreation” has been refuted. If the purpose of marriage is to force otherwise irresponsible straight people to stay together to raise their children, that doesn’t preclude other purposes for marriage, such as creating legal and social recognition for a committed couple’s relationship. In addition, because marriage is completely optional for procreating couples, it makes it more difficult still to find reasons to exclude same-sex couples.
Chairm, once again, and hopefully for the last time, marriage may indeed advance the public purpose of “responsible procreation.” It must not be an especially important public purpose, since marriage is completely optional for couples with children, and couples without children are free to marry. Kind of like saying a driver’s license is voluntary for people who drive: it might satisfy the individual who wants to feel competent behind the wheel but it would do nothing to advance public safety, if drivers were free to ignore the licensing process. You may no longer claim a misunderstanding of the role and relative importance of “responsible procreation.” In no way does it provide an exclusionary impediment to same-sex marriage.
OnLawn, my preference is that any couple raising children be married. That provides a more secure and stable environment for children. Because I take a child-conscious view, I am less concerned about who the parents are. Since no one appears to be advocating that we outlaw same-sex parenting, it is odd indeed that we would outlaw same-sex marriage, particularly when there are children being raised by same-sex couples. Instead of obsessing about “responsible procreation,” which appears to want to have a couple married at the time of conception, why not develop the concept of “responsible parenting,” which would provide far more benefits to society, particularly children. You want children to have the best we can give them, right? Shouldn’t the children of same-sex couples get the same advantages as the children of opposite-sex couples?
Once again, your definition of marriage fails. Couples who have no children, including those who can’t have children, are permitted to marry. And what is the public purpose of legally recognizing opposite-sex couples to the exclusion of recognizing same-sex couples?
And once again, I am not trying to exclude people from marriage but rather, include people! I welcome the unfertile couple to marry. But if they can marry, it blows away the notion that marriage has something to do with reproduction.
OnLawn, my preference is that any couple raising children be married.
Yet you deny marriage to the sister-sister and other non-sexual combinations?
I don’t think you’ve thought that through. Nor did saying what you prefer answer the point I raised, copied again for your convenience…
no one appears to be advocating that we outlaw same-sex parenting
You’ve obviously been missing John Howard’s commentary here…
there are children being raised by same-sex couples
But no one is arguing that raising children should be outlawed.
Instead of obsessing about “responsible procreation,” which appears to want to have a couple married at the time of conception, why not develop the concept of “responsible parenting,”
I’ve heard of putting the cart before the horse, but you are advocating having the cart drive itself. Responsible procreation is responsible parenting. They are synonymous.
Shouldn’t the children of same-sex couples get the same advantages as the children of opposite-sex couples?
They should get every one that is relevant to their situation, yes.
But one advantage of opposite sex couples can only be recognized, not governed.
You see, gays in this matter are like the typical urbanite that wishes to control and govern the world rather than work in it. They wish their SUV’s got the gas milage of a two seater hybrid, or that their little hybrid could haul a refrigerator if they wanted to. They wish that it wouldn’t rain at all, and that there would be no more drought. In a world detached from natural understanding, where the government or control of everything is what is believed to be the source of happiness, you might also believe that you can have all the benefits of a true kinship bond without the kinship.
Once again, your definition of marriage fails.
First be honest with yourself about what that definition is, then worry if it succeeds or fails
And once again, I am not trying to exclude people from marriage but rather, include people!
Unless, of course, they are a same-sex couple which is not gay or sexual.
I welcome the unfertile couple to marry.
Unless, of course, marriage is about responsible procreation. Then you want to through the disabled under the bus.
Please reconcile these contradictions in your own posts, for your own sake…
“Yet you deny marriage to the sister-sister and other non-sexual combinations?”
I have no opinion about two sisters getting married although society has typically frowned on it and few sisters wish to do it. I am happy to continue to prohibit sisters from marrying.
Onlawn, it’s a shame you have so little regard for children that you are willing to let the children of same-sex couples be relegated to a second-class existence.
Contrary to your assertion, marriage DOES help keep couples together. While not difficult to undo, it does require some effort to get out of a marriage, often at a great financial and emotional toll. That difficulty encourages couples to work things out” together and creates the stability that is the purpose of a family.
If straights can get special recognition above other opposite-sex couples, then gays can get special recognition above other same-sex couples.
I think Mr. Howard was arguing about same-sex procreating, not same-sex parenting.
Marriage can be about responsible procreation and, as infertile couples demonstrate, it can be about other things, too. It must be, or else infertile couples would not marry.
Please explain your belief that the children of same-sex couples are less deserving of the benefits of marriage.
Sean,
Government does not force people to drive cars.
But you seem to be slowly inching toward a realization that your argument is falling apart. Your driver’s license and driving analogy works against what you just said about responsible procreation.
In our system, a license is not voluntary for people who’d marry officially. You want to upend the licensing process by attacking the core of marriage which justifies 1) the special status, 2) the lines drawn for eligiblity/ineligiblity, and 3) the licensing scheme.
And, contrary to your constant dodging, when society, through government, issues licenses for something, such as a driving license, it distinguishes that something from other stuff. Got get a hunting license and show that to the next traffic cop who pulls you over for a driving infraction.
Making it voluntary or not is hardly on-point, Sean. Heh.
Society has not outlawed mom-daughter duos raising children. Nor sibling duos. By Sean’s thinking, these should be eligible to marry.
Ooops. Cue Sean’s gaycentric emphasis again.
When it comes to SSMers, one can always count on the The Big Shrug:
Sean said: “I have no opinion about two sisters getting married although society has typically frowned on it and few sisters wish to do it. I am happy to continue to prohibit sisters from marrying.”
Happy to prohibit even as you claimed you are not for excluding people from your SSM idea. And whether a few or many wish to be included, is irrelevant, to your own gaycentric emphasis, as you’ve already announced in other comments.
And, only slightly more predictable than The Big Shrug is the Squeaky Gay Emphasis:
Sean said: “If straights can get special recognition above other opposite-sex couples, then gays can get special recognition above other same-sex couples.”
Straight is not a criterion for eligibility, gay is not a criterion for ineligibility, today under the man-woman basis of marriage law. But that dichotomy is of the utmost importance to the SSM idea. Yet there is no proposal to make gayness mandatory for those who’d SSM; and Sean has steadfastly refused to state what Government would force people to do to get and to keep “special recognition” above other people that Sean happily excludes from his SSM idea.
By the way, Sean, you are still not off the hook for your repeated misrepresentations of the provision for responsible procreation. Nor are you off the hook for your dependence on the Fertility Strawman. You are hanging there, on that hook, like a stinky stiff gym sock left stranded on a shower rod in the locker room.
Instead of obsessing about “responsible procreation,” which appears to want to have a couple married at the time of conception, why not develop the concept of “responsible parenting,” which would provide far more benefits to society, particularly children.
Sean is now hopelessly lost in his own lies and distortions. Some examples…
Just to keep score, he has no opinion except he’s happy to exclude those same-sex couples and he considers that to be “a shame” and it shows “so little regard for children”.
And here’s the lie..
Contrary to your assertion, marriage DOES help keep couples together.
Contrary to what assertion? Where did I assert that marriage does not help keep couples together, even a little.
I’m sorry, but that was so blatant I just have to call it out for what it is, its a lie. I didn’t even say anything that sounds like that. Sean is getting more and more obvious in his dishonesty.
Lest he think I’ve left something on the table, I’ll respond to this point. But the answer is so obvious I don’t even know why he thinks his is a point worth making.
If straights can get special recognition above other opposite-sex couples, then gays can get special recognition above other same-sex couples.
Which of course is not true, an opposite gender couple made of gays, can get married just like a couple of straights.
This one was funny, also…
I think Mr. Howard was arguing about same-sex procreating, not same-sex parenting.
Its your cart and horse problem again. You re-define “parent” to be something other than the procreator…
1 a : one that begets or brings forth offspring
b : a person who brings up and cares for another
2 a : an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to its offspring
b : the material or source from which something is derived
c : a group from which another arises and to which it usually remains subsidiary [a parent company]
Same sex couples can take on the role of a parent, but parenting involves procreation without a doubt. It doesn’t for gays who can’t procreate, so I’ve found they try to remove any reference to how procreation happens and its significance to words like “Parent” and “Marriage”. But that is their own intollerance showing.
Marriage can be about responsible procreation and, as infertile couples demonstrate, it can be about other things, too. It must be, or else infertile couples would not marry.
Non-sequitor. Infertile couples can and do marry, and marriage is about responsible procreation. There is no exception or contradiction any more than people without legs want to run in a marathon, and people who are blind want to read, etc…
I know that gays want to marry, but is that because they feel handicapped and unable to without re-defining marriage? No, we can tell from your own writings this is more about removing that government recognition from marriage than helping gays access marriage (which they could and would do with someone of the other gender).
Please explain your belief that the children of same-sex couples are less deserving of the benefits of marriage.
If you say my belief, you need to make sure it is my belief and not one of your conjectures.
I believe children deserve the benefits of marriage, but re-defining marriage into a counterfiet does no one any benefits — especially those that buy into the counterfiet.
If the same-sex couple really cared about the children they’d first try to be married to the other parent of that child.
Chairm,
No I support the licensing requirements as, say, Massachusetts practices them. I don’t support them the way, say, Michigan practices them. Same for same-sex marriage: Massachusetts-style marriage, yes. Michigan style marriage, no. From now on, I’m going to call my version of marriage “Massachusetts marriage,” and your style of marriage, “Michigan marriage.” I think it might make it easier on everyone, and cut through all the theoretical constructs that, no matter how often repeated, never explain why same-sex couples can’t be allowed to marry.
In Massachusetts marriage, two consenting adults can marry, unless they’re closely related, already married or one of them is under a certain age. In Michigan marriage, two opposite-sex adults can adults can marry, unless they’re closely related, already married or one of them is under age.
“Society has not outlawed mom-daughter duos raising children. Nor sibling duos. By Sean’s thinking, these should be eligible to marry. Ooops. Cue Sean’s gaycentric emphasis again.”
Somebody may have said that, but it wasn’t Sean! Sean specifically detached parenting and children from any requirement of marriage, just as society has done. No one need be a parent or create a child as a condition of getting or staying married. Some things just can’t be said too many times I guess.
I consider myself “off the hook” on responsible procreation. I’ve tried, without success, to explain that nothing about responsible procreation creates a condition that precludes same-sex couples from getting married. I heartily support responsible procreation. That doesn’t mean that same-sex couples can’t marry. Responsible procreation is in no way affected by same-sex couples marrying, just like it’s not affected when infertile couples marry, or couples who refuse to bear children. ‘Nuff said!
In Massachusetts they ruled that couples that can’t be married are second class citizens and those that keep them from it are the equivalent of white supremacists. So I guess you just pointed out that Massachusetts is a bunch of hypocrites.
Equality 2: Sean 0.
Sean specifically detached parenting and children from any requirement of marriage
Well, trying to detach with everything he can.
Why he wants to remove marriage from working to provide equality between those who are parenting (read procreating for people confused by where children come from) and the children they created together, is beyond me.
He is happy to make people second class citizens in his own mind, and remove from marriage its most valuable humanitarian goal.
No wonder people will look back on neutered marriage as one of the most oppressive things one group of people have done to another since slavery and abortion.
Heh, Sean you rascal. You talk of same-sex and opposite-sex and yet exclude people due to your gaycentric emphasis. Sure, you like to use “straight” as a bookend for your own emphasis, but none of that appears in the marriage law under the man-woman basis of that law.
If consent is the key, as you’ve repeated said, then, why are you prejudiced against “closely related” people who you are happy to exclude from your marrige idea? The Goodridge opinion that imposed SSM in Massachusetts is a fine example of destroying the justification for the line based on relatedness.
You do know that people are born related and that others are related by the choices made by other people? Fits your argumentation about gayness.
As for those previously married, some may marry and some may not marry. Consent is given but not eligiblity. Consent is given — and they are raising children — but they are not eligible to join in on your SSM idea.
Likewise when it comes to underaged people, some of whom may marry but not all. Looks like the 100% guarantee rule of yours is biting you big time.
You still have not justified the special status based on your SSM idea. All you keep repeating is your special emphasis on gayness and your special disregard for the special reason for the special status of marriage in our laws.
You have not accurately represented the provision for responsible procreation. Indeed, at one time you denied that responsible procreation could be argued in a court although it has been and successfully, too. You demonstrated an ignorance of the marital presumption of paternity — how our legal system works to vigorously enforce this legal requirement of marriage. You can’t possibly claim to support what you have misrepresented; you can’t possibly claim to support that which your SSM idea adamantly rejects.
What occured in Massachussets, now the model for your own version of the SSM idea, was an abuse of judicial review and the blatant assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics. I will hold you to that as the model you have invoked to defend the SSM idea and its reliance on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power.
On the hook, you remain, for all that you have conceded.
You’ve said more than enough to destroy your credibility and your complaint against the marriage idea.
OnLawn, I guess all states have created a class of second-class citizens, as all states have limitations on who may marry. Some states, like Massachusetts, create fewer second-class citizens, since that state allows same-sex couples to marry.
Parents don’t need marriage to be equal. Just ask any unmarried couple!
Whatever you think marriage’s most humanitarian rule is, I’m not trying to remove it. Permitting same-sex couples to marry takes nothing away from opposite-sex marriage and important theories of responsible procreation and equality.
If anything, people will look back and scratch their heads at why it was ever illegal, and hence discriminatory, for same-sex couples to marry. What kind of society would have so little regard for children, forcing some to be raised out of wedlock???
I strongly support the same special marital status for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples. Whatever reasons that the government lets opposite-sex couples have marital status, I believe same-sex couples deserve to be married for the same reasons.
I strongly support Massachusetts marriage, and oppose Michigan marriage.
I guess all states have created a class of second-class citizens
And that is the logical conclusion to saying that someone is a second class citizen if they don’t get to marry whomever they want.
Parents don’t need marriage to be equal. Just ask any unmarried couple!
Same-sex couples don’t need to neuter marriage to be equal either.
Whatever you think marriage’s most humanitarian rule is, I’m not trying to remove it.
That would be true if you allowed marriage to explicitely recognize the needs of those involved in creating a child, everyone in that procreative unit, by the very least expecting a man and a woman in each marriage.
was ever illegal, and hence discriminatory, for same-sex couples to marry
I agree, but not for the same reason. Gays can have a wedding ceremony, and live together in a lifelong arrangement. They can even call it a marriage. No state will prosecute them or make that arrangement ‘illegal’. Your wish is already granted.
What kind of society would have so little regard for children, forcing some to be raised out of wedlock???
Which makes the same sense as…
What kind of society would have so little regard for children as to keep away the benefits of fresh vegetables from them by not calling ketchup a fresh vegetable?
Besides, it is the gay couple that is showing the disregard for the other gender by not allowing them into their rightful status in the home as the other parent of the child they created together.
What kind of people would not only do that, but remove from marriage the recognition of equality amongst the procreative unit at all?
You tell me.
OnbLawn, you have a hard time focusing on the topic at hand, don’t you?
We’re talking about same-sex marriage, not same-sex parenting. No one, not even a fringe group like NOM, advocates prohibiting same-sex parenting or single-parenting, both of which “deny” a child dual parents.
“Same-sex couples don’t need to neuter marriage to be equal either.”
No one has to do anything related to marriage to be equal. Equality doesn’t spring from marriage. Ask your closest unmarried friend who’s in a couple if he or she feels unequal to his or her partner because they’re not married, and if this circumstance will change once they marry.
“…if you allowed marriage to explicitly recognize the needs of those involved in creating a child, everyone in that procreative unit, by the very least expecting a man and a woman in each marriage.”
If procreation had anything to do with marriage, then sure, let’s make all couples one man, one woman couples. But since marriage has nothing to do with procreation……
“Gays can have a wedding ceremony, and live together in a lifelong arrangement. They can even call it a marriage.”
The state can even call it marriage. And that’s the point: all states should call it marriage.
“What kind of society would have so little regard for children as to keep away the benefits of fresh vegetables from them by not calling ketchup a fresh vegetable?”
Ok, now I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve had too much to drink.
We’re talking about same-sex marriage, not same-sex parenting.
Actually, I’m the one talking about marriage as an institution of parenting. You are the one conflating both as “same-sex” constructs, and saying they are entirely discrete from each other.
That is when you aren’t trumpeting the self-contradicting claim that without neutering marriage children will be raised out of wedlock (a term, I might add, means children are born but the two people who created the child are not married).
me: >> Same-sex couples don’t need to neuter marriage to be equal either.
Sean: > No one has to do anything related to marriage to be equal.
Can I quote you on that?
If procreation had anything to do with marriage, then sure, let’s make all couples one man, one woman couples.
Well, since it does … can I quote you on that too?
Just because you say it doesn’t really don’t mean a thing to me. Some people still think the earth is flat. But state after state has re-affirmed that it does. So has many judicial rulings, and congressional floor discussions on various marriage laws.
The state can even call it marriage.
Then what program would it create to take care of responsible procreation?
What do you call the chair when you call tables chairs?
Me: >> What kind of society would have so little regard for children as to keep away the benefits of fresh vegetables from them by not calling ketchup a fresh vegetable?
Well, unfortunately you just ran away from that one with nothing more than an alusion about my sobriety.
Thats not an argument
My argument is simple, you have to describe how the term would have the same meaning and effect — after you redefine it. Just like when you redefine ketchup to be a fresh vegetable.
Labels are just words on a page, its what they mean that has power. And marriage that means responsbile procreation has the power, I have no reason to believe neutered marriage has the same power.
Well if only parents may marry, you better alert the media that many childless couples have improperly, if not illegally, married. Once again, your view of marriage is a minority one. Most couples believe their marriages are a thing apart from raising children.
Look, I’m just reciting the research I read from Maggie Gallagher that says children do better when they are raised by married parents. She’s the trumpeter, not me. I’m just the messenger. To deny the children of same-sex couples the advantages that having married parents brings is a disgrace.
“Some people still think the earth is flat. But state after state has re-affirmed that it does.”
Can I quote you that?
“My argument is simple, you have to describe how the term would have the same meaning and effect”
Your argument is deficient. The real argument is, can the state issue marriage licenses to some couples but not others without violating constitutional protections. And the answer is, no.
Well if only parents may marry, you better alert the media that many childless couples have improperly, if not illegally, married.
That statment is vacuously true. Your premise, that only parents may marry, is false and not something I’ve asserted here, so I don’t feel the need to do anything but point out you missed the target and hope you do better next time
Once again, your view of marriage is a minority one.
I’m willing to let this matter be up for a vote and see, how about you? So far its won every popular vote in every state such a vote has been taken.
I’m just reciting the research I read from Maggie Gallagher that says children do better when they are raised by married parents.
And I know Maggie believes from that research that marriage means one man and one woman, and is tied to responsible procreation. So that she sees the benefit is congruent with the studies, however your understanding by post-hoc re-definition of marriage is not.
If you are going to evoke the visage of Maggie, you need to be honest about what she is really saying. Just like we’ve asked you to be honest about what we say.
Your argument is deficient. The real argument is [...]
That isn’t a counter argument. That is just another form of the Mythbuster guy’s comment, “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
The real argument is, can the state issue marriage licenses to some couples but not others without violating constitutional protections. And the answer is, no.
Then you need to talk this over with the commenter named Sean who sees no problem in blocking non-sexual committed couples who are raising kids from state marriage licenses, meaning he must have no problem violating constitutional protections?
When you two come to an agreement on the answer to that argument, let me know.
So, you’re backing down from your “must be capable of reproduction or at least look like you can reproduce” beliefs? Progress, or sorts.
No vote has even been taken on permitting only procreative couples to marry. So you’re wrong. While our country prohibits outcomes that violate constitutional rights to citizens, I would feel confident that a referendum to limit marriage to only procreative couples would fail.
Gallagher’s research on marriage compared married versus unmarried couples. It is wishful thinking to believe that the “marriage effect” occurs only between opposite-sex couples. Do you have a basis for believing the “marriage effect” effects only opposite-sex couples and the children of only opposite-sex couples? Soon enough, as more states come on board with marriage equality, we’ll have even more research to support the benefits of marriage to children, regardless of who their parents are.
I realize it must make you uncomfortable advocating a public policy that harms children. I know I would have trouble sleeping at night.
“the commenter named Sean who sees no problem in blocking non-sexual committed couples who are raising kids from state marriage licenses”
I know Sean and he would never advocate that. Sean supports marriage equality for all. Of course, society limits closely related individuals, and individuals below a certain age, from marrying. Pretty much else, may.
So, you’re backing down from your “must be capable of reproduction or at least look like you can reproduce” beliefs? Progress, or sorts.
The progress you should be worried about is quoting verbatim when using quotes, or at least accurately paraphrasing
No vote has even been taken on permitting only procreative couples to marry.
Even more relevant is that votes have been taken on whether or not marriage is about responsible procreation between “a man and a woman”, and responsible procreation won
Gallagher’s research on marriage compared married versus unmarried couples.
Yep, the key point is it compared married couples
Not counterfeit married couples.
Do you have a basis for believing the “marriage effect” effects only opposite-sex couples and the children of only opposite-sex couples?
Glad you asked, its called “kinship altruism”. Feel free to look it up
When marriage is rooted in kinship, marriages stay together longer. Compare ’50s marriages to today
Soon enough, as more states come on board with marriage equality, we’ll have even more research to support the benefits of marriage to children, regardless of who their parents are.
That is a paradox since marriage equality cares very much who the parents are, since only in their unification in marriage and the children they potentially have together the equalizing effects we celebrate from integration. Its based on the procreative unit, starting with — as the marriage definition states — a man and a woman.
Sean 1: I am happy to continue to prohibit sisters from marrying.
Sean 2: I know Sean and he would never advocate that. Sean supports marriage equality for all.
Like I said, when you two come to an agreement, just let me know
I think I’ve been pretty consistent in my viewpoint. It’s challenging to keep up with posters like you and Chairm, whose viewpoints tack right and left in a tangled effort to find that magic bullet that would preclude same-sex couples from marrying, without success.
But now that you’re fighting for sisters to marry, OnLawn, why don’t you give us your reasons why they should. They’re already related. Few, if any, sisters are asking to marry. But I’m sure you have good reasons, like always. What are they?
Sean, I have no doubt you think you are being consistent.
However, the evidence shows you are the one tacking right and left in a tangled effort. Those quotes didn’t come from me and Chairm
Nice try, but it just underlines your continued dishonesty.
Uh, ok, I’m dishonest for consistently pointing out the failure of the opposite-sex only marriage crowd to figure out why they want only opposite-sex couples to marry. Don’t blame me. Figure out why you think what you think and offer up a rational explanation for why only opposite-sex, but not same-sex couples, may marry. It isn’t about children, because we know that no couple need have children to get or stay married, and no couple with children is obligated to marry. We also know that same-sex couples raise children and we know that children are better off when their parents are married.
If it isn’t about children, what is marriage about?
Uh, ok, I’m dishonest for consistently pointing out [...]
Actually, that kind of prejudiced denial does have a tinge of dishonesty.
It isn’t about children
And that is your rejection of reality.
[...] no couple need have children to get or stay married [...]
No, but the children need their parents to already have established their marriage covenants between each other, and to keep them
And parents who recognize that do stay married when they have children.
And that is the kind of responsible procreation that you don’t want the government to recognize, encourage, and protect anymore.
I’m happy to let the government recognize gay families for everything that they are, and protect them to. You won’t extend the same courtesy, and that is something you could be more considerate and accept
According to Sean, the government forces people to want to marry; that is the only requirement the government enforces, in Sean’s version of reality.
“And parents who recognize that do stay married when they have children. And that is the kind of responsible procreation that you don’t want the government to recognize, encourage, and protect anymore.”
And yet, many parents with children do dissolve their marriages. Yet another example of how marriage and children aren’t connected.
“I’m happy to let the government recognize gay families for everything that they are, and protect them to.”
Great! Then become an advocate for marriage equality, like I am. It’s good for opposite-sex families and same-sex families.
And yet, many parents with children do dissolve their marriages. Yet another example of how marriage and children aren’t connected.
Lets make that into a bumper sticker, “Lets Neuter Marriage, its only as bad for marriage as divorce is!”
Then become an advocate for marriage equality [...]
I do… Marriage equality is the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together.
[...] like I am.
You don’t even want marriage equality in your own definition, since there are many couples you would deny marriage after saying that marriage equality is specifically including couples who were previously excluded.
But that contradiction was pointed out before
And I’m happy to continue to point it out the more you keep trying to look like you care about people, but in practice only care about gays and lesbians.
Why smear same-sex marriage, which represents love and commitment and a more secure life for children, with divorce? Your belief that same-sex marriage is “bad” for marriage relies on…what?
Here’s a better bumper sticker: “How does same-sex marriage hurt (your) marriage?” It’s more thought-provoking, and honest thoughtful people will think about it, and realize, “It won’t.”
Your definition of marriage equality is flawed. Men and women are already equal, alone or in relationships. Marriage confers no greater, or lesser, status to someone who marries. There is some evidence that women who marry fare less well in the workplace, as employers sometimes make assumptions about potential pregnancies or child care responsibilities, or question work commitment compared to unmarried female employees.
Yes, I do want marriage equality: equal access to marriage for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. I have no particular concerns about current limitations otherwise, such as closely related individuals or underage individuals marrying. It’s not a contradiction. I’ve never said “everybody should be allowed to marry!” There is some logic in preventing closely related persons to marry, as with young people. In both cases, though, such discrimination is not unconstitutional. It IS unconstitutional, however, to discriminate against same-sex couples not closely related or underage.
I do care about children and once I read Maggie Gallagher’s extensive findings that marriage benefits children, I became more active in my support for same-sex marriage.
Why smear same-sex marriage, which represents love and commitment and a more secure life for children, with divorce?
Governor McGreevey already did that.
And, so did you when you said that easy divorce means marriage is not constrained by anything, to support your zeal to have marriage neutered.
Here’s a better bumper sticker: “How does same-sex marriage hurt (your) marriage?”
Okay, we’ll combine the two in the spirit co comprimise.
“And, so did you when you said that easy divorce means marriage is not constrained by anything, to support your zeal to have marriage neutered.”
And,
“How does same-sex marriage hurt (your) marriage any more than divorce?”
I can see where you’re left smearing same-sex marriage with social ills like divorce, since there aren’t any arguments against same-sex marriage, and many that support it. I think this approach will fail in court, where it matters.
“Seems a commenter here named Sean noted that marriage does have status, and listed that as a tangible harm done to gays if they don’t get that label for their relationships…”
Marriage confers status to a couple and to a married individual in society, not between the individuals in the marriage. Try to keep up!
“This isn’t about Gays. It’s about Marriage, Sex, and Responsible Fatherhood.”
And yet no man is required to marry the mother of his children. Weird.
“Wait, only gay same-sex couples. Not the two sisters, or two friends, or anyone else who isn’t romantically involved even if their commitment to each other and children they are raising is just as important as for gays.”
Nope, once again, please portray my arguments honestly and factually. Any two people may marry, who aren’t otherwise constrained: not closely related or under age. Two friends are free to marry; two sisters or a brother and a sister, are not.
“Funny, a fellow advocate of neutering marriage did say just that on this very site.”
I’m not responsible for other peoples’ point of view. I don’t believe underage persons should marry. I am open to the possibility of closely related individuals marrying but I have no problem constitutionally with forbidding it.
Feel free to ignore the research on the benefits of marriage for children if you wish. I find it unsavory, since there is no particular reason to punish children because you don’t approve of their parents. I think all children deserve to have married parents whenever possible. That’s just me; I have a soft spot for the welfare of children.
I read your “Bear” article, OnLawn. Let me see if I understand your perspective on the properly role of children in marriage.
1. A same-sex couple should not be legally permitted to raised children together
2. It is ok for a convicted murderer and his wife, a prostitute, to both marry and to raise children together. Both are perfectly legal; in fact, the US Supreme Court ruled specifically that incarcerated persons may not be denied the right to marry. This parenting arrangement is perfectly acceptable, since there is a male parent and a female parent.
3. It is better for a single mom or dad to raise a child than for two adults of the same-sex to raise a child.
4. Homosexuals should not be allowed to reproduce
5. Homosexuals should not be allowed to be parents
6. Homosexual adults should not be allowed to live with or be romantically involved with whom they choose
Do you disagree with any of these statements, and if so, which ones(s)?
And by the way, I found this remark at Prop8trialtracker.com:
The [ProtectMarriage’s]brief [to the 9th Circuit Appellate Court] is noticeably silent on Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence too, where he asserted, rightly, that if moral approbation was not an acceptable basis upon which to legislate against lesbians and gays as a class, then same sex marriage could not be prevented either, because procreation was not and never has been a requirement for marriage.
I can see where you’re left smearing same-sex marriage with social ills like divorce,
Oh, you are so befuddled you call it “smear”.
By the way, that is called the fallacy of the charged verb. You provided the relationship, you mentioned how easy divorce made marriage more suitable for being neutered (for the sake of homosexuality). You obviously believe the relationship is true, but when you want to fend it away you complain that it is just a smear — a charged verb that doesn’t deny the realtionship but calls it unfair and intones malice.
I thought you said you were going to make rational arguments. Instead you simply provided us a weak attempt at propoganda.
Rationally, it is simple. The link either exists and is valid or it doesn’t. Whether or not it is a smear is left to people to decide for themselves.
there aren’t any arguments against same-sex marriage
Oh I see, after all the arguments given you want to rely on denial and dishonesty.
You may not like the arguments, you may find them invalid for some reason or another. But they exist, and have already been shown to you.
Yes, you tried to grab for the brass ring of denial and well over-reached. And now we can only see all to clearly your intent to deny rather than discuss
Marriage confers status to a couple and to a married individual in society, not between the individuals in the marriage. Try to keep up!
You totally think that isn’t a self-contradictory and twisted statement, don’t you?
Keep digging Sean.
And yet no man is required to marry the mother of his children.
You know, it is more than a little bit unsettling how often you expect America to be a totalitarian state.
If marriage is about responsible procreation, you expect that should mean that those with the disability of missing or non-functioning reproductive organs should be detected and barred from marriage — by force of law and enforcement.
Now, you expect that if marriage is meant to help keep fathers from abandoning children, that it do so only by totalitarian enforcement of law.
Its seems that something about your understanding of logic requires the law to enforce any purpose or reason with the same totalitarian perfection of enforcement that your high school math teacher spreads the red ink on your homework.
I could go on about this, but for now it is just enough to point out your totalitarian tendancies are your own problem.
Two friends are free to marry; two sisters or a brother and a sister, are not.
Hey, if you change your mind that isn’t my problem. You did argue previously that you had no problem excluding heterosexuals (like two unromantic friends) from same-sex marriage.
I’m not responsible for other peoples’ point of view.
No, and you shouldn’t be. But I don’t believe you represent people who wish to neuter marriage either, when they contradict what you say. Your assurances are pie-crust promises, and have shown the tendancy to be self-contradictory, even. I see no reason to believe you more than them.
I find it unsavory, since there is no particular reason to punish children because you don’t approve of their parents.
Exactly, and that is exactly why same-sex couples (who punish chidlren by having them out of wedlock because they don’t approve of the other parent’s gender) are not a marriage.
I read your “Bear” article, OnLawn. Let me see if I understand your perspective on the properly role of children in marriage.
Try by reading it again, because your points seem completely unrelated to what I wrote
OnLawn, when you associate something with a known “bad,” like divorce, it’s a smear. You want people to associate same-sex marriage, something good and loving, with something they associate with bad, divorce. I’m sure weak-minded persons might fall for such a sleight of hand, but I doubt most people will.
“…you mentioned how easy divorce made marriage more suitable for being neutered (for the sake of homosexuality).”
If I did, I didn’t mean to, because it makes no sense. What I may have said, and meant, is that easy divorce undercuts the notion that marriage is somehow “sacred” and unchangeable. Marriage used to be a lifetime commitment. Even this website calls marriage “one man and one woman for life.” The website management may have used the term “for life” to refer to their personal belief that marriage is for procreation, or they may have been referring to a lifelong commitment, or even both. But clearly, marriage is not legally a lifetime commitment: the law says you only have to stay married if you want to.
“I thought you said you were going to make rational arguments.”
I did and I have. I invite you to do the same.
“You may not like the arguments, you may find them invalid for some reason or another. But they exist, and have already been shown to you.”
You have offered not one argument in support of prohibiting legal same-sex marriage. Pining for a fictionalized version of marriage and its purpose does not an argument make.
“If marriage is about responsible procreation, you expect that should mean that those with the disability of missing or non-functioning reproductive organs should be detected and barred from marriage — by force of law and enforcement.”
Yes, but only if “responsible procreation” is marriage’s sole purpose. If there are other reasons to get married, and procreative ability is but one of them, then non-procreative couples may marry, including same-sex couples. Currently, in 44 states, we have the oddity of allowing some non-procreative couples to marry, but not others, with no rational reason or public interest.
“Now, you expect that if marriage is meant to help keep fathers from abandoning children, that it do so only by totalitarian enforcement of law.”
Evidently the “responsible procreation” crowd does. They think that parents won’t take responsibility for their children unless they are married.
“You did argue previously that you had no problem excluding heterosexuals (like two unromantic friends) from same-sex marriage.”
I suspect heterosexuals with exclude themselves from same-sex marriage!
“Exactly, and that is exactly why same-sex couples (who punish chidlren by having them out of wedlock because they don’t approve of the other parent’s gender) are not a marriage.”
I don’t think any human being who creates a child is punishing anyone: all humans have the fundamental right to reproduce. Same-sex couples have children out of wedlock because Neanderthals like you won’t let them marry! I don’t think gay people dislike or disapprove of the opposite gender, they just don’t want to have sex with them, or just prefer the same sex for love and romance. My best friend is another man. I like him a lot, I just don’t want to have sex with him.
I see you’re avoiding answering my questions about you views on reproduction and parenting. Telling.
Sean: OnLawn, when you associate something with a known “bad,” like divorce, it’s a smear.
Its either accurate or it isn’t. Whether or not it makes your argument look bad (e.g. a “smear”).
Besides, you were the one that made the link between easy divorce and same-sex marriage. You said,
So if your notion of radical change is at least as harmful as divorce…
I did and I have. I invite you to do the same.
Okay, prove it. All we have here is that you are calling your own arguments reasonable, even though they haven’t turned out to be.
Which argument do you think you made that was at all reasonable?
You have offered not one argument in support of prohibiting legal same-sex marriage.
I can take that two ways…
1) You accepted that I’m only arguing that marriage should continue to recognize that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and not about prohibiting anything (not likely since that would be unfair to what you consider a prohibition).
2) You claim I’ve not made any arguments to support my position. Note you didn’t say I haven’t made any reasonable arguments in that quote, you didn’t say I haven’t made any arguments that wind up supporting my position. You say I didn’t make any arguments in support of my position, period. None. Well that isn’t true and that speaks a great deal of your lack of objectivity. I’ve made comment after comment of arguments, whether you think they were successful or not they are arguments which intend to support my position. And they do more then just intend to support my position, they show it in a way that has been accepted by millions even if you want to pretend your denial is at all an act of reason.
Again, your lack of objectivity, or ability to misread, is not a rational argument.
When are you going to start, and I do mean start, making rational arguments?
Pining for a fictionalized version of marriage and its purpose does not an argument make.
Funny, because earlier you complained that the legal brief filed by the Prop 8 defense spent to much time on what marriage is, and not enough on why that meant it should be between a man and a woman.
Well, its not fiction, and it is what marriage is.
The reader is free to see if responsible procreation is only a fictional part of marriage
Besides, him calling my ideas of marriage “fictional” is just his way of marginalizing my beliefs and the beliefs of millions who affirmed marriage as between a man and a woman for the sake of responsible procreation. They re-affirmed marriage equality as the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have to gether.
If it is just a belief, it is one made valid through the democratic process. Sean’s beliefs are no less beliefs, mind you. He is just being unreasonable about it, straining at the large evidence behind my beliefs, and straining at the gnats of his own (already shown to be unreasonable) attempts to discredit them.
Me: >> “If marriage is about responsible procreation, you expect that should mean that those with the disability of missing or non-functioning reproductive organs should be detected and barred from marriage — by force of law and enforcement.”
Sean: > Yes, but only if “responsible procreation” is marriage’s sole purpose.
Actually there are four clauses to identify, not just one.
If marriage explicitely is targeting the procreative relationship by mentioning “a man and a woman” to promote responsible procreation…
If the government is perfect in being able to tell the future about who can and who can’t have kids…
If the government was so totalitarian as to exclude people because of a disability…
If the government was as perfect in enforcment as logic is in its own ivory tower…
If all of those are true, then you could expect the draconian crackdown that you imagined.
But only if all of those are correct. For me 3 is a real hangup, since society and government traditionally enable the disabled where they can.
On the flip side, if the fact that the disabled are still married bothers you then just answer the question, Is homosexuality a disability that it should be given the same exception?
Just answer it once. You came close when you said the disabled and homosexuals have the exact same reproductive capacity, but that turned out to be wrong because homosexuals aren’t infertile. But perhaps homosexuality is itself a disability? If so what is it a disability to do that would otherwise normally be expected? Loving honoring and cherishing someone of the other gender in any meaningfully marital way?
Evidently the “responsible procreation” crowd does. They think that parents won’t take responsibility for their children unless they are married.
You only say that because you are unreasonable.
You can take full responsibility by being married and fully supporting the person you created the child with. Or you can take only part of that responsibility.
Only the unreasonable would think that it is all or nothing
I suspect heterosexuals with exclude themselves from same-sex marriage!
“[W]ith exclude themselves”? Is that even english?
And why should two sisters who are just as committed exlude themselves, or two friends?
You seem to expect quite a bit
When marriage just means benefits for helping take care of each other and children you have, it isn’t unreasonable to expect any two or three or four people would exclude themselves from it.
And that would be well enough, but then what program would explicitely target and encourage equality in the procreative union? None, and that wouldn’t be fair to them or the children who depend on them.
To re-iterate another question you keep avoiding, if marriage can’t target the procreative union to meet it in its unique needs, then what can?
I don’t think any human being who creates a child is punishing anyone:
Don’t feed the bears.
Seriously though, creating a child isn’t punishing them. Its what you intentionally deprive them of when you create them and after you create them that is punishment.
all humans have the fundamental right to reproduce.
And we all know how that happens.
Same-sex couples have children out of wedlock because Neanderthals like you won’t let them marry!
You don’t understand the meaning of “out of wedlock”, apparently…
Obviously same-sex couples cannot have kids but out of wedlock, even if the two called their own relationship a marriage.
So that makes me a “Neanderthal” that understands the dictionary, and you somewhat lacking in that department.
But seriously, calling people a neanderthal, and using words in ways that contradict with their meaning, is not reasonable.
So when are you going to start making reasonable arguments?
I see you’re avoiding answering my questions about you views on reproduction and parenting.
Which question, specifically?
1. A same-sex couple should not be legally permitted to raised children together
2. It is ok for a convicted murderer and his wife, a prostitute, to both marry and to raise children together. Both are perfectly legal; in fact, the US Supreme Court ruled specifically that incarcerated persons may not be denied the right to marry. This parenting arrangement is perfectly acceptable, since there is a male parent and a female parent.
3. It is better for a single mom or dad to raise a child than for two adults of the same-sex to raise a child.
4. Homosexuals should not be allowed to reproduce
5. Homosexuals should not be allowed to be parents
6. Homosexual adults should not be allowed to live with or be romantically involved with whom they choose
Do you disagree with any of these statements, and if so, which ones(s)?
“Which argument do you think you made that was at all reasonable?”
Let’s start with a much shorter list: which arguments or observations have I made that are unreasonable?
“Funny, because earlier you complained that the legal brief filed by the Prop 8 defense spent to much time on what marriage is, and not enough on why that meant it should be between a man and a woman.”
Still avoiding the key issue, eh? I can understand why. Like the Prop 8 defense, there isn’t much to say when posed with the question, why should same-sex marriage be outlawed? Like them, you’re left with fantasizing about what you think marriage is and hoping the reader will connect the dots. Pitiable.
“The reader is free to see if responsible procreation is only a fictional part of marriage….”
Oy vey. It doesn’t matter if “responsible procreation” is fictional or not. What matters is, does it, or anything else, require that same-sex marriage be outlawed?
“Besides, him calling my ideas of marriage “fictional” is just his way of marginalizing my beliefs and the beliefs of millions who affirmed marriage as between a man and a woman for the sake of responsible procreation.”
It is fictional, to be kind, to insist that a marriage is entered into solely for the purpose of “responsible procreation.” Many, if not most, marriage partners don’t even know what this concept is! Ironically, if marriage gets too closely associated with children, fewer people will marry, reasoning that if they don’t plan to have children, they don’t need to marry. Isn’t that ironic that a pro-marriage website wants to discourage couples (same-sex, infertile, hates kids, etc.) from marrying!
“If all of those are true, then you could expect the draconian crackdown that you imagined.”
I think you’ve crossed into the dark side! It’s easy enough to ask people if they plan to have children or if they can have children. Certainly “responsible marrying” would have potential marriage partners talk about their desire for children or their ability to have children, right? I don’t think narrowing down marriage eligibility to couples who can actually have children, as you define marriage, is really so hard. Let’s just start spreading the word that only couples interested in having children or capable of having children, should marry. Sure, we’ll offend a lot of people and insult childless married couples everywhere but since children are crucial to marriage, we may as well set the record straight.
“Its what you intentionally deprive them of when you create them and after you create them that is punishment.”
You mean like having the benefit of married parents?
“Obviously same-sex couples cannot have kids but out of wedlock, even if the two called their own relationship a marriage.”
Really? Well what’s the difference between a married same-sex couple raising children and an unmarried same-sex couple raising children? Isn’t one couple raising children out of wedlock? Are the children of one couple better off than the children of the other couple?
1. Disagree. I think there are circumstances where that is the best they can do.
2. Believe it or not people can change. I believe they could be great parents. I think they should be given the licesnse to try.
3. Actually, that is likely to be true. Barbara Whitehead wrote a book on the subject that encouraged single-parents to not remarry and showed a number of studies which showed there was no difference in the outcome between single-parenting and step-parenting. And she showed studies that noted that step-parents were more likely to be abusive than the biological parents.
4. I believe in outlawing certain medical practices that are unsafe, and not by whome the treatment is meant for.
5. False. They should be allowed to be parents. And if they want to do it responsibly for the best interest of the child, they’d marry the person they create the child with and love, honor and cherish both people their entire life.
6. That is right. While I have no problem with people practicing homosexuality, some combinations are still illegal (as in prosecuted). The underaged, the closely related, the non-concenting or purchased in slavery, etc… Other than those, stipulations (and maybe others along the same lines) I don’t care.
Let’s start with a much shorter list: which arguments or observations have I made that are unreasonable?
Actually, you can’t get smaller than 0, which is currently the enumeration of the list of rational arguments you’ve made
But if we disagree, just name the argument you think is rational. We’ll see where that went and if it was rational or not.
Still avoiding the key issue, eh?
Funny that avoiding the issue to you is bringing up the issue of what marriage is.
That is just telling, that’s all.
Like them, you’re left with fantasizing about what you think marriage is and hoping the reader will connect the dots.
Wow, you should actually read the brief then. I doubt anyone would would read all of the references to judicial decisions, to experts in many different sciences, and such, and conclude they are talking about a fantasy.
Its another of your unreasonable assertions, made not because it is true but because you need it to be true inspite of the reality of the situation.
So when are you going to start making rational arguments? That is much more open ended than questioning when I’m going to do something about outlawing something I don’t care about outlawing — as if that matters. When are you going to make rational arguments — period.
It is fictional, to be kind, to insist that a marriage is entered into solely for the purpose of “responsible procreation.”
There you make the same bait and switch Op-Ed noted, and that is switching out the institution of marriage for just one person getting married.
I’m open for people to have personal interpretations of why they get married. That is why I’m not against a same-sex couple having a wedding ceremony and living their lives out calling themselves “married”. That is their interpretation, and I’m very tolerant of it.
However, if you mean (even though you did a bait and switch) the purpose of the government recognized institution of marriage, then you have a different story. That is clearly to encourage responsible procreation
Read the if you have any question on that at all.
Many, if not most, marriage partners don’t even know what this concept is!
Sadly, even more would be confused if you had your way. Which brings up my favorite quote on the subject…
Remember what Walter Fauntroy-{Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC} said…
It’s easy enough to ask people if they plan to have children or if they can have children.
But it is impossible to know if they will change their mind or not, or if their birth control will work as planned
Hence it is reasonable to marry in those circumstances…
You mean like having the benefit of married parents?
I mean like the benefits of having the parents who they share their identity with be protected in the recognition of their relationship as a marriage
Well what’s the difference between a married same-sex couple raising children and an unmarried same-sex couple raising children?
Probably nothing for any random set of care givers and children.
However, even you would recognize there is a difference between the two people out of the whole world that they share their identity with, and everyone else in the world. Kinship matters. And kinship is born from a man and a woman.
Not every man and a woman make a kinship, but every kinship is made from a man and a woman. Kinship is a difference, and that is why marriage protects kinship by explicitely targenting the source of kinship, the man and the woman.